Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Bambergate on June 21, 2014, 09:19:PM
-
There are three steps to the Jeremy Bamber case some never pass the first and some get lost in the second, some walk past missing the event alltogther.
The first is in my view the simplest and that is to find out if Jeremy is either guilty or innocent.
Jeremy was convicted by the closest of margins one more of the jury voting not guilty and he would be a free man.
The case against him was made from three points the first a silencer which supposily had his sisters blood on it and when fitted to the gun made it too long for for her to shoot herself.
As we know now nothing regarding the silencer adds up there was no blood on it and it did not make the gun too long and none and I mean none of the paperwork relating to the silencer appears real,dates changes,signatures missing and more than one silencer existed, the silencer if fake evidence!
The second part that convicted Jeremy was the statement by his former girlfriend that he had confessed to her ,we now know that she was paid for her story and she received coaching form Essex police and had a deal in which she would nod be convicted for her separate crimes including fraud.we now know nothing Julie Mugford said can be trusted in fact she was given no choice but to testify against Jeremy as Essex police would of convicted her as a accerory,Julie Mugford is the second silent victim in this case other than those who lost their lives on the night.
The last piece of evidence supposedly pointed to Jeremy guilt was Essex police saying that Jeremy never received a call from his dad on the night,again we find this not to be the case in fact there is a record of Jeremy's dad calling 999 saying his daughter had gone berserk with one of his guns to which Essex police dispatched a police car to the farmhouse one minute before Jeremy called the police.
So what is left to point to Jeremy's guilt? er nothing no more evidence no DNA no witnesses in fact over the last 27 years even more details have emerged to exactley why Jeremy has been framed for the murders of his family.
The first step in my view is simple is Jeremy guilty? Jeremy is not guilty, remember innocent until proven guilty and there is nothing that shows this to be the case.
The second part of the Bamber case is more tricky,now that we know that he is innocent we have ask the obvious question why did Essex police convict a man they knew to be innocent? remember if Jeremy is innocent Essex police know because Jeremy was sat outside in the police car while almost the entire force were surrounding the farm house.
This is not easy to find out as Essex police have tried and are trying to keep this from ever being discovered with the distructuion of key evidence and photographs and placing the whole file under pii but we still need to know the detail of what happened for the the final part.
let me use a example of the car macinic, a car macinic must fully understand how a car works not just how to operate it and drive it but in detail how it works and what can go wrong with it,thew will to know detail of of the components and sizes in short they must know everything there is to know so they can complete their next task.
The macinic must be able to fix the the car.
The third and last step of the Bamber case is in my view the hardest, to unwind the knotted ball of string that has taken almost 30 years to become tangled there are many tight knots in this ball many people resisting being unwound and the truth from coming out it is a challenging task.
Many of the people are very powerful and some are even famous but all our lives are derived from the freedom's we enjoy so if we want things so stay this way we need to look into those dark corners and clean them once in awhile, I see it as a safeguard to our lives.
Jeremy is our key to reminding us not to take things for granted,he can offer us more than we can return to him,we need to look for these oppunitys and try to make the most of them.
The final step is to look at ways for the mistakes of the past to be put right and in this process Jeremy must receive his freedom,in a ideal world solutions would be found that helped everyone but I think in the Bamber case there must be losers after all I feel framing Jeremy is akin to murder itself and has consequences attached for those involved.
So why am I telling you this well its to offer you the same reward I have received by my involment in the case,,to get it do what you feel you can do to help you are all free to choose what interests you,if you cannot think of anything simply pass the story on and that will be more than enough.
You have helped just by reading this I hope by understanding the world you live in more now and that enritches your life.
Bambergate if taken as a whole is a very positive event I have expressed this to Jeremy too.
-
You say that we all know the suppressor blood evidence was faked but that is not true at all. If you had any actual reliable proof of this then the courts would have to at minimum grant a new trial.
You skip the main step which is proving Jeremy is innocent and just assert he is and the evidence faked without demonstrating this to actually be the case.
-
The last piece of evidence supposedly pointed to Jeremy guilt was Essex police saying that Jeremy never received a call from his dad on the night,again we find this not to be the case in fact there is a record of Jeremy's dad calling 999 saying his daughter had gone berserk with one of his guns to which Essex police dispatched a police car to the farmhouse one minute before Jeremy called the police.
