Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Martin on July 10, 2014, 08:17:AM
-
Reversing the burden of proof.
It is a common misconception that people have that the burden of proof is reversed at appeal. In the context of an alleged miscarriage of justice, people who support the conviction often ask for proof of innocence, as if that were required to justify the opinion that a man was wrongly convicted. It is, in fact, fairly standard pro guilt rhetoric.
Once a man has been convicted, it is very difficult to overturn the conviction, even when it becomes clearly established that the evidence used to convict him was flawed.
To prove that the evidence upon which the conviction is based was unreliable, or even downright fraudulent, does not of itself prove that the defendant is innocent and people committed to guilt, typically like to emphasise that point.
Nickos and Caroline
Where the Bamber case is concerned, some pro guilt people such as Nickos and Caroline, at this site, actually support the view that Bamber is guilty, while at the same time freely admitting that they think that the evidence used to convict him was fabricated.
Caroline has made a statements like these on a many occasions. I quote from memory.
“Even if the silencer evidence was faked, that does not prove he is innocent.”
“I think he’s guilty, but that he was framed.”
There is to my mind a basic moral objection to this kind of talk when it becomes repetitive and part of a campaign to support the conviction against the supporters of the defendant who are trying their level best to succeed against so much that is stacked against them, including in this case manifest corruption.
Of course, a person could just happen to hold that opinion and just make that comment spontaneously, as it were. But I am not here talking about advocating rules against making such a comment, but only about the repeated use of that form of rhetoric as a propaganda tool, as it were, to help defend the conviction in the face of evidence which should lead to it being quashed.
It should always be remembered that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt and that the defendant is not required by law to prove his innocence.
-
“But he still might be guilty.”
To repeatedly emphasise that proving that the silencer evidence was faked does not prove that Bamber is innocent, plays on the average person’s lack of knowledge of the law. It makes it sound as if the defendant is required to prove his innocence and many will just assume that that is so.
An acquittal resulting from a lack of evidence is NOT one based upon a “technicality“. But people will say “I would hate to see him get released on a technicality“, meaning that, somewhat cruelly, they would like to see him to remain in prison, even with no evidence against him, unless there is proof that he is innocent . Caroline is encouraging, as opposed to discouraging, that kind of thinking.
Could the authorities still manage to keep Bamber in jail, even if it became official that the silencer evidence was faked? Caroline certainly appears to think so and also appears to support such an intention.
“Even if the silencer evidence was faked that does not prove that he is innocent. It does raise some questions though.”
As if it didn’t, obviously, mean that the conviction should, in such a circumstance, be thrown out.
-
Reversing the burden of proof.
It is a common misconception that people have that the burden of proof is reversed at appeal. In the context of an alleged miscarriage of justice, people who support the conviction often ask for proof of innocence, as if that were required to justify the opinion that a man was wrongly convicted. It is, in fact, fairly standard pro guilt rhetoric.
Once a man has been convicted, it is very difficult to overturn the conviction, even when it becomes clearly established that the evidence used to convict him was flawed.
To prove that the evidence upon which the conviction is based was unreliable, or even downright fraudulent, does not of itself prove that the defendant is innocent and people committed to guilt, typically like to emphasise that point.
What utter nonsense. ::) One could never accuse you of putting all of your eggs in one basket.
If it was clearly established that evidence used to convict JB was flawed, then JB would have been more successful at his appeals.
Your opinion (which is all it is) on a matter, does not in any way equate to 'clearly established'.
Your continued attacks towards Caroline and now Nick are becoming tiresome. For some reason I appear to escape your critique, which is odd don't you think?
Likewise, if you were actually interested in the truth, I find it strange that you don't attempt to correct those in favour of Jeremy's innocence when making one of the many false claims based on erroneous or twisted information.
Therefore I can only conclude that your aim is to support JB regardless. My personal opinion is that you come across as a bit of a clown, but it would be boring if we all thought the same.
-
“But he still might be guilty.”
To repeatedly emphasise that proving that the silencer evidence was faked does not prove that Bamber is innocent, plays on the average person’s lack of knowledge of the law. It makes it sound as if the defendant is required to prove his innocence and many will just assume that that is so.
