Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on June 22, 2014, 09:15:AM
-
The consensus seems to be everyone died between 3.20am - 3.48am, if Sheila committed the massacre. Sheila then having a shower, changing, somehow shooting herself with the silencer attached, putting the silencer away, painting her nails. Then waiting for the raid team to enter before going upstairs and firing her second shot.
If it was Jeremy what time did everyone die ?
After his 10am phone call to Julie, Jeremy would have to get prepared and cycle to WHF without being seen. Doing this at 11am is too early. There is still a slim chance someone would see him cycle over. People at WHF may still be awake at 11.00pm. The same would also apply to a lesser extent at midnight.
Jeremy rang Julie at 3.00am. Either as soon as he arrived back as he was so hyped up & excited. Or after he had cleaned up. Which means he left WHF around 2.30am. This suggests the massacre took place at 2.00am. No one would see him travel to and from WHF at that time. Everyone should be in bed in a deep sleep at this time. The perfect time for a multiple execution.
The massacre period was quick. Jeremy almost certainly entering the main bedroom first and firing all 11 bullets. There was a brief but brutal kitchen fight before Jeremy had to reload. He then quickly fired another 3 bullets into Neville. Then went upstairs and fired 8 bullets into the asleep twins.
It was then time for another reload. Sheila in a sedated state according to the 2002 appeal was either lead, carried or already in the main bedroom. Jeremy shooting her twice, taking the silencer off and putting it at the back of the gun cupboard. Pulling her legs and then putting the gun and bible by/on her.
Does everyone agree the most likely time everyone died was between 2.00am - 2.30am ?
-
NO,I don't agree that everyone died at that time !!
-
What time do you think everyone died if it was Jeremy ?
It would have to be between 11pm - 2.30am. That is the period where Jeremy cannot prove where he was.
He said he watched television, but what he watched at what time did not match the actual programme times. After watching TV he said he then went to bed. Sleeping 'like a log' before surprisingly being woken by his downstairs phone.
-
What time do you think everyone died if it was Jeremy ?
It would have to be between 11pm - 2.30am. That is the period where Jeremy cannot prove where he was.
He said he watched television, but what he watched at what time did not match the actual programme times. After watching TV he said he then went to bed. Sleeping 'like a log' before surprisingly being woken by his downstairs phone.
Yes it did!
-
Elaborate on the bold statements you make please.
The police disputed what he said in the interview transcripts. Anyway the programme discussed was on hours before the 2.00am - 3.00am period.
I suspect Jeremy may have had the TV on in the background while he was getting ready. Do you agree ?
-
Elaborate on the bold statements you make please.
The police disputed what he said in the interview transcripts. Anyway the programme discussed was on hours before the 2.00am - 3.00am period.
I suspect Jeremy may have had the TV on in the background while he was getting ready. Do you agree ?
I don't have to elaborate on anything - you're wrong! You brought up the TV programming and now you're dismissing your own point ;D ;D. I have no idea what he was doing but was able to give a good account of what he watched.
-
What time do you think everyone died if it was Jeremy ?
It would have to be between 11pm - 2.30am. That is the period where Jeremy cannot prove where he was.
He said he watched television, but what he watched at what time did not match the actual programme times. After watching TV he said he then went to bed. Sleeping 'like a log' before surprisingly being woken by his downstairs phone.
It wouldn't have had to have been between 11 and 2.30 at all ! What about Nevilles' call ??
-
It wouldn't have had to have been between 11 and 2.30 at all ! What about Nevilles' call ??
Neville's call was at 3.20am. If Jeremy massacred everyone after 2.30am, he would have had to have staged the scene, cycled back and rang Julie. All before 3.20am. That is really pushing it.
-
I don't have to elaborate on anything - you're wrong! You brought up the TV programming and now you're dismissing your own point ;D ;D. I have no idea what he was doing but was able to give a good account of what he watched.
Jeremy was even hazy about what was on TV when everyone agrees he was at home at around 11pm. Other things on his mind, preparing. Or both ?
-
Jeremy was even hazy about what was on TV when everyone agrees he was at home at around 11pm. Other things on his mind, preparing. Or both ?
