Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: vidvic on April 22, 2013, 11:32:AM
-
In 2011 we were told this....
it was during this same meeting, between Ewen and myself at his office in Birmingham, in 2003, that Ewen showed me an album of photographs which had not previously been disclosed to Jeremy or his legal team, which had been loaned to him by Essex police on the understanding that the contents remained confidential. To be specific, Ewen did not actually show me any of the pictures, he simply had them brought into the conference room where we were having our discussion, and he said that he was going out for five minutes, leaving me with the impression that he wanted me to look at the photographs in his absence. This was when I saw the pantograph of Sheila on the bed...
I now think it was Ewen's way of showing me, that what Dr Craig had told him, was true, and that Sheila had been on the bed when he viewed her body at the scene, and not on the floor by the side of the bed...
When I spoke to Jeremy, on the phone that evening, I told him what Ewen had told me, and the fact that I had seen a picture of Sheila on the bed...
Weeks later, Jeremy disposed of the services of Ewen, and employed "Giovanni De Stafanno" (GDS), as his legal representative...
-
Further in thread.....
I am not saying that Ewen said to me, look here, this is photographic proof that Sheila was found on the bed, because that never took place, but Ewen excused himself from the conference room saying he would be back in five minutes because he had something urgent to attend to, and at the time he left those three albums were left upon the desk. Before he left the room he did tell me that he had been provided by Essex police some photographs which had not been disclosed before, on the basis that disclosure of them was on a confidential nature...
-
Detail.....
The photographer was stood at the foot of the bed, looking back towards the bed - Sheila was laid on top of the bed, on top of the blanket not laying directly on the bed sheet. she did not have a gun on her body, and was wearing only her light blue colored nightie - (part of content removed because to some it may have been offensive)...
That evening when I spoke to Jeremy on the telephone, I relayed all of this to him, and this is what sparked us off trying to find out what had happened - (part of content removed because to some it may have been offensive)...
-
Dr Craig, told Ewen that Sheila was ön the bed,and whilst visiting Ewen at his office in Birmingham in 2003, I saw a photo on the bed, and Ann Eaton was told by a policeman, that Sheila was found on the bed...
-
How could DS Jones, seize the following three exhibits, SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2, on 7th August 1985, and yet be handed a silencer, SBJ/1, by Peter Eaton, on evening of 12th August 1985? It doesn't add up, it doesn't make sense, DS Jones, Peter Eaton, and other relatives are lying about the origins of this silencer...
-
By september 2011 the date had changed.....
I am prepared to take a lie detector test to prove Sheila was on bed in photo'...
I saw a photograph of Sheila on the bed, when I visited Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham, in 2004...
He knows the photograph exists, I will take a lie detector test, will he?
-
Somebody arrange a lie detector test for me to take, and I will prove that such a photograph which shows Sheila was found on the bed without a gun on her body exists, and that I saw it when I visited Ewen Smiths office in 2004...
-
By september 2011 a telephone call in 2003 has turned into a letter in 2004....
Lets look at it from another angle...
Why after that visit (to see Ewen in Birmingham, in 2004) did I write immediately to Jeremy telling him that I had seen such a photograph with Sheila on the bed with no gun on her body and no blood running from the corners of her mouth, if it wasn't true?
I am, sure that Jeremy will have saved the letter I wrote to him on that occasion confirming what I have been saying about what I saw and witnessed?
-
Ann Eaton collected up Sheola's bloodstained knickers which were soaking in a bucket of cold watrr in the kitvhen at whf, and took them home along with the silencer (SBJ/1) already found by Jones on 7th August...
-
Ewen must have returned them to the police?.....
I know that when the file got transferred to Giovani de Stafano, that none of these images/pictures was present so Ewen Must have returned them to Essex police before handing the file over to him...
-
This resulted in Ewen being sacked....
It couldn't happen that such a test would suggest I was lying, because I am not lying...
Why would I lie about something like that?
Why would I write a letter to Jeremy as soon as I visited Ewen Smith in his office at Birmingham (2004) and tell him that I had seen a photo of Sheila on the bed which Ewen had been sent by Essex police in the strictest confidence? Why would Jeremy then dispose of Ewen Smiths services?
-
Relatives removed firearms , accessories, and boxes of ammunition from gun cupboard on 10 th August 1985, yet it was all still there in the gun cupboard on 11th September 1985, when DC Oakey went to whf and was handes these from the gun cupboard by Ann Eaton...
-
Ann Eaton wrote down "David told me he had got something up his sleeve", after Jeremy was initially arrested at the begginning of September - it had someyhimg to do with the dodggy silencer, and his visit to whf wiyh police on 12th September 1985...
-
Further confirmation that this was the cause of Ewen's sacking......
I used to get on very well with Jeremy, and Ewen Smith back in 2004, I never for one moment imagined or anticipated that the working relationship between all of us would become some strained...
I felt at that time that Ewen would have done anything to help Jeremy's cause, and what is more, I felt genuine interest from Ewen in Jeremy's position, as though he would have moved mountains to help get Jeremy cleared of these allegations. Ewen Smith always treated me with the greatest respect despite him knowing that I had been convicted, and that I had spent time in prison...
I know he trusted me...
I saw the photograph of Sheila on the bed, there can be no doubt about that, not only that but once I returned home to Sheffield, I immediately wrote a letter to Jeremy to tell him about the picture of Sheila on the bed I had seen...