An acquittal resulting from a lack of evidence is NOT one based upon a “technicality“. But people will say “I would hate to see him get released on a technicality“, meaning that, somewhat cruelly, they would like to see him to remain in prison, even with no evidence against him, unless there is proof that he is innocent . Caroline is encouraging, as opposed to discouraging, that kind of thinking.
Could the authorities still manage to keep Bamber in jail, even if it became official that the silencer evidence was faked? Caroline certainly appears to think so and also appears to support such an intention.
“Even if the silencer evidence was faked that does not prove that he is innocent. It does raise some questions though.”
As if it didn’t, obviously, mean that the conviction should, in such a circumstance, be thrown out.
Do you imagine me to be some kind of Svengali who can control people's minds and make them follow my thinking? Martin, you seriously have some kind of a problem!! However, the silencer being faked doesn't mean Jeremy Bamber is innocent and now you have pushed me - I will further say that, he is very confident that the silencer wasn't used. It has been heavily involved in his appeals and underwent DNA testing. There had to be a LOT of confidence that the silencer wasn't used to go down that road and only someone who was SURE it wasn't used could be that confident and the only way someone could be that confident is if they were involved.
-
Reversing the burden of proof.
It is a common misconception that people have that the burden of proof is reversed at appeal. In the context of an alleged miscarriage of justice, people who support the conviction often ask for proof of innocence, as if that were required to justify the opinion that a man was wrongly convicted. It is, in fact, fairly standard pro guilt rhetoric.
Once a man has been convicted, it is very difficult to overturn the conviction, even when it becomes clearly established that the evidence used to convict him was flawed.
To prove that the evidence upon which the conviction is based was unreliable, or even downright fraudulent, does not of itself prove that the defendant is innocent and people committed to guilt, typically like to emphasise that point.
Nickos and Caroline
Where the Bamber case is concerned, some pro guilt people such as Nickos and Caroline, at this site, actually support the view that Bamber is guilty, while at the same time freely admitting that they think that the evidence used to convict him was fabricated.
Caroline has made a statements like these on a many occasions. I quote from memory.
“Even if the silencer evidence was faked, that does not prove he is innocent.”
“I think he’s guilty, but that he was framed.”
There is to my mind a basic moral objection to this kind of talk when it becomes repetitive and part of a campaign to support the conviction against the supporters of the defendant who are trying their level best to succeed against so much that is stacked against them, including in this case manifest corruption.
Of course, a person could just happen to hold that opinion and just make that comment spontaneously, as it were. But I am not here talking about advocating rules against making such a comment, but only about the repeated use of that form of rhetoric as a propaganda tool, as it were, to help defend the conviction in the face of evidence which should lead to it being quashed.
It should always be remembered that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt and that the defendant is not required by law to prove his innocence.
He's been convicted! It was 30 years ago - the ONLY evidence that will free him is something that supports his alibi, like proof of the phone call or (as your new friend claims) there was proof of shots being fired while Jeremy was elsewhere. I have asked Bill Robertson if he has PROOF that the claims he made are true and he hasn't answered. Maybe he'll answer today ::).
You seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't say what is on my mind because I once thought Jeremy totally innocent? Why shouldn't I? I should lie to myself and everyone else? You're the one who is happy to support unsubstantiated rhetoric by trying to slander myself, Nickos and others who dare to question you, Bambergate and your new friend Bill. Your silly posts don't make me feel uncomfortable, they simply make you look desperate and rather silly! I don't hold with what the three of you have to say and given that it's a discussion board, I can disagree - that's the point of a discussion!!!!!!
Now, does Bill know for a FACT that there was proof of shots whilst Jeremy was elsewhere?
-
as far as i can see there is proof that Jeremy dident actually pull the trigger anyway.
it all really depends on what you call proof.
-
Do you imagine me to be some kind of Svengali who can control people's minds and make them follow my thinking? Martin, you seriously have some kind of a problem!! However, the silencer being faked doesn't mean Jeremy Bamber is innocent and now you have pushed me - I will further say that, he is very confident that the silencer wasn't used. It has been heavily involved in his appeals and underwent DNA testing. There had to be a LOT of confidence that the silencer wasn't used to go down that road and only someone who was SURE it wasn't used could be that confident and the only way someone could be that confident is if they were involved.