Or tired? Had been working 14 hours...
-
Or tired? Had been working 14 hours...
I doubt if he was even asked about what he watched until his second interviews ( a month later) so a bit of a non starter really ;)
I doubt if Adam could reel off what he watched a week ago with any accuracy.
-
I doubt if he was even asked about what he watched until his second interviews ( a month later) so a bit of a non starter really ;)
I doubt if Adam could reel off what he watched a week ago with any accuracy.
actually it was in his first statements so I stand corrected -but I can not see where anyone said he was wrong - so source please Adam
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
Page 40.
Must dash.
-
Neville's call was at 3.20am. If Jeremy massacred everyone after 2.30am, he would have had to have staged the scene, cycled back and rang Julie. All before 3.20am. That is really pushing it.
Cycled ? Get real !
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5456.0.html
Must dash X 2.
-
bye 8)
-
This is a very good example of bias on the part of people who claim to be objective. The same people who like to use "what if Jeremy is innocent" and want people to go along and then respond to questions.
This is easy to answer.
If Jeremy is guilty he clearly would have killed everyone by 2:45AM and likely sooner since not only did he have to travel at least 15 minutes to arrive at home to make the call to Julie around 3AM he clearly played around with the crime scene for a while.
Jeremy supporters refuse to the hilt to even consider he could be guilty for the sake of argument. That shows extreme bias.
People refuse to consider the possibility he could be guilty no matter what and then try to conceal they are acting purely out of bias and invent complete nonsense to try to pretend they have some rational basis for their options like Alias saying she would never believe he is guilty based on the ABSURD reasoning that he would be too scared of dogs barking and giving him away.
Aside from being absurd Alias completely contradicts herself saying bullets would not be heard fired in a nearby room or outside because the rooms are soundproof but a dog could be heard, would definitely bark and upon finding their armed son he would not be able to control them though Sheila was able to do so.
-
This is a very good example of bias on the part of people who claim to be objective. The same people who like to use "what if Jeremy is innocent" and want people to go along and then respond to questions.
This is easy to answer.
If Jeremy is guilty he clearly would have killed everyone by 2:45AM and likely sooner since not only did he have to travel at least 15 minutes to arrive at home to make the call to Julie around 3AM he clearly played around with the crime scene for a while.
Jeremy supporters refuse to the hilt to even consider he could be guilty for the sake of argument. That shows extreme bias.
People refuse to consider the possibility he could be guilty no matter what and then try to conceal they are acting purely out of bias and invent complete nonsense to try to pretend they have some rational basis for their options like Alias saying she would never believe he is guilty based on the ABSURD reasoning that he would be too scared of dogs barking and giving him away.
Aside from being absurd Alias completely contradicts herself saying bullets would not be heard fired in a nearby room or outside because the rooms are soundproof but a dog could be heard, would definitely bark and upon finding their armed son he would not be able to control them though Sheila was able to do so.
But of course you are siting possibilities that may not be true. JM's first statement to police was that Jeremt phoned at 3.30am. Another assumption you make is that in order for Jeremy to get home he must have used the bike. To call someone esle absurd just because their view is different to your own is a little absurd in itself would you not agree?
-
But of course you are siting possibilities that may not be true. JM's first statement to police was that Jeremt phoned at 3.30am. Another assumption you make is that in order for Jeremy to get home he must have used the bike. To call someone esle absurd just because their view is different to your own is a little absurd in itself would you not agree?
JM wrote around 3:30AM and lied in that statement in an effort to aid Jeremy. She didn't know the exact time which is why she asked her roomates. Her roomates are the ones who were more certain about the time insisting it was around 3. Two say it was 3 another who is not as certain as them thought 3:15.
As for the bike, I don't assume he had to use it. In fact, at numerous times I stated I would not have bothere dbecause at that hour few people are on the road and are unlikely to be on the street to see you let alone to wake up and look out a window to see what car parked. His neighbors didn't state they heard or saw him leave to go to WHF. Since they didn't know he left why would they have to have heard him arrive back hom by car?