Imagine my dismay, to find that by me providing this information to Jeremy about the picture I had seen, was the source which led to the services of Ewen Smith being disposed of? I was caught up in the middle of both Ewen and Jeremy, and it made me feel like I had betrayed the trust which Ewen had placed in me...
I liked Ewen Smith, and I liked Jeremy, but I was made to feel like I had betrayed both of them - not a very nice position to find oneself in...
Sheila was on the bed, there is no doubt at all in my mind, She was on the bed, I saw the photograph, I sent a letter to Jeremy confirming what I had seen, and Jeremy sacked Ewen because he kept this information from him...
Jeremy has my letter, confirming what I reported to him that I had seen when I visited Ewen Smith at his office in Birmingham, why would I lie about something like that, involving two persons that I admired?
I cannot put it any clearer than that...
-
Was it Ewen or an assistant that left them there?....
Was it his office or a conference room?....
With my hand on my heart I cannot honestly say that Ewen saw that photograph in my presence - he simply left the album with me whilst he went off for five minutes to carry out other duties...
Although I got the impression he knew about the picture because he left the album in my possession and under my control, he never personally drew my attention to that picture, I simply browsed through the album on the desk, because I got the impression he wanted me to look at the pictures in the album that Essex police had sent to him in confidence...
I got the impression that Ewen wanted me to look at the pictures after he left the room...
One of his colleagues (a lady) brought the photographs, into the office where I viewed them...
By the time Ewen returned to his office, the album was where it had been left on his desk...
We never spoke about the contents of the album, after Ewen returned to his office, it was that sort of an arrangement - I think he just wanted me to see its contents...
-
Relatives removed firearms , accessories, and boxes of ammunition from gun cupboard on 10 th August 1985, yet it was all still there in the gun cupboard on 11th September 1985, when DC Oakey went to whf and was handes these from the gun cupboard by Ann Eaton...
-
So in 2003/2004 Mke sees the photograph left by Ewen/Assistant in his office/conference room, after which mike phones/writes to jeremy and tells him, Ewen is sacked and mike wasn't involved in the transfer of the files......with me so far?
Lets put it this way...
Jeremy has the letter I wrote to him informing him that I had seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, dated the date I went to see Ewen in his office, Jeremy knows I would not make up something like that, with a view of causing friction between himself and Ewen, because I got on very well with both of them...
I am not and never have been privy to what Jeremy wrote to Ewen about after he received my letter, I only found out that Ewen had been sacked because Jeremy said that Ewen had been keeping things from him, and that he (Ewen) did not have his (Jeremy's) best interests at heart...
Next thing I knew, Jeremy had appointed GDS to represent him...
Just to be specific, it was after Jeremy sacked Ewen Smith, and the appointment of GDS, that there was some problem about how to get all of Jeremy's file from Ewen Smiths offices in Birmingham, to the offices of GDS in London? Ewen contacted GDS and recommended that I be the one to pick up the file from Birmingham and take it all to London, but GDS disagreed for some reason I think because it never got done by me...
-
Sometime afterwards Mike goes to GDS office in london and makes copies of some of the photos but not the one of Sheila on the bed....Mike is still friends with Bamber as of 2004....
No, because I had permission from GDS, (and Jeremy) through his son Michael, who was instructed by him - GDS was away in Rome at the time I took pictures of the photographs in his London Office. You will appreciate that by this time, Jeremy was hoping that the photo of Sheila on the bed was still available and myself and another of his supporters went to London to see if it was still amongst those made available to GDS, with a view to photographing it so that Jeremy had a copy that he could use to help prove his innocence? Obviously, although there were many shocking images taken from the crime scene, and at the mortuary, the one of Sheila on the bed was not amongst them.
-
Vidvic , it's a pity you are not prepared to go into such detail's with your friends over the finding and handing over times of the silencer/moderator IMO !!
Lets see you go into such detail , or will it be that old chestnut again ,' it was a long time ago to remember ' ?
-
Sep 27th 2011 Mike is prepared to send Jeremy a copy of the photograph which Jeremy hoped to get from another source......
Yes, certainly...
(1) - Jeremy has not requested that he needs me to make one, he was hoping that he could get his hands on a copy of the said photograph, but I am still prepared to do it...
-
On 28th November 2004 Mike sends a most curious email to Andrew Hunter MP, via Angela Bladesmoore. In it he contradicts his story as told previously on the forum....
In the email to Hunter, the visit where he sees the photo is November 2003, but is written as if Ewen wasn't there, just an assistant, but now there is a 2nd visit and the sequence of events is altered....
Mike sees the photograph in the November visit but doesn't have chance to speak with Ewen about it, then....
"The next time I visited Glaisyers sollicitors I mentioned the aforementioned photograph which I had seen to Ewen Smith and raised my concerns that I thought Sheila's body had been found on the bedroom floor...."
Ewen Smith then explained about his chat with Doctor Craig on this 2nd Visit....
"I should also say that on this occasion when I visited Ewen Smith and raised these matters that although I mentioned to him that I had seen the photograph of Sheila laid on top of the bed with no panties on, that this photo was missing when we went to get the photographs for us to look at again."
"I got the impression that it had been removed from the bundles because I was not supposed to have seen it."
Also in this letter to Hunter, the source of the photo is now the CPS and not Essex Police.
-
Oct 2011 - We're back to 2004 again....
The truth of the matter is that I have seen the batches of withheld photographs, that were part of a top secret album that was sent to Ewen Smith by Essex police at the beginning of 2004. Not only did I see the body of Sheila on the bed, as previously described, but I also saw photographs of injuries and marks in Sheila`s, Ralphs and June`s bodies...