So what is left to point to Jeremy's guilt? er nothing no more evidence no DNA no witnesses in fact over the last 27 years even more details have emerged to exactley why Jeremy has been framed for the murders of his family.
Pure fantasy Bambergate. Look at the acutal document again. Dis-credited.
-
The police knew nothing about Susan Battersby's 1984 cheque book fraud and Jeremy's caravan break in. Repeatedly said on here.
Julie Mugford approached the police after sole searching and discussion with Liz Rimmington. She did not have to.
-
The police knew nothing about Susan Battersby's 1984 cheque book fraud and Jeremy's caravan break in. Repeatedly said on here.
Julie Mugford approached the police after sole searching and discussion with Liz Rimmington. She did not have to.
Just because you call it Susan Battersby´s cheque fraud doesn´t make it so. It was Julie´s idea, she said so herself. She also said that it was hard talking Susan into it. I have told you this before, but you choose to ignore it. All that propaganda, must be hard to keep up.
-
Actually there might be some truth that the phone call did exist. Cast your minds back to the Malcolm M interview.
We have proof that you called Jeremy from WHF to let him know the deed was done. Or something close to that.
Its well worth going over it???????? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just because you call it Susan Battersby´s cheque fraud doesn´t make it so. It was Julie´s idea, she said so herself. She also said that it was hard talking Susan into it. I have told you this before, but you choose to ignore it. All that propaganda, must be hard to keep up.
As have I and others Alias, but no matter, Mat clearly wishes it to be believed that it is I alone who finds Adam's behaviour unacceptable .
-
As have I and others Alias, but no matter, Mat clearly wishes it to be believed that it is I alone who finds Adam's behaviour unacceptable .
He is clearly here to spread false information aka propaganda aka lies.
-
As have I and others Alias, but no matter, Mat clearly wishes it to be believed that it is I alone who finds Adam's behaviour unacceptable .
Huh?
Alias has the right to say what she likes to Adam - I've no problem with that. The problem was you editing his posts and his posts alone when he posts links. Everyone on this forum posts links to old topics - Adam shouldn't be stopped from doing so just because you don't like him.
No idea what it has to do with this topic though.
-
Huh?
Alias has the right to say what she likes to Adam - I've no problem with that. The problem was you editing his posts and his posts alone when he posts links. Everyone on this forum posts links to old topics - Adam shouldn't be stopped from doing so just because you don't like him.
No idea what it has to do with this topic though.
Nor I.
-
Actually there might be some truth that the phone call did exist. Cast your minds back to the Malcolm M interview.
We have proof that you called Jeremy from WHF to let him know the deed was done. Or something close to that.
Its well worth going over it???????? ;D ;D ;D ;D
now why would they say they had proof if they dident.
was it just a bluff or did they have proof.
-
Huh?
Alias has the right to say what she likes to Adam - I've no problem with that. The problem was you editing his posts and his posts alone when he posts links. Everyone on this forum posts links to old topics - Adam shouldn't be stopped from doing so just because you don't like him.
No idea what it has to do with this topic though.
Hi Mat, it's not that he just posts links to old posts (which would be fair enough), he post links to the same posts continuously. How many times have you heard about his '19 reasons' (for whatever)? I think Adam might be liked a lot better if he wasn't so repetitive. That's all.
-
Just because you call it Susan Battersby´s cheque fraud doesn´t make it so. It was Julie´s idea, she said so herself. She also said that it was hard talking Susan into it. I have told you this before, but you choose to ignore it. All that propaganda, must be hard to keep up.
It was 'Susan Battetsby's' cheque book.
Anyway. When Julie approached the police, they knew nothing about it. Or 'Jeremy's' caravan break in.
-
now why would they say they had proof if they dident.
was it just a bluff or did they have proof.
Not sure Nugs. Why would they try and bluff him? If he turned round and said OK then you got me, they would have had to provide that evidence in court surely? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Mat, it's not that he just posts links to old posts (which would be fair enough), he post links to the same posts continuously. How many times have you heard about his '19 reasons' (for whatever)? I think Adam might be liked a lot better if he wasn't so repetitive. That's all.
I post a link to any thread which relates to and assists what someone else has posted.