He probably did use a bike though because there is no reason for him to have stolen his mother's bike (that she bought recently) and to take it by car to his house to use. Why would she have bought it for herself and then immediately let him take it. The mud on the side of the tires suggestes it had been used at WHF recently moreover. His claims of having had it for weeks which means right afte rhis mother bought it make no sense.
So while he had no need to use a bike instead of a car he likely did so because HE was under the impression using a car would be more apt to someone seeing or hearing him come and go. I would have used a car simply and the fact his neighbors didn't hear him leave vindicates my own choice of how I would have traveled.
-
JM wrote around 3:30AM and lied in that statement in an effort to aid Jeremy. She didn't know the exact time which is why she asked her roomates. Her roomates are the ones who were more certain about the time insisting it was around 3. Two say it was 3 another who is not as certain as them thought 3:15.
As for the bike, I don't assume he had to use it. In fact, at numerous times I stated I would not have bothere dbecause at that hour few people are on the road and are unlikely to be on the street to see you let alone to wake up and look out a window to see what car parked. His neighbors didn't state they heard or saw him leave to go to WHF. Since they didn't know he left why would they have to have heard him arrive back hom by car?
He probably did use a bike though because there is no reason for him to have stolen his mother's bike (that she bought recently) and to take it by car to his house to use. Why would she have bought it for herself and then immediately let him take it. The mud on the side of the tires suggestes it had been used at WHF recently moreover. His claims of having had it for weeks which means right afte rhis mother bought it make no sense.
So while he had no need to use a bike instead of a car he likely did so because HE was under the impression using a car would be more apt to someone seeing or hearing him come and go. I would have used a car simply and the fact his neighbors didn't hear him leave vindicates my own choice of how I would have traveled.
I suggest it was just that. She did not know the time. At least one other occupant of the house that JM was in testified the same time of 3.30am.
Where the bike is concerned there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. You are just presuming that he used a bike because it suits your own scenario. My mate used to say, 2Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody has one". And as far as I can see after weighing things up carefully in my own mind is that what you are saying is just that. An opinion among many.
-
Its possible among the rooms upturned a clock or anything showing the time may have stopped that alone may answer some questions, a murderer would take extra care not to knock such devices.
-
I suggest it was just that. She did not know the time. At least one other occupant of the house that JM was in testified the same time of 3.30am.
Where the bike is concerned there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. You are just presuming that he used a bike because it suits your own scenario. My mate used to say, 2Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody has one". And as far as I can see after weighing things up carefully in my own mind is that what you are saying is just that. An opinion among many.
I am afraid it is just too much of a coincidence that Jeremy put his mothers bike in his car, and took it back to his home. Three days before the massacre.
It is circumstantial evidence.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5456.0.html
-
I am afraid it is just too much of a coincidence that Jeremy put his mothers bike in his car, and took it back to his home. Three days before the massacre.
It is circumstantial evidence.
It isn't circumstantial evidence at all.It was just bad-timing on Jeremys' part that the tragedy should have happened when it did.
It's all guesswork,nothing more.
-
I suggest it was just that. She did not know the time. At least one other occupant of the house that JM was in testified the same time of 3.30am.
Where the bike is concerned there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. You are just presuming that he used a bike because it suits your own scenario. My mate used to say, 2Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody has one". And as far as I can see after weighing things up carefully in my own mind is that what you are saying is just that. An opinion among many.
I am afraid is is almost certain that Jeremy phoned Julie before the police. Even Jeremy at first said this. Before changing his mind.
The 2002 appeal could not believe he phoned Julie at all.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
-
Was the 2002 appeal at a loss why there was no dna at the scene pointing to Jeremy?
-
I am afraid is is almost certain that Jeremy phoned Julie before the police. Even Jeremy at first said this. Before changing his mind.
The 2002 appeal could not believe he phoned Julie at all.
What was so bad in everyones' eyes that Jeremy phoned Julie ? He asked her what he should do,given that his father wasn't keen on authority,namely the police.
Why the suspicion ? Would it have been the same if he'd phoned a relative ? He may well have done if the family had been a close one.
-
What was so bad in everyones' eyes that Jeremy phoned Julie ? He asked her what he should do,given that his father wasn't keen on authority,namely the police.