Some weeks later, again in 2004, I went to offices in London, by appointment with GDS, and viewed albums of photographs that had been handed over to GDS by Ewen Smith. Present on this occasion was GDS 's son Michael, and a friend of Jeremys who I do not wish to name. The purpose of the visit was to view the albums of photographs, with the intention of reporting to GDS what we found, and also acting on instruction from Jeremy, for us to take copies of any crucial photographs, like those I had seen in Ewens office previously...
-
Dec 2011 - Photo of Sheila on the bed was taken whilst she was still alive...
The photographs of Sheila on the bed, were taken at a time when she was still alive on the bed, she could not have been dead, hence she only had one shot to her neck by that stage. Sheila may have been assumed to be dead, but she was not...
Dr Craig made an error in pronouncing her as being dead at the scene without examining her to check for vital signs of life...
Ambulance crews in attendance at the scene, were not called forward into the farmhouse to check the bodies for signs of life, but were sent away from the scene, despite Sheila still being alive on the bed in the bedroom with her only having been shot once by that stage...
-
Vic, I think everyone has read this stuff before, I myself am a little 'confused' as to the point of your thread?
-
On November 3rd 2011 - Mike met up with 'Z'.....
I am gobsmacked by what I have been told today, and after being shown three Photographs which I had not seen before. - I am flabbergasted...
-
Ann Eaton wrote down "David told me he had got something up his sleeve", after Jeremy was initially arrested at the begginning of September - it had someyhimg to do with the dodggy silencer, and his visit to whf wiyh police on 12th September 1985...
Mike could you link this to where Ann Eaton wrote this down please? I can't seem to find it.
-
Vidvic , it's a pity you are not prepared to go into such detail's with your friends over the finding and handing over times of the silencer/moderator IMO !!
Lets see you go into such detail , or will it be that old chestnut again ,' it was a long time ago to remember ' ?
Vic, I think this is a fair point. ::)
-
Is it possible that AE's original wit stat can be made available please? Unless it is and I can't find it? I believe our competitors have one and it would be useful to have it here. Thank you.
-
A breakthrough......'Z' shows mike photograph with one wound......
The lower one, with what I believe to be a silencers mark around it, one under chin is missing in the picture (Z) showed me this afternoon. I couldn't believe it when (Z) showed it to me, there was just the lower neck wound, the one under the chin was inflicted after this photograph was taken (this is what (Z) told me today)...
But hands in photo that was in Ewen's office to the CCRC so was presumably able to copy the original, stolen by Mike?
Informant included a copy of the photograph I had seen in Ewens office of Sheila on the bed with no blood coming from the sides of her mouth, reminding Ewen that I was at his office when I saw this photograph of Sheila on the bed, and didn't he out to come ought and tell the truth about the existence of this picture, and make a public statement about whether I (me) have been telling the truth about seeing this picture in his Birmingham office, or not?
-
Is it possible that AE's original wit stat can be made available please? Unless it is and I can't find it? I believe our competitors have one and it would be useful to have it here. Thank you.
Everything they have is copied from here.
-
A year later we are informed of the 'still from a video'
Although a crime scene video was taken, and documentary evidence exists to confirm that such a video was taken, for some obscure reason the video contents have not been disclosed to Jeremy or to those representing his interests. All we have in the public domain thus far is the still image of Sheila`s body
-
DEC 2012 - Oh, but wait......maybe It was a telephone call after all?.......
Photograph of Sheila on the bed...
As soon as I saw the photograph of Sheila on the bed (during a visit to Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham) I knew instantly that the case against Jeremy was a false one. That evening when I got home I couldn't wait for Jeremy to call me on the telephone so that I could break the news to him.
-
Is it possible that AE's original wit stat can be made available please? Unless it is and I can't find it? I believe our competitors have one and it would be useful to have it here. Thank you.
I've got it, I will post the whole thing later but page 28 is interesting for obvious reasons!!
-
Vic, I think everyone has read this stuff before, I myself am a little 'confused' as to the point of your thread?
Maybe JB's new blog as hit a nerve !!
-
Maybe JB's new blog as hit a nerve !!
Jon,,you took the words from my mouth,,as I was wondering if because things were coming to light,,then this is suddenly the result.
-
So Mike goes to see Ewen smith somewhere between end 2003 early 2004 .....
Jeremy knows about the image and wants Ewen to send it to him...
After 'some weeks' it becomes apparrant that this wont happen, GDS is hired, trip to GDS office, no photos there......
When I told Jeremy about this picture that I had seen he was obviously very excited and he thought that Ewen would send him a copy of it, but as things turned out he didn't and wouldn't send any of the disclosed photographs which had been provided to Ewen by Essex police under a confidential agreement, but this did not become apparent until weeks later, which resulted in Jeremy sacking him...
After all there's documented proof that all of the following happened......
Jeremy also wrote to me about the implications of this picture of Sheila on the bed, and I wrote back to him - I have copies of the letters Jeremy sent to me from the relevant period, and I know Jeremy will still have got the letters I sent to him, so there is an historical record of Essex police sending this material to Ewen, of me seeing the photograph of Sheila on the bed, of me talking to Jeremy on the phone that evening about seeing that photograph, of Jeremy writing to Ewen Smith and asking him to send the photograph to him, and Ewen refusing to do so, and of Jeremy sacking Ewen, appointing GDS, and of the arrangements Jeremy made for myself and a friend to visit the office of GDS in London, with a view to obtaining a copy of the said picture, of our attendance there and the taking of crime scene pictures (but not the one of Sheila on the bed because that was missing by that stage, or it had been returned to Essex police by Ewen), and so on and so forth...