-
Not sure Nugs. Why would they try and bluff him? If he turned round and said OK then you got me, they would have had to provide that evidence in court surely? ;D ;D ;D ;D
well they could of been trying to bluff a confession out of him and once theyd got it just use that in court.
but its not strategy that would be likely to work on someone like macdonald and i think they would of known that.
-
It has already been established that it is extremely unlikely Julie Mugford lied. She spoke to Liz Rimmington about what Jeremy had told her. Together they contacted the police. The police knew nothing about the caravan break in, or Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. They had nothing to force her to say anything. Julie was actually brave, telling the police about the caravan break in & risking prosecution, as well as risking prosecution for withholding evidence about the massacre.
Jeremy has always said Julie lied because according to him, he jilted her. That is open to debate. It is also extremely unlikely Julie would lie for such a trival reason in such a serious trial. Anyway scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
-
well they could of been trying to bluff a confession out of him and once theyd got it just use that in court.
but its not strategy that would be likely to work on someone like macdonald and i think they would of known that.
If it was a bluff then it proves they were prepared to go to extreme lengths to the point of lying to a suspect. In my mind its gross misconduct and its leading the suspect into a false situation. A situation that they claimed later never took place. :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
There are three steps to the Jeremy Bamber case some never pass the first and some get lost in the second, some walk past missing the event alltogther.
The first is in my view the simplest and that is to find out if Jeremy is either guilty or innocent.
Jeremy was convicted by the closest of margins one more of the jury voting not guilty and he would be a free man.
The case against him was made from three points the first a silencer which supposily had his sisters blood on it and when fitted to the gun made it too long for for her to shoot herself.
As we know now nothing regarding the silencer adds up there was no blood on it and it did not make the gun too long and none and I mean none of the paperwork relating to the silencer appears real,dates changes,signatures missing and more than one silencer existed, the silencer if fake evidence!
The second part that convicted Jeremy was the statement by his former girlfriend that he had confessed to her ,we now know that she was paid for her story and she received coaching form Essex police and had a deal in which she would nod be convicted for her separate crimes including fraud.we now know nothing Julie Mugford said can be trusted in fact she was given no choice but to testify against Jeremy as Essex police would of convicted her as a accerory,Julie Mugford is the second silent victim in this case other than those who lost their lives on the night.
The last piece of evidence supposedly pointed to Jeremy guilt was Essex police saying that Jeremy never received a call from his dad on the night,again we find this not to be the case in fact there is a record of Jeremy's dad calling 999 saying his daughter had gone berserk with one of his guns to which Essex police dispatched a police car to the farmhouse one minute before Jeremy called the police.
So what is left to point to Jeremy's guilt? er nothing no more evidence no DNA no witnesses in fact over the last 27 years even more details have emerged to exactley why Jeremy has been framed for the murders of his family.
The first step in my view is simple is Jeremy guilty? Jeremy is not guilty, remember innocent until proven guilty and there is nothing that shows this to be the case.
The second part of the Bamber case is more tricky,now that we know that he is innocent we have ask the obvious question why did Essex police convict a man they knew to be innocent? remember if Jeremy is innocent Essex police know because Jeremy was sat outside in the police car while almost the entire force were surrounding the farm house.
This is not easy to find out as Essex police have tried and are trying to keep this from ever being discovered with the distructuion of key evidence and photographs and placing the whole file under pii but we still need to know the detail of what happened for the the final part.
let me use a example of the car macinic, a car macinic must fully understand how a car works not just how to operate it and drive it but in detail how it works and what can go wrong with it,thew will to know detail of of the components and sizes in short they must know everything there is to know so they can complete their next task.
The macinic must be able to fix the the car.
The third and last step of the Bamber case is in my view the hardest, to unwind the knotted ball of string that has taken almost 30 years to become tangled there are many tight knots in this ball many people resisting being unwound and the truth from coming out it is a challenging task.
Many of the people are very powerful and some are even famous but all our lives are derived from the freedom's we enjoy so if we want things so stay this way we need to look into those dark corners and clean them once in awhile, I see it as a safeguard to our lives.
Jeremy is our key to reminding us not to take things for granted,he can offer us more than we can return to him,we need to look for these oppunitys and try to make the most of them.
The final step is to look at ways for the mistakes of the past to be put right and in this process Jeremy must receive his freedom,in a ideal world solutions would be found that helped everyone but I think in the Bamber case there must be losers after all I feel framing Jeremy is akin to murder itself and has consequences attached for those involved.