Why the suspicion ? Would it have been the same if he'd phoned a relative ? He may well have done if the family had been a close one.
He was asked why hd did not phone nearby farm workers, relatives or 999.
Jeremy said 'it did no occur to him'.
The police also asked him why he phoned Julie.
Jeremy said 'no comment'.
-
He was asked why hd did not phone nearby farm workers, relatives or 999.
Jeremy said 'it did no occur to him'.
The police also asked him why he phoned Julie.
Jeremy said 'no comment'.
No comment because he didn't want to appear to be a wally phoning his girlfriend for advice !
-
I am afraid it is just too much of a coincidence that Jeremy put his mothers bike in his car, and took it back to his home. Three days before the massacre.
It is circumstantial evidence.
It's guesswork on your part Adam. You are attaching something important to the bike because it fits in with your own scenario. If it didn't you would have no interest in it at all.
-
He was asked why hd did not phone nearby farm workers, relatives or 999.
Jeremy said 'it did no occur to him'.
The police also asked him why he phoned Julie.
Jeremy said 'no comment'.
I'm afraid what he said has absolutely no bearing on the matter at all. Different people do different things for different reasons. What does it prove just because he said no comment. It seemed like a stupid question even to me. Cops are like that. They have a special talent to piss people off.
-
No comment because he didn't want to appear to be a wally phoning his girlfriend for advice !
But Julie said he did not ask for advice.
-
But Julie said he did not ask for advice.
But she gave it all the same, "Go back to bed" she said.
-
Nothing circumstantial about the log regarding what Insp.Norman wrote :
Ref. Firearms incident.
Following Update.
1 ( one ) dead male
1 ( one ) dead female found on entry to premises.
Request 1-Soco to attend.
2-Ch.supt.Divisional to attend ( on way )
3-Divisional DCI to attend.
4-Police surgeon to attend.
5-Coroners Officer informed only.
-
The above was logged at 07.38 on 7/8/85 by officer 3219.
-
Nothing circumstantial about the log regarding what Insp.Norman wrote :
Ref. Firearms incident.
Following Update.
1 ( one ) dead male
1 ( one ) dead female found on entry to premises.
Request 1-Soco to attend.
2-Ch.supt.Divisional to attend ( on way )
3-Divisional DCI to attend.
4-Police surgeon to attend.
5-Coroners Officer informed only.
I find it rather intriguing as to why certain persons on the forum see themselves as very intelligent, yet ignore things like this. Rather believing the revised versions put out by the police. Now me possessing an enquiring nature am not satisfied with such pat answers, but would rather question these things until they give up the truth of the matter. There are just too many so called mistakes like this to be true.
-
He was asked why hd did not phone nearby farm workers, relatives or 999.
Jeremy said 'it did no occur to him'.
The police also asked him why he phoned Julie.
Jeremy said 'no comment'.
At various times he said various things. At trial he suggested he didn't call police right away or 999 because at first he didn't think the matter was too serious but after he thought about it a while then he decided it was serious so better phone police but he didn't know 999 would get a faster result.
Jeremy getting a gun out to shoot rabbits that had no moderator or scope makes no sense for a variety of reasons
Leaving the gun and bullets in the kitchen makes no sense
Nevill or June seeing the gun in the kitchen and leaving it there makes no sense
If Sheila actually had a gun on Nevill:
Nevill calling Jeremy makes no sense
Jeremy recieving such a call and phoning Julie makes no sense
Jeremy asking police to pick him up makes no sense and then waiting on the side of the road for them to pass and after 3 minutes go by to get back on the road and pull up to the cops makes no sense
Jeremy's actions only make sense if he is the killer and make sense as follows:
1) to lie and say he left the gun out to pretend Sheila would have had a weapon of opportunity to grab because: 1) she would not be liekly to go to the closet to get a gun herself 2) if she was seen loading the magazine then the gun would have been taken away so pretending she had a weapon of opportunity with a loaded magazine nearby was essential to try to sell his story
2) the Call from Nevill made up for 2 reasons 1) to frame Sheila 2) create an alibi of sorts pretending he was home at the time of the murders
3) to try to pretend that the call actually happened and that he did in fact receive it at home not merely call police from WHF and then walk outside and pretend he just drove there and thus try to document his alibi he did 2 things he 1) called Julie so he could say I really did receive a call I phoned Julie to tell her about it you can even ask her about it and 2) asked police to pick him up so they could establish he had been at home then when that failed waited in the side of the road for them to pass by so they could see him pull up several minites after him so they could say he arrived after so must have been at home like he claims. His second call to Julie was to tell her not to go to work so that police could question her and she could support his acocunt that he claimed Nevill had called.