Or perhaps he is so sure because he did not do it, and thinks it impossible that Sheila would in her state of mind use the silencer then take it off and put it neatly away in a box before shooting herself. There is no reason why she would do that is there?
-
Reversing the burden of proof.
It is a common misconception that people have that the burden of proof is reversed at appeal. In the context of an alleged miscarriage of justice, people who support the conviction often ask for proof of innocence, as if that were required to justify the opinion that a man was wrongly convicted. It is, in fact, fairly standard pro guilt rhetoric.
I guess you never heard of innocent until proven guilty. What you call a misconception is in fact the law and such is based on rational thought.
The foundation of our Anglo-criminal system is that a jury (unless a jury trial is waived) decides whether someone is guilty of a felony. What good is such system if anytime you get convicted you just get another bite at the apple to try to convice a different gorup you are innocent simply because you lost? That would be no more fair than allowing the prosecution to automatically get a second bite at the apple because they failed and to get a chance to try again before a different jury.
To make sure a decision was fair appellate courts review convictions. However they don't just review anything and everything. The defense must identify a specific valid ground for appealing and must have evidence.
What grounds are there to appeal?
1) legal error (the judge made an error of law) which could have impacted the jury's decision. If the legal error is not one that reasonably would have impacted the jury decision then it is harmless error and doesn't call the verdict into question
2) the defense was deprived of exculpatory evidence that should have been disclosed and had they known about it would have brought it to the attention of the jury and it could have caused the jury to acquit.
3) the defense has learned about new evidence that it had no reasonable way to know about during the trial which is exculpatory and had such been brought to the attention of the jury it could have caused the jury to acquit.
New evidence can take many forms including DNA, recanted witness statments and much more. Whether it could have resulted in the jury acquitting requires looking in detail at the prosecution's evidence that swayed the jury and whether the new evidence undercuts the main evidence.
Jeremy's problem and in turn the problem of anyone who wants to establish his innocence is that there is no new evidence that actually eats away at the prosecution's case.
Jeremy defenders basically just criticize the jury for deciding that Julie was credible and all the other evidence was credible as well.
Saying Julie lied is not enough the jury heard that already and did not buy it. Saying the blood evidence was planted is not enough, the defense needs to prove it was planted but can't. Jeremy supporters can't even present evidence that establishes such to the satisfaction of lay people let alone an appeal court.
What kind of useless system would we have if people could just get a new trial because they didn't like the outcome of the first?
The only system that makes any sense is that you are regarded as guilty once convicted and the burden is on the defendant to prove there was a legal error made that affected the outcome or a factual error.
Proving an error of fact requires providing facts by definition. Saying something is possible doesn't prove something happened you need to prove a fact not make an unsupported allegation or posit unsupported potential scenarios.
Nickos and Caroline
Where the Bamber case is concerned, some pro guilt people such as Nickos and Caroline, at this site, actually support the view that Bamber is guilty, while at the same time freely admitting that they think that the evidence used to convict him was fabricated.
Caroline has made a statements like these on a many occasions. I quote from memory.
“Even if the silencer evidence was faked, that does not prove he is innocent.”
“I think he’s guilty, but that he was framed.”
There is to my mind a basic moral objection to this kind of talk when it becomes repetitive and part of a campaign to support the conviction against the supporters of the defendant who are trying their level best to succeed against so much that is stacked against them, including in this case manifest corruption.
Of course, a person could just happen to hold that opinion and just make that comment spontaneously, as it were. But I am not here talking about advocating rules against making such a comment, but only about the repeated use of that form of rhetoric as a propaganda tool, as it were, to help defend the conviction in the face of evidence which should lead to it being quashed.
It should always be remembered that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt and that the defendant is not required by law to prove his innocence.
The prosecution met its burden.
The burden is on the defense to prove the trial was unfair or the verdict was wrong.
Your talk about propaganda is laughable, if anything this site is a propaganda haven for Jeremy defenders.