So when Mike takes it into his own hands to send a photo to Jeremy, without telling him what he was doing......He magically gets a reply, proving he tells the truth, written by Jeremy on Feb 4th 2004 .....
Please note, date Jeremy wrote letter about this, 4th February 2004...
-
Jon,,you took the words from my mouth,,as I was wondering if because things were coming to light,,then this is suddenly the result.
If both of you think anyone is concerned about his blog, then you are sadly disappointed.
If you're not concerned with obvious discrepancies in Mike Tesko's stories of evidence then I feel sorry for you both.
-
Now, did Bamber call Tesko or Tesko call Bamber?
Also...
why not get him to contact the Home office and get copies from Jeremy's prison file about the call I made to him after I saw the picture of Sheila on the bed, and all the other correspondence about it between Jeremy and myself?
-
If both of you think anyone is concerned about his blog, then you are sadly disappointed.
If you're not concerned with obvious discrepancies in Mike Tesko's stories of evidence then I feel sorry for you both.
Discrepancies , now there is a ' word ' !!
-
Tesko liked Ewen, who trusted him.....
As for did I think Jeremy was right to sack Ewen Smith, I would have to answer by saying that I personally liked Ewen Smith, and I felt that things were starting to happen in Jeremy's favour, and that Jeremy may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick at the time I brought the sighting of the photograph of Sheila on the bed to his attention. I got the impression that Ewen was going to do something constructive to try and get Jeremy's case back to the court of appeal, Ewen put a lot of faith in me, despite my background, and I don't think he would have gone to all that trouble unless he was prepared to do something positive to help Jeremy get another appeal?
So much so, he allegedly stole from him and then got him sacked......
-
So in 2012 Mike tells us that the reason Bamber didn't get the pic was because GDS didn't either.....
The disclosures sent to Ewen Smith by Essex police under a confidential agreement (including the photograph which I saw of Sheila on the bed) were never forwarded on to GDS once the file was transferred to him (after the sacking of ES by Jeremy), so he never got to see the pictures Essex police sent to Ewen under that confidential agreement, this must be because Ewen sent them back to Essex police before forwarding on the file to GDS...
-
Feb 12th 2012 we are shown the magnified image of Sheila 'video still'
Look at this image, which is a still taken from the video of the crime scene which was taken during a training exercise inside whf after the arrival of five additional F.S.U officers at 8:57am:-
-
Vidvic , are you aware of what Taff Jones told the family , when he went on to make the comment of
' now do you believe me ' ?
I assume you must have asked this question of them before , can you share it with us ?
-
If only members could post the same time line of proof, Vidvic, that the police/special branch/ relatives stories have changed as dramatically as waht you're posting shows.
Good job.
-
I can feel desperation running through this thread like a river in full flood.
-
If only members could post the same time line of proof, Vidvic, that the police/special branch/ relatives stories have changed as dramatically as waht you're posting shows.
Good job.
The timeline of AE first statement is very interesting to my mind , no mention of a
silencer/moderator !! That went on to be described as having blood upon it !!
-
Mike asks himself a question he already knew.....
Who took the actual video crime scene footage?
Somebody is not telling the truth about when the crime scene photographs, and the video of the crime scene, were actually taken, or who actually took them?
Hold on a minute Mike......Don't you already know?
Sheila was filmed using a video recorder whilst F. S. U. Officers carried a training exercise at the scene with the bodies of the victims still in siitu, at which time Sheila had a significant amount of additional blood around her mouth, on her face and throat - this footage was taken by (Z)...
Ah, that's better....Roch seemed incredulous.....
MT - Somebody gave Sheila CPR, as filmed on video footage taken by (Z)...
ROCH - What, THE 'Z'?
MT - One and the same......
-
I can feel desperation running through this thread like a river in full flood.
Me too,April,,with the speed of a Porsche,or a TGV.
-
I can feel desperation running through this thread like a river in full flood.
What am I possibly desperate about??????
-
What am I possibly desperate about??????
Vidvic,,I've got to hand it to you,,you've never " said " so much in one go since I've been on the forum.
-
Vidvic,,I've got to hand it to you,,you've never " said " so much in one go since I've been on the forum.
You've hardly stopped for breath. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Rest assured, everybody, this is a still image taken from the crime scene video which was filmed at the scene during the training exercise and which ended up in the possession of F.S.U:-
Image taken from video of crime scene is genuine, don't let anybody try to tell any of you that it is not:-
Really??
-
April 25th 2004 - Mike, I thought Jeremy didn't know you were sending the photo??
I sent the original to Jeremy at HMP Full sutton in a large envelope with a short note explaining that this was the photograph I told him about which I found in an album whilst visiting Ewen Smith at his offices in Birmingham earlier in the day. I have previously said that I did not take a photograph of it which is true. What actually happened was that I removed the photograph from the album for the purpose of sending it to Jeremy. I stole it to send it to jeremy...
-
April 29th 2012 - Good news for Jeremy....
Well, its good news ( I think) because the computer onto which the picture was copied, although an old system, is in storage and I may be able to recover the file in question...
I am taking advice...
-
What am I possibly desperate about??????