If he didn't think it was that serious why would he call Julie? If he did think it was serious then he still would have had no reason to call Julie. He had no reason at all to call Julie, make sure police go by or do
other things he did like lie about Sheila having fired every gun in the house. Everything was calculated to give him an alibi of sorts and to frame Sheila.
-
At 08.10 -house now been thoroughly searched by firearms team.
Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found.Five dead in total ( info from Duty Insp.HIQR )
So------------do dead bodies move,or what ? As after it was stated that only Neville was found in the kitchen,,but it failed to mention ON ENTRY.
-
But she gave it all the same, "Go back to bed" she said.
Good advice at 3am.
-
At 08.10 -house now been thoroughly searched by firearms team.
Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found.Five dead in total ( info from Duty Insp.HIQR )
So------------do dead bodies move,or what ? As after it was stated that only Neville was found in the kitchen,,but it failed to mention ON ENTRY.
June's body was found shortly after Nevill's using a periscope. Later they found Sheila and the 3 boys.
-
But Julie said he did not ask for advice.
He did too. He asked if he should phone the police-------which he did after JM didn't appear interested !
-
June's body was found shortly after Nevill's using a periscope. Later they found Sheila and the 3 boys.
Why, was he in a submarine? ::)
-
He's having a laugh isn't he ? Periscope ? Wet suit,flippers,submabicycle ? Goggles in case of blood spatter ?
-
Why, was he in a submarine? ::)
The armed officers looked in the hall and open rooms from the stairs using a periscope so that they were prepared for what to encounter when they went upstairs.
-
Why, was he in a submarine? ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The armed officers looked in the hall and open rooms from the stairs using a periscope so that they were prepared for what to encounter when they went upstairs.
They used a mirror-----------------plank !
-
At 08.10 -house now been thoroughly searched by firearms team.
Now confirmed a further 3 bodies found.Five dead in total ( info from Duty Insp.HIQR )
So------------do dead bodies move,or what ? As after it was stated that only Neville was found in the kitchen,,but it failed to mention ON ENTRY.
I believe there is a word missing - 32 minutes after entry did they not say 3 bodies upstairs?
So they should have corrected first "mistake" and said 4 bodies upstairs.
-
I believe there is a word missing - 32 minutes after entry did they not say 3 bodies upstairs?
So they should have corrected first "mistake" and said 4 bodies upstairs.
Do you agree with Jeremy that Sheila was in the kitchen after shooting herself once. Recovered conciousness when the raid team arrived. Then went upstairs without being seen. And shot herself the second time ?
-
Or do you agree that Sheila was dead in the kitchen. The police picked her up and took her upstairs ? Quite why they would do this I do not know.
-
Possibly. Anything's possible,we WEREN'T there !!
-
Correct. We were not there.
Jeremy and his supporters are disputing what the police and raid team have said in their statements. Most of the disputes from Jeremy coming decades later.
-
Correct. We were not there.
Jeremy and his supporters are disputing what the police and raid team have said in their statements. Most of the disputes from Jeremy coming decades later.
QUESTIONING Adam.
-
Possibly. Anything's possible,we WEREN'T there !!
You must say that in a gruff American accent lookout, "Yoo werrrrrrn't theeeeeer".
-
QUESTIONING Adam.
I question the raid team statement because they are too perfect. They have almost certainly been "harmonized" so they all agree with each other. Another reason why it would be beneficial for all of us to hear the raid team audio tapes of when they entered the property. But then again they may promote other questions?
-
Audio tapes ? You mean they did a running commentary. Thought silence would be the order of the day.
Do not see why the raid teams statements should not all match. They entered a farm house. Everyone was dead. It wasn't 'Black Hawk Down'.