So why am I telling you this well its to offer you the same reward I have received by my involment in the case,,to get it do what you feel you can do to help you are all free to choose what interests you,if you cannot think of anything simply pass the story on and that will be more than enough.
You have helped just by reading this I hope by understanding the world you live in more now and that enritches your life.
Bambergate if taken as a whole is a very positive event I have expressed this to Jeremy too.
Where on the log does it say there was a '999' call? 'Exchange line' is circled on this log not 999.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html
-
I post a link to any thread which relates to and assists what someone else has posted.
What makes you think it's necessary to do it repeatedly/AT ALL? It comes over NOT as a link to valuable information that you think may be of interest, but as you drawing attention to something you believe to be praiseworthy. Not only do you irritate by the continual posting of links, you repeatedly comment on the threads you've posted by asking if members have read them.
-
I post a link to any thread which relates to and assists what someone else has posted.
No, you post the same links over and over again and they are generally to posts of YOUR opinion.
-
Bambergate asks an interesting question. And makes a bold claim that 'we now know Jeremy is innocent'.
But it is not just the police who have framed Jeremy and not retracted ' -
The police.
The raid team.
The relatives.
Julie Mugford.
Mary Mugford/James Richards/Liz Rimmington.
The lab technicians.
The CCRC, DPP, COA, Courts, the judge.
Barbara Wilson.
The experts.
The anti Jeremy media.
They all apparently worked together to get Jeremy convicted. And keep him there. Not one person has retracted or been proved wrong. Stan Jones passed away recently. The perfect time to retract ? But no he did not. The CCRC rejected Jeremy again in 2012.
In fact the COA reaffirmed they thought the 'jury were right' in 2002. Bob Miller, Barbara Wilson and relatives have all recently said they still believe Jeremy is guilty.
-
So which of Barbara Wilson's statements was a lie?
-
Bambergate asks an interesting question. And makes a bold claim that 'we now know Jeremy is innocent'.
But it is not just the police who have framed Jeremy and not retracted ' -
The police.
The raid team.
The relatives.
Julie Mugford.
Mary Mugford/James Richards/Liz Rimmington.
The lab technicians.
The CCRC, DPP, COA, Courts, the judge.
Barbara Wilson.
The experts.
The anti Jeremy media.
They all apparently worked together to get Jeremy convicted. And keep him there. Not one person has retracted or been proved wrong. Stan Jones passed away recently. The perfect time to retract ? But no he did not. The CCRC rejected Jeremy again in 2012.
In fact the COA reaffirmed they thought the 'jury were right' in 2002. Bob Miller, Barbara Wilson and relatives have all recently said they still believe Jeremy is guilty.
Actually, all of the above would not have needed to be in on a conspiracy (if there was one), the instigators simply needed to make sure they had dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
-
'We now know Jeremy is innocent'. A bold claim from Bambergate. Has he been reading this discussion forum ? Together we have made some important discoveries -
No one can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy.
Jeremy asking for a police escort looks damning for him.
Sheilas legs were pulled after the second shot.
Jeremys best option was to make up the phone call.
Jeremy was extremely evasive, arrogant and uncoperative in his police interviews.
Jeremy had an answering machine.
Nevilles alledged last ten words did Jeremy no favours.
There is a mountain of curious coincidences.
There are a lot of reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy.
There are lots of reasons/facts why Jeremy still protests his innocence.
Mike Gradwell says it is a safe conviction.
Jeremy hated his parents. As testified.
There are lots of reasons why Jeremy has failed to get released on a technicality.
Alledged jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.
It is inconclusive that Jeremy jilted Julie.
The 19 day 1986 trial was not unfair.
Jeremy almost certainly phoned Julie before the police. And before Nevilles call.
Taff Jones had no hard evidence of Jeremys innocence. He was taken off the case.
Julie was not forced to confess. The police had nothing on her.
Neville got a terrible beating.
The relatives did not have the expertise to frame Jeremy.
Julie did not have the confidence to frame Jeremy.