Vic Hello :) As you've asked the question, it would be rude if I didn't respond. You have run through this thread like a dose of salts in an attempt to show that Mike is lying, ok, has lied. Why is it so important for us to know that? If we suppose for a moment that you're correct, what has changed? Jeremy is still behind bars, safely, despite being a model prisoner, downgraded, at someones behest, from cat.B to cat.A and that fact seems unlikely to change.
OK, things have been said, questions raised about the integrity of the wider family. Why, under the circumstances would they not be? If, throughout all the proceedings they have told the whole unvarnished truth, they have nothing to worry about. They may not like what is said but probably 99% of people who post here haven't a clue who they are and wouldn't recognize them from Adam. Most of us here are intelligent enough to make up our own minds about them. Little, if anything, that is said by you or Mike will make any difference to our beliefs. For those who believe him guilty, he's already in prison. For those who believe him innocent, he's still in prison. Nothing changes.
-
Ive never quite understood why guilty members have such views, jeremy was guilty in 1986 not at the time of the events but after, its almost every posting that i see guilty posters terrified something may not ring true with now passed events.
-
Ive never quite understood why guilty members have such views, jeremy was guilty in 1986 not at the time of the events but after, its almost every posting that i see guilty posters terrified something may not ring true with now passed events.
Yes Mertol. It sometimes feels as if the verdict was not enough and there has to be something MORE incriminating.
-
Yes Mertol. It sometimes feels as if the verdict was not enough and there has to be something MORE incriminating.
I totally agree April but what really nags at me is that if there is a discrepancy on the side of innocence, it's obviously a lie or someone being underhanded. However, if someone points out similar issues pertaining to the families testimony, there is an immediate onslaught of posts from certain members from the guilty side which are tantamount to a baying crowd ready to stone anyone daring to bring into question (even slightly) the integrity of the families statements!! The family are as much a part of this case as Jeremy Bamber and as such, there are bound to be issues raised that question what they said at the time, given that there are many inconsistencies!!
I find some of the points raised by Jon quite interesting - I wonder if they will be answered?
-
Mike asks himself a question he already knew.....
Who took the actual video crime scene footage?
Somebody is not telling the truth about when the crime scene photographs, and the video of the crime scene, were actually taken, or who actually took them?
Hold on a minute Mike......Don't you already know?
Sheila was filmed using a video recorder whilst F. S. U. Officers carried a training exercise at the scene with the bodies of the victims still in siitu, at which time Sheila had a significant amount of additional blood around her mouth, on her face and throat - this footage was taken by (Z)...
Ah, that's better....Roch seemed incredulous.....
MT - Somebody gave Sheila CPR, as filmed on video footage taken by (Z)...
ROCH - What, THE 'Z'?
MT - One and the same......
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here Vic. This thread is a bit difficult to follow.
-
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here Vic. This thread is a bit difficult to follow.
I agree, I asked the same question several million posts back!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Vic Hello :) As you've asked the question, it would be rude if I didn't respond. You have run through this thread like a dose of salts in an attempt to show that Mike is lying, ok, has lied. Why is it so important for us to know that? If we suppose for a moment that you're correct, what has changed? Jeremy is still behind bars, safely, despite being a model prisoner, downgraded, at someones behest, from cat.B to cat.A and that fact seems unlikely to change.
OK, things have been said, questions raised about the integrity of the wider family. Why, under the circumstances would they not be? If, throughout all the proceedings they have told the whole unvarnished truth, they have nothing to worry about. They may not like what is said but probably 99% of people who post here haven't a clue who they are and wouldn't recognize them from Adam. Most of us here are intelligent enough to make up our own minds about them. Little, if anything, that is said by you or Mike will make any difference to our beliefs. For those who believe him guilty, he's already in prison. For those who believe him innocent, he's still in prison. Nothing changes.
I almost entirely agree with you.
I think that when peoples honesty is attacked or the most lurid sexual accusations are made, I am of course a 'lying scumbag little shit', it gives one the impetus to point out to forum members, who are often guided, without evidence, to believe in this or that, to point out some of the ridiculous codswallop we have to read on here.
Anyone else find any irony in the accusations of greed against the family coming from a convicted burgler with a multi million pound film contract?..... Just saying...
-
I agree, I asked the same question several million posts back!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am trying to show, in Tesko's own words, the glaring inconsistencies in his story telling over the past few years. Only very recently we were told that bamber didn't know he was sent a photo, yet another post from last year, said he sent a note.....
-
I almost entirely agree with you.
I think that when peoples honesty is attacked or the most lurid sexual accusations are made, I am of course a 'lying scumbag little shit', it gives one the impetus to point out to forum members, who are often guided, without evidence, to believe in this or that, to point out some of the ridiculous codswallop we have to read on here.
Anyone else find any irony in the accusations of greed against the family coming from a convicted burgler with a multi million pound film contract?..... Just saying...
Vic, this is part of the point I'm attempting to make. It's starting to sound personal, this feud between you and Mike. I'm NOT taking sides here. I find it as despicable for Mike to refer to you as a BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP as it is for you to refer to him as "a sick man" which may be more subtle but is none the less reprehensible.
I could find an intelligent response without any effort to your attempt to further assassinate Jeremy, but this is not the post in which to place it.