-
Audio tapes ? You mean they did a running commentary. Thought silence would be the order of the day.
Do not see why the raid teams statements should not all match. They entered a farm house. Everyone was dead. It wasn't 'Black Hawk Down'.
Didn't you know there were audio tapes made? You surprise me. Yes they did do a running commentary of a kind. The written logs are supposed to be a transcript of them? But personally I'd like to listen to the tapes and make up my own mind.
-
The TV programme was on after JB originally said he went to bed, so the police were just trying to find discrepancies in his statements.
I guess it means that the earliest JB went to bed (if he watched the programme) was at ten past midnight.
-
Didn't you know there were audio tapes made? You surprise me. Yes they did do a running commentary of a kind. The written logs are supposed to be a transcript of them? But personally I'd like to listen to the tapes and make up my own mind.
but i dont think were allowed to are we.
-
I'm not sure how much was recorded, but wasn't it claimed that tapes were recorded over because they weren't requested for 30 days?
-
I'm not sure how much was recorded, but wasn't it claimed that tapes were recorded over because they weren't requested for 30 days?
Someone said on the forum that there were six copies made? I believe they were ordered by a judge that they were not to be destroyed because of an ongoing appeal. I can't remember precisely?
-
I'm not sure how much was recorded, but wasn't it claimed that tapes were recorded over because they weren't requested for 30 days?
I think it was the tapes of the call/calls to police that were recorded and disposed of after 30 days , Harters. If not requested within 30 days they were taped over but as Jeremy wasn't arrested or charged within this time limit then the tapes of his phone call to police and Neville's call ,if this one did happen, were not requested and therefore taped over.
The audio tapes of the raid are a different matter and are not the ones disposed of.
-
I think it was the tapes of the call/calls to police that were recorded and disposed of after 30 days , Harters. If not requested within 30 days they were taped over but as Jeremy wasn't arrested or charged within this time limit then the tapes of his phone call to police and Neville's call ,if this one did happen, were not requested and therefore taped over.
correct they were recorded over
The audio tapes of the raid are a different matter and are not the ones disposed of.
I have not seen any evidence to establish they taped the radio calls of the fire team. There certianly is no reaosn to believe they exist today because the defense would have requested copies. The defense went to court for access to all records related to such and received a copy of the transcript that was made of the calls by someone who was supposedly listening and recording by hand. Why would someone be recording by hand if it was being tape recorded?
At any rate the defense won access to the records but later demanded to see the originals to make sure they were not edited. Why would the defense demand originals instea dof the tapes to compare to the copies if such tapes actually existed? They seem to be one of those wivestales that this case has so many of floating around.
-
correct they were recorded over
I have not seen any evidence to establish they taped the radio calls of the fire team. There certianly is no reaosn to believe they exist today because the defense would have requested copies. The defense went to court for access to all records related to such and received a copy of the transcript that was made of the calls by someone who was supposedly listening and recording by hand. Why would someone be recording by hand if it was being tape recorded?
At any rate the defense won access to the records but later demanded to see the originals to make sure they were not edited. Why would the defense demand originals instea dof the tapes to compare to the copies if such tapes actually existed? They seem to be one of those wivestales that this case has so many of floating around.
I believe they did scipio and they were denied them as they are being held under PII. Even the CCRC asked for them to be released, but Essex Police flatly refused. I remember reading of this, but please don't ask me who wrote it cos I can't remember? But I think that was the general gist of it?
-
I believe they did scipio and they were denied them as they are being held under PII. Even the CCRC asked for them to be released, but Essex Police flatly refused. I remember reading of this, but please don't ask me who wrote it cos I can't remember? But I think that was the general gist of it?
I can't find any reference from the defense that requested or argued over the release of tapes or any records of tapes being denied because of PII. Indeed there would be no basis for a court to force release of the written transcript of a recording but to allow withholding the recording that contains the same exact information on the basis of PII. If a court ruled that PII prevented release it would prevent release of both the recording and transcribing of that recording.
This appears to be one of those things made up by Jeremy defenders and not coming from his lawyers or the legal filings.