-
Actually, all of the above would not have needed to be in on a conspiracy (if there was one), the instigators simply needed to make sure they had dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
Yes, someone with a strong/MANIPULATIVE(?) enough personality wouldn't have any difficulty in persuading those less strong that this was how it happened. Give them a little while to think about it,. Tell them that they are the only person to hold a particular view. Employ a touch or two of gentle pressure. Encourage them to think they came to the decision all on their own and tell them how intelligent they are. Works in many cases.
-
'We now know Jeremy is innocent'. A bold claim from Bambergate. Has he been reading this discussion forum ? Together we have made some important discoveries -
No one can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy.
Jeremy asking for a police escort looks damning for him.
Sheilas legs were pulled after the second shot.
Jeremys best option was to make up the phone call.
Jeremy was extremely evasive, arrogant and uncoperative in his police interviews.
Jeremy had an answering machine.
Nevilles alledged last ten words did Jeremy no favours.
There is a mountain of curious coincidences.
There are a lot of reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy.
There are lots of reasons/facts why Jeremy still protests his innocence.
Mike Gradwell says it is a safe conviction.
Jeremy hated his parents. As testified.
There are lots of reasons why Jeremy has failed to get released on a technicality.
Alledged jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.
It is inconclusive that Jeremy jilted Julie.
The 19 day 1986 trial was not unfair.
Jeremy almost certainly phoned Julie before the police. And before Nevilles call.
Taff Jones had no hard evidence of Jeremys innocence. He was taken off the case.
Julie was not forced to confess. The police had nothing on her.
Neville got a terrible beating.
The relatives did not have the expertise to frame Jeremy.
Julie did not have the confidence to frame Jeremy.
Adam this re-enforces why I have you on ignore. You have had answers to all of the above.
Of course you can chose to form your own opinion - which is our prerogative as well.
But you obviously you have absolutely no intention what so ever of looking at any other possibilities other than what are in your head .
So why waste your time posting the same "statements" again?
JB is where you want him. You obviously don't want him out of jail and don't believe it will happen - So why bother?
We all have an aim and a reason for being here - you have none? It is all so pointless.
-
Actually, all of the above would not have needed to be in on a conspiracy (if there was one), the instigators simply needed to make sure they had dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
Agree Caroline - I think some people especially the relatives believed he was guilty - so by helping the police they were doing the right thing and also there were benefits to them at the same time. Perhaps even JM thought he had done it - but she embellished her story as that was to her benefit as well.
-
Hi Mat, it's not that he just posts links to old posts (which would be fair enough), he post links to the same posts continuously. How many times have you heard about his '19 reasons' (for whatever)? I think Adam might be liked a lot better if he wasn't so repetitive. That's all.
Hi Caroline, I'd rather him post links than copy and paste things which is what he's going to have to do to sotp his posts being edited. It just seems a bit petty to me and he certainly isn't the only person that repeats himself. People can put him on ignore if they don't want to read his posts but controlling what he can and can't posts just seems petty as long as he isn't breaking any actual rules.
-
Hi Caroline, I'd rather him post links than copy and paste things which is what he's going to have to do to sotp his posts being edited. It just seems a bit petty to me and he certainly isn't the only person that repeats himself. People can put him on ignore if they don't want to read his posts but controlling what he can and can't posts just seems petty as long as he isn't breaking any actual rules.
Links would be fine, least then he could explain why he needs or wants to refer to a particular post. But he copies and pastes the same posts with no explanation.
Of course people repeat themselves but discussing the same subject is a little different to pasting the
same post time after time. He isn't breaking the rules but it is irritating and members have complained. Links might just be the answer - did you hear that Adam? Links! Not cut and pastes!! ;D ;D
-
'We now know Jeremy is innocent'. A bold claim from Bambergate. Has he been reading this discussion forum ? Together we have made some important discoveries
I DOUBT HE'D THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT-
No one can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy.
ACTUALLY THEY HAVE BUT YOU'VE CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT
Jeremy asking for a police escort looks damning for him.
ONLY IF YOU WANT IT TO BE SO
Sheilas legs were pulled after the second shot.
SUSPECTED NOT PROVEN
Jeremys best option was to make up the phone call.
IF HE DID IT HIS BEST OPTION WAS TO SAY NOTHING
Jeremy was extremely evasive, arrogant and uncoperative in his police interviews.
SO?
Jeremy had an answering machine.
SO DO MANY OTHERS
Nevilles alledged last ten words did Jeremy no favours.