-
Is that it? Can we all come out now? lol :D :D :D :D :D
-
Is that it? Can we all come out now? lol :D :D :D :D :D
Sorry Patti, was there something YOU wanted to say ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
april/Patti I have been under the desk for ages and I need to come out is it safe ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
april/Patti I have been under the desk for ages and I need to come out is it safe ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Susan/Patti!!! WHYYYYYYYYYYY? I'm a pussycat. You should hear me purrrrrrrrrr :) :) :) :)
-
april if you don't mind I would prefer to hear Vic purrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Is that it? Can we all come out now? lol :D :D :D :D :D
Patti! That just made me giggle...
-
april/Patti I have been under the desk for ages and I need to come out is it safe ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Made me laugh too. I'm purring.
-
Sorry Patti, was there something YOU wanted to say ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes April. BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP! Hahahahahahaha sorry couldn't resist it.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
april/Patti I have been under the desk for ages and I need to come out is it safe ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Under the desk!!!!! I've been in the air raid shelter..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Patti maybe you should have bleat bleat bleat ;D ;D ;D
-
In all seriousness April, I would NEVER refer to Tesko as 'a sick man' because of his illness. I referred to him as a sick man because he was writing and threatening to write more, of his experiences as the dead corpse of Sheila Caffell. As far as I'm aware, cancer doesn't make you write such garbage nor does it make you tell lies.
-
Made me laugh too. I'm purring.
Dear Vic, laughter is a WONDERFUL tonic.................even without the gin :D :D :D :D
-
Hi Patti maybe you should have bleat bleat bleat ;D ;D ;D
Maybe I should have blarted and got arrested like Luggs goat.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I wonder if Lucy Pargeter is any relation.Quite an unusual surname. It's she,Chas,from Emmerdale.
-
Patti would you mind explaining to me what blarting is ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
In all seriousness April, I would NEVER refer to Tesko as 'a sick man' because of his illness. I referred to him as a sick man because he was writing and threatening to write more, of his experiences as the dead corpse of Sheila Caffell. As far as I'm aware, cancer doesn't make you write such garbage nor does it make you tell lies.
I exercised my choice and didn't read any further than the first line. It wasn't to my taste and emulated the storyline in "The Lovely Bones" which was the spirit speaking of a young girl who'd been raped and murdered. It made several best sellers lists and has been made into a film. Intellectually I didn't find the piece any worse than those by posters who reinterpret what authors say.
I don't know how much knowledge you have of cancer, I would hope little/none of the personal kind, but there are several which cause personality changes. I believe it cannot fail to alter ones perspective on life.
-
Maybe I should have blarted and got arrested like Luggs goat.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti, did you mean BLarted ;D ;D ;D
-
I exercised my choice and didn't read any further than the first line. It wasn't to my taste and emulated the storyline in "The Lovely Bones" which was the spirit speaking of a young girl who'd been raped and murdered. It made several best sellers lists and has been made into a film. Intellectually I didn't find the piece any worse than those by posters who reinterpret what authors say.
I don't know how much knowledge you have of cancer, I would hope little/none of the personal kind, but there are several which cause personality changes. I believe it cannot fail to alter ones perspective on life.
Personality / change of life outlook I can buy into, but when used as a threat, not acceptable.
-
Personality / change of life outlook I can buy into, but when used as a threat, not acceptable.
Vic, I didn't see the words which were said so I can't say if they were a statement of intent or a statement of capability, but I suspect that if we, that is you and I, both read one of Mikes offerings we likely would interpret differently.
-
Patti would you mind explaining to me what blarting is ;D ;D ;D ;D
Its what sheep do isn't...oh no, they Barrrrrrr....a goat blarts...a cow moo's and I moan...lol :) :) :) :)
-
This is the way I see it...In the grand scheme of things,and certainly with regards to the Bamber case,Mike is not particularly important.(No offence Mike).So,if Mike's recollections of past events show inconsistances,it is harmful to no-one. On the other hand,inconsistances in prosecution witness statements can often be due to dishonesty,and if that dishonesty convicted and continues to keep a possibly innocent man incarcerated,then surely,that is much more serious and very worrying?
-
This is the way I see it...In the grand scheme of things,and certainly with regards to the Bamber case,Mike is not particularly important.(No offence Mike).So,if Mike's recollections of past events show inconsistances,it is harmful to no-one. On the other hand,inconsistances in prosecution witness statements can often be due to dishonesty,and if that dishonesty convicted and continues to keep a possibly innocent man incarcerated,then surely,that is much more serious and very worrying?
Absolutely, Tyler. Which of us has perfect recall? Be it Mike's memories of conversations with Jeremy, the familys' memories of who was where, who said what, to whom OR my own memories of what I did yesterday ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I find it difficult to believe that Mike had 'forgotten' he had stolen the photo from Ewen's office (or conference room) when he made those posts. He has also recently 'admitted' that he didn't tell JB he had taken it, and still hasn't. I have seen so many different versions of 'photo-on-the-bed-gate' that I struggle to remember which one is the current supposed 'truth'. I'm not concerned about why his stories are inconsistent, but the fact that they are makes anything and everything he says potentially unreliable. I don't think it's unreasonable for Vic, who has been quite open about where his loyalties lie, to highlight that fact, especially in light of some of the frankly obnoxious accusations Mike has been making in the last couple of days.
-
The fact that there are inconsistances in Mikes stories make anything and everything he says potentially unreliable,you say? Well surely then,that same opinion would refer too,to the prosecution witness statements? Difference is,that Mike hasn't signed any legal documents or stood in a court of law to recount these "inconsistancies,where a persons liberty was at stake.