Your argument that defenders should be free to make any unsupported claim desired without any need at all for evidence to support their claims is absurd.
Defenders need to prove with evidence that Jeremy is either innocent or did not get a fair trial. If defenders want to just post rhetoric or unsupported claims then ther eis no reaosn at all to pay their posts any heed at all. Unsupported claims are worth absoluting nothing. The only arguments of any value are those that have a rational basis in fact. That is why it is important to always make clear what the basis of your position is and whethe rit is just unsupported opinion or can establish it as fact.
Your attempt to say defenders have no need to disprove the evidence upon which Jeremy was convicted is simply outrageous and a joke. Innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty and now the tables turn.
In the meantime I have laid out my case against Jeremy in tremendous detail. No supporters have been able to dent it and no supporters have ever been able to lay out their own case with any such clarity let alone to establish they have a rational basis for believing Jeremy is innocent.
-
Or perhaps he is so sure because he did not do it, and thinks it impossible that Sheila would in her state of mind use the silencer then take it off and put it neatly away in a box before shooting herself. There is no reason why she would do that is there?
Or as I said, he knows because he didn't use it.
-
Or as I said, he knows because he didn't use it.
It's possible I suppose, although personally I find that unlikely.
The evidence given by the relatives regarding the finding of the sound moderator complete with blood staining, would have to be bogus. I don't believe that to be the case.
The scientific evidence regarding the blood groupings found in the sound moderator would have to be fabricated. I don't believe that to be the case.
The sound moderator would have had to have already be scratched, or it was scratched by a person fabricating evidence. I don't believe either to be the case.
It's clear to me, that the sound moderator was used at some stage during the murders.
-
Or perhaps he is so sure because he did not do it, and thinks it impossible that Sheila would in her state of mind use the silencer then take it off and put it neatly away in a box before shooting herself. There is no reason why she would do that is there?
You are ignoring that the defense was arguing in effect that she did just that. Both at trial and on appeal the defense insisted June's blood was in the moderator not Sheila's and thus that the moderator was used to kill June but that there is no evidence it was used to kill Sheila. At tiral they also argued it was used to kill Nevill and on appeal they did try to say there wa smale blood inside that was probably Nevill's though all they could suggest is it was male though even that was a leap.
The defense did not argue on appeal that the blood was planted, they had no evidence at all to establish such. They argued it was June's blood or June's mixed with Nevill and that Sheila put the moderator away before turning the gun on herself.
Jeremy supporters are not big fans of the arguments of the defense for an understandable reason. For Jeremy's claims to be true and these claims to be true Sheila had to go to the closet, fetch the moderator attach it, kill everyone with it attached then go put it away and go back upstairs to kill herself.
Fetching the moderator doesn't support the claim she grabbed a weapon of opportunity as she was arguing or having delusions it would signify planning. Worse what reason would there be to go put the moderator away before killing herself? The only reason to remove it was because she could not kill herself with it. Why would she go put it away downstairs instead of taking it off where she was and simply leaving it in the same room?
The defense was limited by the evidence so was stuck arguing the moderator was used but not on Sheila. Would a jury buy this? Probably not but they hoped to get a chance for a new trial and to make such argument anyway.
What is worse:
1) to rot in jail without a retrial and thus be assured of spending the rest of life behind bars
or
2) a retrial where you argue that Sheila used the moderator to kill the others but not herself
At least number 2 offers a chance of freedom. No matter how bad the evidence is against them most convicted defendants would love a second bite at the apple and chance to be acquitted.
-
It's possible I suppose, although personally I find that unlikely.
The evidence given by the relatives regarding the finding of the sound moderator complete with blood staining, would have to be bogus. I don't believe that to be the case.
The scientific evidence regarding the blood groupings found in the sound moderator would have to be fabricated. I don't believe that to be the case.
The sound moderator would have had to have already be scratched, or it was scratched by a person fabricating evidence. I don't believe either to be the case.
It's clear to me, that the sound moderator was used at some stage during the murders.