ALLEGED. YOU QUOTE THEM INCORRECTLY
There is a mountain of curious coincidences.
YOU'VE CERTAINLY MADE UP ONE OR TWO
There are a lot of reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy.
AND EQUALLY AS MANY WHY HE WOULD
There are lots of reasons/facts why Jeremy still protests his innocence.
WHY SHOULD AN INNOCENT PERSON NOT PROTEST THEIR INNOCENCE?
Mike Gradwell says it is a safe conviction.
WHO SAY'S HE'S RIGHT
Jeremy hated his parents. As testified.
SHOW ME SOMEONE WHO,AT SOME TIME,HASN'T
There are lots of reasons why Jeremy has failed to get released on a technicality.
PROBABLY
Alledged jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.
OR LIE
It is inconclusive that Jeremy jilted Julie.
NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE. IF JULIE FELT DUMPED SHE PROBABLY WAS UNLESS SHE WAS INTO THREESOMES
The 19 day 1986 trial was not unfair.
YOUR OPINION
Jeremy almost certainly phoned Julie before the police. And before Nevilles call
YOUR OPINION.
Taff Jones had no hard evidence of Jeremys innocence. He was taken off the case.
YOU HAVE NO PROOF
Julie was not forced to confess. The police had nothing on her.
SHE GOT IN FIRST BEFORE THEY STARTED LOOKING
Neville got a terrible beating.
YES
The relatives did not have the expertise to frame Jeremy.
THEY DIDN'T NEED IT. BRAINSTORMING WORKS MIRACLES
Julie did not have the confidence to frame Jeremy.
SHE DIDN'T NEED IT. BRAINSTORMING WORKS MIRACLES
-
That is what I was doing. Links to previous threads on here. Which relate to what a poster has posted and assists them.
-
Links would be fine, least then he could explain why he needs or wants to refer to a particular post. But he copies and pastes the same posts with no explanation.
Of course people repeat themselves but discussing the same subject is a little different to pasting the
same post time after time. He isn't breaking the rules but it is irritating and members have complained. Links might just be the answer - did you hear that Adam? Links! Not cut and pastes!! ;D ;D
Links? :-\ that's the point Caroline... he isn't allowed to post links. April edits out anytime he posts links.
-
Links? :-\ that's the point Caroline... he isn't allowed to post links. April edits out anytime he posts links.
Yes 4 links were deleted today. Jansus asked me a question and I tried to assist her.
-
Links? :-\ that's the point Caroline... he isn't allowed to post links. April edits out anytime he posts links.
As Caroline has said, it is irritating. People have complained.
-
As Caroline has said, it is irritating. People have complained.
If you read her post she told him to post links and NOT cut and paste. Which is the opposite of you've been doing with his posts.
-
Yes 4 links were deleted today. Jansus asked me a question and I tried to assist her.
Adam, IMO, you WEREN'T trying to assist. Alias is one of those who has frequently told you how irritated by your links she is. I don't believe there's a poster here who is UNAWARE of your numerous threads and as MOST think they're fiction rather than fact WHY would they wish to b e continually reminded of them?
-
If you read her post she told him to post links and NOT cut and paste. Which is the opposite of you've been doing with his posts.
As Caroline has said, it is irritating. People have complained.
-
Links would be fine, least then he could explain why he needs or wants to refer to a particular post. But he copies and pastes the same posts with no explanation.
Of course people repeat themselves but discussing the same subject is a little different to pasting the
same post time after time. He isn't breaking the rules but it is irritating and members have complained. Links might just be the answer - did you hear that Adam? Links! Not cut and pastes!! ;D ;D
I don't think Caroline could be clearer, April. If you have a problem with links then take it up with her - stop making your own rules up.
"Links would be fine"
"Links might be the answer - Links not cut and pastes."
-
If you read her post she told him to post links and NOT cut and paste. Which is the opposite of you've been doing with his posts.
We haven't discussed it yet, but we have had a lot of complaints and it gets frustrating. We're not always online at the same time - April is doing her best - you can't please everyone BUT I think links are OK as long as he states why he wants to refer to the link and isn't claiming it to be a fact when it's just his opinion.
-
So which of Barbara Wilson's statements was a lie?
She recently claimed to have seen the blood on the silencer in the Channel 5 docu - first time she's ever said that!