-
The fact that there are inconsistances in Mikes stories make anything and everything he says potentially unreliable,you say? Well surely then,that same opinion would refer too,to the prosecution witness statements? Difference is,that Mike hasn't signed any legal documents or stood in a court of law to recount these "inconsistancies,where a persons liberty was at stake.
I do think it's natural that memory fades, particularly if you are comparing a statement made in say 1985 with a response to a question at trial in 1986, or even an interview with police in 1991. It's a matter of degree though. It's normal to forget fine details such as who told you something, it's not normal to forget that you stole a potentially life changing piece of evidence.
-
I do think it's natural that memory fades, particularly if you are comparing a statement made in say 1985 with a response to a question at trial in 1986, or even an interview with police in 1991. It's a matter of degree though. It's normal to forget fine details such as who told you something, it's not normal to forget that you stole a potentially life changing piece of evidence.
I think when someone gains a reputation for telling tall stories, those who hear them will say "Yeah, yeah. Whatever" but it won't effect their belief in their mutual cause. There is nothing that either Mike or Vic say that will alter my opinion. In one regard they are similar. Neither was there at the time. Both have to rely on what is told them by those who were.
-
I do think it's natural that memory fades, particularly if you are comparing a statement made in say 1985 with a response to a question at trial in 1986, or even an interview with police in 1991. It's a matter of degree though. It's normal to forget fine details such as who told you something, it's not normal to forget that you stole a potentially life changing piece of evidence.
Its not normal to know that you handed a silrncer to police on 11th September 1985, and remember it as though the silencer in quesyion was handed to police on evening of 12th August 1985, almost a month earlier - how can you forget somrthing like that, silencer was handed over by Ann Eaton after Jeremy was in custody sfter his first srrest, not before he was arrested - funny how relatives rrmember all the things which painted Jeremy in a poor light...
-
Its not normal to know that you handed a silrncer to police on 11th September 1985, and remember it as though the silencer in quesyion was handed to police on evening of 12th August 1985, almost a month earlier - how can you forget somrthing like that, silencer was handed over by Ann Eaton after Jeremy was in custody sfter his first srrest, not before he was arrested - funny how relatives rrmember all the things which painted Jeremy in a poor light...
More spin...
This is your interpretation of 5 or 6 ambiguous words in some police printout or other. It is not an example of anyone forgetting anything.
-
Bridget,I see what you mean,but likewise,I do not regard the "finding" of the silencer as a "finer" detail and neither do I regard the inconsistancies in the statements purporting to its "discovery" as "normal".
-
Great post April by the way,and I wholeheartedly agree with you!
-
Bridget,I see what you mean,but likewise,I do not regard the "finding" of the silencer as a "finer" detail and neither do I regard the inconsistancies in the statements purporting to its "discovery" as "normal".
Fair enough, but can I ask what in particular you see as inconsistencies? I mean in particular between their own statements and not as compared to any later theories. I think they've been pretty consistent in what they've said about the silencer, but I may be missing something.
-
I think it's important to hold Mike (or anyone) accountable for their own discrepences.
But Mike in particular, surely since a lot of his information comes from letters/conversations directly from Jeremy Bamber.
-
I think it's important to hold Mike (or anyone) accountable for their own discrepences.
But Mike in particular, surely since a lot of his information comes from letters/conversations directly from Jeremy Bamber.
So are you saying that everything Mike says is a lie because it has been passed to him by Jeremy, whereas what Vic says MUST be true because he received it from the family?
-
I didn't say anything Mike says is a lie, I said if there are discrepencies by ANYONE they should be called upon.
-
Bridget,the statements are not consistant as to who was present when it was discovered,when the police were contacted with regards to its discovery,but the part that is most worrying for me is Basil Cocks recollection of whf being covered in fingerprinting dust that day. However,a full fingerprinting examination was not carried out until the September.
-
Bridget,the statements are not consistant as to who was present when it was discovered,when the police were contacted with regards to its discovery,but the part that is most worrying for me is Basil Cocks recollection of whf being covered in fingerprinting dust that day. However,a full fingerprinting examination was not carried out until the September.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,978.0.html
-
Hi Mat,I agree! So shall we start with the discrepencies in the police logs? Surely these discrepencies are more important than any discrepencies made by Mike? This is a forum and we have the option to decide whether or not to believe what Mike is telling us. However,the police logs are supposedly a factual record of police activity on the morning of the murders. The police do not lie,surely? How then,did two bodies,that of a female and a male,described as a murder and a suicide,allegedly found in the kitchen upon entry by the raid team,become just the murdered body of Neville Bamber? Surely these inconsistancies are more important and relevant with regards to this case?
-
I didn't say anything Mike says is a lie, I said if there are discrepencies by ANYONE they should be called upon.
But Mat, on whom may we rely to point out any discrepencies when such can be said to be a matter of interpretation.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,978.0.html
A most interesting link I must say.
-
Hi Mat,I agree! So shall we start with the discrepencies in the police logs? Surely these discrepencies are more important than any discrepencies made by Mike? This is a forum and we have the option to decide whether or not to believe what Mike is telling us. However,the police logs are supposedly a factual record of police activity on the morning of the murders. The police do not lie,surely? How then,did two bodies,that of a female and a male,described as a murder and a suicide,allegedly found in the kitchen upon entry by the raid team,become just the murdered body of Neville Bamber? Surely these inconsistancies are more important and relevant with regards to this case?
Hi Tyler.
You have the benefit of hindsight to look back on the crime scene - the police who were there on the night obviously were confused looking through the back window, they made mistakes - things weren't recorded correctly - how about the later logs where Sheila is listed as being upstairs? As things become clearer the logs begin to make sense.