If the moderator did nothing as most claim then there would be no market for moderators. Moderators reduce the sound to a cap pistol level in addition to reducing recoil and thus allowing better aim in subsequent shots. A cap pistol not only is not heard as far away it does not hurt the ears. The same is not true for unsupressed bullets which not only damage long term hearing but can be a distraction as you are shooting because it "hurts your ears". So both for better shooting and so you don't wake other victims or people who might be nearby for some odd reason you would want to use the moderator.
So there were reasons to use it and evidence that shows it was used. The ceiling lampshade int he kithcen was too high to be hit simply by the rifle as the men struggled over it. With the moderator attached it would be long enough to strike it. As they struggled it also scratched against the aga shelf and the scratches are zigzags consistent with fighting over control of the weapon to which it was attached. Just dropping the weapon with the moderator attached would result in a lateral scratch and likewise to simply walk by and hit it. The marks are consistent with the weapon being maneuvered as people fought over control of it.
The blood inside was fully consistent with back spatter. Blood was sprayed inside (back spatter causes a jet or spray of blood) and will travel several inches into the gun. We know it was a spray because it coated the first 8 baffles with both visible blood and microscorpic blood. The microscopic blood was tested by the defense and the visible blood tested by the prosecution. The prosecution tested a flake as well as blood lifted from the baffles and all of it was group A human blood and the defense agreed the only individual that could have been the source of the blood was Sheila.
Conspiracy theorists like to pretend that there was a single flake found and that's it they want to ignore the other blood that the defense found and prosecution found because it is much harder to argue all such blood was planted.
In any event the arguments the blood was planted are never well fleshed out and never supported by any evidence just rank speculation.
As a practical matter only the lab would have the know how or be in a position to have planted such blood and removed the blood from the rifle that would for sure have been there if Sheila had been shot without the moderator attached.
The police and family would not have been in a position to do so nor had the know how and certainly police would not want to risk family turning them in for planting evidence so would not have involved the family and had no need to involve the family anyway.
-
It's possible I suppose, although personally I find that unlikely.
The evidence given by the relatives regarding the finding of the sound moderator complete with blood staining, would have to be bogus. I don't believe that to be the case.
The scientific evidence regarding the blood groupings found in the sound moderator would have to be fabricated. I don't believe that to be the case.
The sound moderator would have had to have already be scratched, or it was scratched by a person fabricating evidence. I don't believe either to be the case.
It's clear to me, that the sound moderator was used at some stage during the murders.
This is one aspect I can't change my mind on - IF it was used by Jeremy, it would be a feared piece of evidence, especially when DNA testing was made available and yet he pushed to have the tests done. So to me, he either KNOWS it wasn't used or he (as Jansus said), isn't guilty.
-
This is one aspect I can't change my mind on - IF it was used by Jeremy, it would be a feared piece of evidence, especially when DNA testing was made available and yet he pushed to have the tests done. So to me, he either KNOWS it wasn't used or he (as Jansus said), isn't guilty.
Be that as it may, but I disagree for the reasons mentioned above. ;)
-
Or as I said, he knows because he didn't use it.
It's interesting that it was let slip many moons ago on here that Ron Cook keeps in touch with Ann Eaton. He is perhaps the officer most associated with concerns around the integrity of the exhibit.
-
This is one aspect I can't change my mind on - IF it was used by Jeremy, it would be a feared piece of evidence, especially when DNA testing was made available and yet he pushed to have the tests done. So to me, he either KNOWS it wasn't used or he (as Jansus said), isn't guilty.
Your position is flawed though.
If he was innocent and the moderator not used at all then there should have been no blood based DNA found at all on the moderator. Assuming that was the expectation and if that had been found then what good is it? All that proves is no blood remains on it that doesn't prove there wasn't blood previously. Being guilty and using the moderator is a reaosn to want it tested because in that case maybe just maybe there is a chance June and Nevill's blood will be found and you can try saying this means it likely was their blood that had been found by the experts.
A guilty person would still prefer a DNA test to no DNA test because without the DNA test for sure there is no grounds for appeal but with a DNA test hopefully the results can be spun in some manner to provide a ground to appeal on.
Guilty people routinely ask for DNA tests hoping that DNA will have deteriorated to the point where a match cannot be made. They also hope other DNA might have somehow found its way on to be used as a diversion. Since they are already not getting out and can't get more time based on the results they have absolutely nothing at all to lose.