-
We haven't discussed it yet, but we have had a lot of complaints and it gets frustrating. We're not always online at the same time - April is doing her best - you can't please everyone BUT I think links are OK as long as he states why he wants to refer to the link and isn't claiming it to be a fact when it's just his opinion.
April is a lone ranger. Issuing bans - then you say a warning should be given first. Forcing her home made rules on Adam. But personal attacks are ignored even when reported - even though she's online all the time.
Is it okay to call someone a gormelss twat? Because that post is on the forum, but that isn't modded. You're smart, Caroline - you know just as well as I do she mods who she dislikes and ignores everything else.
-
It was 'Susan Battetsby's' cheque book.
Anyway. When Julie approached the police, they knew nothing about it. Or 'Jeremy's' caravan break in.
Do you really think it makes Julie look better that it was Susan´s cheque book? She couldn´t even use her own, but talked her friend into using hers. I call that pretty cowardly and low.
-
April is a lone ranger. Issuing bans - then you say a warning should be given first. Forcing her home made rules on Adam. But personal attacks are ignored even when reported - even though she's online all the time.
Is it okay to call someone a gormelss twat? Because that post is on the forum, but that isn't modded. You're smart, Caroline - you know just as well as I do she mods who she dislikes and ignores everything else.
I'm not aware of April having banned anyone? We have discussed his cut and pastes in the past because of the amount of complaints but not links - As I said, I don't see a problem with links as long as he states what the link is for.
I don't know who called someone gormelss twat? But I'm sure April would never call anyone that. Everyone has 'some' bias (including me) and no matter how much you try and stay neutral, it will influence what you do/say to some degree. However, I don't agree that April doesn't like Adam, she is just frustrated by the repetitiveness and the complaints in that respect. Have to admit, I felt the same way not so long ago but haven't be around much these past few weeks due to other commitments.
We'll discus it tomorrow and clarify the situation - but I see no problem with links as ling as there is some clarification to go with it.
-
Do you really think it makes Julie look better that it was Susan´s cheque book? She couldn´t even use her own, but talked her friend into using hers. I call that pretty cowardly and low.
I think it's worse that it was SB's cheque book!
-
If it was a bluff then it proves they were prepared to go to extreme lengths to the point of lying to a suspect. In my mind its gross misconduct and its leading the suspect into a false situation. A situation that they claimed later never took place. :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D
it might considered that today but it was standard practice then.
-
No one can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy.
ACTUALLY THEY HAVE BUT YOU'VE CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT
That's false. People claim they explained it and refuse to discuss it again and can't point to where they allegedly did so.
One person claimed she was in the bathroom maybe which not only made no sense but resulted in many more questions.
I have presented a littany of points about such for weeks but no Bamber supporter will adress the points.
Jeremy asking for a police escort looks damning for him.
ONLY IF YOU WANT IT TO BE SO
No it is objectively strange and even more strange to sit on the side of the road, wait fo rpolice to pass by and then wait another 3 minutes before getting back on the road to go meet them.
Even more strange than that was his testimony that at first he didn't think there was any emergency or anything wrong so he didn't see any great need to go there to investigate but after he thought about it for a while then he realized it was and at that point he became too scared to go so called police.
Sheilas legs were pulled after the second shot.
SUSPECTED NOT PROVEN
If she had been seated where she was when found then she would have fallen flat upon being shot and would not have bled down her shoulder and arm. She had to be seated against something and moved flat after she was dead, the blood evidence proves it. Moreover, after she was dead the bible was placed in the pool of blood that formed and opened and closed repeatedly. Obviously she coudl not have done that. Nor could she have put the suppressor away. There are 3 distinct pieces of evidence that prove she can't have kill herself.
Jeremys best option was to make up the phone call.
IF HE DID IT HIS BEST OPTION WAS TO SAY NOTHING
But Jeremy showed he was incapable of that, baiting police by leaving them notes and making sure they saw him break in through windows. He was an arrogant ass and it burned him. He clealrly made up leaving the gun out, the bullets and many other things. He staged the bullets without even bothering to count how many there were and to make sure there were not too many.
Jeremy was extremely evasive, arrogant and uncoperative in his police interviews.
SO?
This ties in with the previous. If he wanted to convince peopel of his innocence then the way he wacted was not the way to do it. Games don't make you look cute they make you look guilty. Especially all his no comments when it came to things that were incriminating.