How anyone can look past the injuries to Sheila and still be of the thinking she actually did anything after the first shot, is laughable at best.... at worst it's damn right ignorant.
But Mat, on whom may we rely to point out any discrepencies when such can be said to be a matter of interpretation.
In this instance you're not relying on anyone, you're seeing quite clearly yourself that the story/dates have well and truly changed.
-
Lookout,hi. Am on my phone due to family members hogging both the pc and the laptop and cannot access links. What does it say that is interesting?
-
Hi Mat. Actually none of us have the benefit of hindsight to look back on the crime scene as we were not there. Therefore,we have to rely on the police version of events. I can buy the explanation of Collins looking through the kitchen window and mistaking Mr.Bamber for that of a female,but,it was logged that UPON ENTRY,the bodies of a female and a male were found.Described as a murder and a suicide and the police surgeon and coroner were called accordingly. How can Mr.Bamber be described as a murder and a suicide? Yes,Sheilas body was later logged as being found upstairs and this was the version of events that was used at trial. Why did EP not disclose the whole of the logs at trial? Why was the coroner told he wasn't needed after-all? Why did EP not want the coroner to see the bodies in situ? Surely it stands to reason that they had something to hide?
-
The notes made by police officers should be taken on their merits, something has to be written down in writing, for one very important reason, they were written as events unfolded , in other words what you see is a first generation draught copy of running events made in real time , everyone makes mistakes , no human can exist without doing so, likewise the police you can add on that list, a notepad with notes is one thing a full account after thinking via a statement is another, the log entries are there to question do not take them as 100% factual.
-
Hi Mat. Actually none of us have the benefit of hindsight to look back on the crime scene as we were not there. Therefore,we have to rely on the police version of events. I can buy the explanation of Collins looking through the kitchen window and mistaking Mr.Bamber for that of a female,but,it was logged that UPON ENTRY,the bodies of a female and a male were found.Described as a murder and a suicide and the police surgeon and coroner were called accordingly. How can Mr.Bamber be described as a murder and a suicide? Yes,Sheilas body was later logged as being found upstairs and this was the version of events that was used at trial. Why did EP not disclose the whole of the logs at trial? Why was the coroner told he wasn't needed after-all? Why did EP not want the coroner to see the bodies in situ? Surely it stands to reason that they had something to hide?
Tyler, you make some good points. But I feel we're going around in circles and feel some of that has already been answered.
But it's hard to get past the wound to Sheila, for me. And as Mertol says about mistakes are made with the notes - it was a confusing situation in which the police were being told by Bamber a whole range of things outside. Mistakes were made and were clarified/explained and a later time when the dust had settled.
Although there still are questions to be answered, but no cas ever has every question answered.
-
Bridget,the statements are not consistant as to who was present when it was discovered,when the police were contacted with regards to its discovery,but the part that is most worrying for me is Basil Cocks recollection of whf being covered in fingerprinting dust that day. However,a full fingerprinting examination was not carried out until the September.
Hi Tyler, just wondered why you believe the farm was not fingerprinted earlier.
In Julie's statements she makes mention of Jeremy complaining that fingerprinting was taking longer than he expected, I think on the Friday keys were handed to the family.
-
Vidvic, the date the fingerprinting was carried out is logged in one of EP's documents. Also,the Dickenson Report contains many comments as to it not having been carried out in the August.
-
Hi Mat. Actually none of us have the benefit of hindsight to look back on the crime scene as we were not there. Therefore,we have to rely on the police version of events. I can buy the explanation of Collins looking through the kitchen window and mistaking Mr.Bamber for that of a female,but,it was logged that UPON ENTRY,the bodies of a female and a male were found.Described as a murder and a suicide and the police surgeon and coroner were called accordingly. How can Mr.Bamber be described as a murder and a suicide? Yes,Sheilas body was later logged as being found upstairs and this was the version of events that was used at trial. Why did EP not disclose the whole of the logs at trial? Why was the coroner told he wasn't needed after-all? Why did EP not want the coroner to see the bodies in situ? Surely it stands to reason that they had something to hide?
Do you mean the pathologist? I agree, and I think that was something that he himself complained about later, just after trial if memory serves. It's also a factor in Simon Hall's case where time of death could make a crucial difference because of the very narrow window of opportunity yet the pathologist didn't see fit to turn up at the scene. That lesson still hadn't been learned 16 years later it seems.
-
I should clarify, I don't agree with the "something to hide" bit ;)
-
Vidvic, the date the fingerprinting was carried out is logged in one of EP's documents. Also,the Dickenson Report contains many comments as to it not having been carried out in the August.
Paragraphs 187/188 of the Dickenson report state that a FULL fingerprint search wasn't required. It doesn't say that no fingerprints were taken at all.
Further fingerprinting was completed in September I believe.
This is entirely consistent with Basil's statement.
-
Full fingerprinting was carried out in September,after the nature of the investigation changed. I do believe that initially,only the main bedroom was fingerprinted. However,Basil Cocks refers to "the place being covered in fingerprinting dust" on the day the silencer was allegedly found.
-
Full fingerprinting was carried out in September,after the nature of the investigation changed. I do believe that initially,only the main bedroom was fingerprinted. However,Basil Cocks refers to "the place being covered in fingerprinting dust" on the day the silencer was allegedly found.
So some fingerprinting was done? How do you know what rooms were done or not?