-
Because the defence probably weren't aware that the tapes existed. Like a lot of other things that they were unaware of.They were trying to fight the case with one hand behind their backs.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5213.0.html
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5200.0.html
-
Adam, if you're going to post links please state why they are there - at least.
-
Ok. Will do.
Those links related to Lookout claiming the trial was unfair.
-
Believe it or not,I've had to go and see a schizophrenic who keeps saying there's a monkey in the house ! I've been 3 times already,she's hallucinating badly,poor soul.
-
Believe it or not,I've had to go and see a schizophrenic who keeps saying there's a monkey in the house ! I've been 3 times already,she's hallucinating badly,poor soul.
:'(
-
:'(
She's pretty bad,Alias and said she was going to ring pest control. I've been in there 3 times already to try and reassure her but she's not having any.
We got her into hospital last year to be assessed,but she made a run for it,saying there was nothing wrong with her. All her lights are blazing,so I can see a sleepless night ahead.
To be honest,she looks a bit scary tonight.
-
She's pretty bad,Alias and said she was going to ring pest control. I've been in there 3 times already to try and reassure her but she's not having any.
We got her into hospital last year to be assessed,but she made a run for it,saying there was nothing wrong with her. All her lights are blazing,so I can see a sleepless night ahead.
To be honest,she looks a bit scary tonight.
Call a doctor.
-
Call a doctor.
I will do if she starts kicking off. Jeeze,you should see inside the house ! It reflects her tortured mind.
-
I will do if she starts kicking off. Jeeze,you should see inside the house ! It reflects her tortured mind.
Got to go now - hope the best. Take care.
-
Got to go now - hope the best. Take care.
Okay,Alias,and thanks,you too.x
-
I can't find any reference from the defense that requested or argued over the release of tapes or any records of tapes being denied because of PII. Indeed there would be no basis for a court to force release of the written transcript of a recording but to allow withholding the recording that contains the same exact information on the basis of PII. If a court ruled that PII prevented release it would prevent release of both the recording and transcribing of that recording.
This appears to be one of those things made up by Jeremy defenders and not coming from his lawyers or the legal filings.
I can't be sure, but I believe I got the information from ngb? He was/is one of Jeremy's legal advisors and is in possession of a lot of information that joe public aren't clued in about. But as I said before I can't actually remember where I got the information on that one?
Having said that I must admit that several things being held as common knowledge on the forum have turned out to be just hearsay, much to my dismay.
-
I can't be sure, but I believe I got the information from ngb? He was/is one of Jeremy's legal advisors and is in possession of a lot of information that joe public aren't clued in about. But as I said before I can't actually remember where I got the information on that one?
Having said that I must admit that several things being held as common knowledge on the forum have turned out to be just hearsay, much to my dismay.
Aside from being less than reliable because you heard it through the grapevine the bigger issue is that if the recording were privileged than the transcript of the recording would be privileged as well. So the fact the entire unredacted transcript was released seriously undermines the claim that there was a recording that was withheld. The only chance at all where a recording would be withheld but not the transcript of such recording on the basis of privilege would be if a partial transcript were relased with all the privileged parts redacted. When that is the case you either see blocks of black over the redacted portions or much less frequently things like XXXredactedXXX, in either case you are well aware you have a copy missing a great deal. Not only did they not redact the transcript, they gave the defense other documents related to it that were not requested.
-
Aside from being less than reliable because you heard it through the grapevine the bigger issue is that if the recording were privileged than the transcript of the recording would be privileged as well. So the fact the entire unredacted transcript was released seriously undermines the claim that there was a recording that was withheld. The only chance at all where a recording would be withheld but not the transcript of such recording on the basis of privilege would be if a partial transcript were relased with all the privileged parts redacted. When that is the case you either see blocks of black over the redacted portions or much less frequently things like XXXredactedXXX, in either case you are well aware you have a copy missing a great deal. Not only did they not redact the transcript, they gave the defense other documents related to it that were not requested.
I will ask ngb about it. I'm sure I got it from him? He came to the case late in the day and found that all the case papers were in a terrible mess and it took a great deal of his time to put them all in order. If I find time I'll give him a call later.