Jeremy had an answering machine.
SO DO MANY OTHERS
Why would Nevill phone someone whose answering machine would pick up before he could answer? Chances were Jeremy could not hear the phone from his bedroom or that he woudl even wakeup from it. That is bad enough but even worse the answering machine would pick up before he could. That is even more reaosn to think Jeremy won't wake up and answer since it was both far away and would not ring long.
Even if not for the answering machine it would take him several minutes to wake up and go downstairs to answer. Why would he call someone who would take so long to answer given that he had no idea how long he would have before Sheila found him. Why would he not instead use the time to arm himself? The kitchen had knives, guns and other potential weapons. Sheila might be provoked to shoot him seeing him on the phone.
Indeed SHeila allegedly caught him but amazingly she didn't fire. A crazy lady catches him on the phone but instead of shooting she allegedly walked over to the phone, held the gun with only one hand (giving Nevill the golden opportunity to disarm her but he didn't take it) and simply held down the buttons so the phone hung up and then made Nevill put it down. For some unexplained reason she allegedly wanted him upstairs in the bedroom with June before she opened fire.
None of this makes an ounce of sense nor does calling Jeremy at all. Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy allegedly had the necessity to disarm her and opportunity since she was right there with him supposedly. Why would Nevill want to wait 20 minutes for Jeremy to arrive and find a way instead of disarming her hiself before she could shoot? Why would he want his son at risk too? Why would he call a son he knows doesn't get along with Sheial who she would be more apt to shoot than any other family member? If anyone cause cause more agitation it would be Jeremy. Nevill was the one who made her calm, Jeremy had the opposite effect. Julie even got along better with Sheila than Jeremy did.
There are a lot of reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy.
AND EQUALLY AS MANY WHY HE WOULD
No there isn't I just listed a wole bunch why he wouldn't have called Jeremy and yet another is that he didn't trust Jeremy. I would love to see this list of why he would have in equal numbers. You are all talk so I won't hold my breath waiting.
Alledged jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.
OR LIE
The deciding factors are the credibility of the story itself and any corroboration. In this case we have a guy who let Julie in on various crimes he committed including robbing his parents so it is credible he told her about his desire and plans to kill them. Moreover, if she were going to lie and make up a story then she would not be likely to make up a tale with the great level of deatil she provided. Moveor it woudl make no sense at all to make up the hitman claims let alone to ID the supposed hitman so that police could prove he was not involved. The claim he told her a hitman did it but then slowly let the truth slip out about how he did it is credible. The fact SHeial can't have killed herself helps provide corroboration to the story.
The 19 day 1986 trial was not unfair.
YOUR OPINION
Despite all the claims here about his trial being unfair no one has produced a shred of evidence to establish it was unfair. That is what matters at the end of the day proof it was unfair and not a soul had produced any solid evidence to substantiate the claim.
Jeremy almost certainly phoned Julie before the police. And before Nevilles call
YOUR OPINION.
His opinion is supported by evidence. Julie's roomates generally agree that the call was around 3AM whereas the call to police was not until 3:26. The least certain roomate said maybe the call was as late as 3:30 but she thought it was earlier and the others all say it was. Those who claim to have bene most sure say it was around 3 which is the concensus.
Neville got a terrible beating.
YES
Had SHeila been the one who gave him tha tbeating she not only would have gotten his blood spatte ron her body and clothing, she also would have damaged her hands and some fingernails int he process, particuarly as the stock broke right where the killer would have been holding it. Jeremy had a reaosn to wear gloves and reportedly did and such would protect his hands. Sheila would not have had any reason to be wearing gloves nor were any gloves found that she could have been wearing.
The relatives did not have the expertise to frame Jeremy.
THEY DIDN'T NEED IT. BRAINSTORMING WORKS MIRACLES
Julie did not have the confidence to frame Jeremy.
SHE DIDN'T NEED IT. BRAINSTORMING WORKS MIRACLES
Only the lab had the know how to frame Jeremy by eliminating blood from the rifle and planting blood in the suppressor. Only the lab knew about drawback and which would would result in it.
The notion of such a grand conspiracy is ridiculous so naturally completely lacking in proof.
-
I think we'd all like to see the proof that you have as you've said it often enough now. If the police were having a hard time finding any,then it's down to you !!