The defense did in fact spin the results but the Court of Appeals didn't fall for it. That spinning involved pretending that SHeila's DNA wasn't found though unquestionably it was, and insisting that June's DNA proves it was her blood not Sheila's that had been in the moderator. But as the court polinted out there is no reason at all to think that the DNA was blood based but rather non-bloodbased and could have resulted from contamination.
The evidence it was not blood based is:
1) in 1986 after the prosecution removed all visible blood the defense found microscopic drops of blood on the first 8 baffles but none beyond that.
2) in 1999 the moderator was tested for the presence of blood but none was detected suggesting the defense had removed the remaining traces of blood that the prosecution missed
3) the test found DNA well beyond the first 8 baffles though blood was never found that far even through testing. So in all likelihood it is not blood based but rather DNA that resulted from contamination.
All these things combined means there is no way at all the DNA could establish the blood of the DNA donors was inside. So the defense had a ready made excuse to dismiss the findings anyway if Sheila's DNA were the only DNA found. But if they could argue her DNA was not found and that someone else's DNA was then they would argue it is blood based and ignore the above.
So Jeremy had nothing at all to lose by having the tests conducted. Long term prisoners arrested before DNA became commonplace who are guilty request DNA tests as often as people who are innocent. While cases where people are relased are published those confirmed guilty rarely are mentioned by the press. One of the rare exceptions ot this rule is this recent example that the press actually published:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article342326/DNA-testing-confirms-guilt-in-1987-sexual-assault-near-the-Plaza.html
So much for your notion a guilty person would not request DNA testing...
-
Be that as it may, but I disagree for the reasons mentioned above. ;)
As do I for the reasons I have mentioned in the past :D
-
Your position is flawed though.
If he was innocent and the moderator not used at all then there should have been no blood based DNA found at all on the moderator. Assuming that was the expectation and if that had been found then what good is it? All that proves is no blood remains on it that doesn't prove there wasn't blood previously. Being guilty and using the moderator is a reaosn to want it tested because in that case maybe just maybe there is a chance June and Nevill's blood will be found and you can try saying this means it likely was their blood that had been found by the experts.
A guilty person would still prefer a DNA test to no DNA test because without the DNA test for sure there is no grounds for appeal but with a DNA test hopefully the results can be spun in some manner to provide a ground to appeal on.
Guilty people routinely ask for DNA tests hoping that DNA will have deteriorated to the point where a match cannot be made. They also hope other DNA might have somehow found its way on to be used as a diversion. Since they are already not getting out and can't get more time based on the results they have absolutely nothing at all to lose.
The defense did in fact spin the results but the Court of Appeals didn't fall for it. That spinning involved pretending that SHeila's DNA wasn't found though unquestionably it was, and insisting that June's DNA proves it was her blood not Sheila's that had been in the moderator. But as the court polinted out there is no reason at all to think that the DNA was blood based but rather non-bloodbased and could have resulted from contamination.
The evidence it was not blood based is:
1) in 1986 after the prosecution removed all visible blood the defense found microscopic drops of blood on the first 8 baffles but none beyond that.
2) in 1999 the moderator was tested for the presence of blood but none was detected suggesting the defense had removed the remaining traces of blood that the prosecution missed
3) the test found DNA well beyond the first 8 baffles though blood was never found that far even through testing. So in all likelihood it is not blood based but rather DNA that resulted from contamination.
All these things combined means there is no way at all the DNA could establish the blood of the DNA donors was inside. So the defense had a ready made excuse to dismiss the findings anyway if Sheila's DNA were the only DNA found. But if they could argue her DNA was not found and that someone else's DNA was then they would argue it is blood based and ignore the above.
So Jeremy had nothing at all to lose by having the tests conducted. Long term prisoners arrested before DNA became commonplace who are guilty request DNA tests as often as people who are innocent. While cases where people are relased are published those confirmed guilty rarely are mentioned by the press. One of the rare exceptions ot this rule is this recent example that the press actually published:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article342326/DNA-testing-confirms-guilt-in-1987-sexual-assault-near-the-Plaza.html
So much for your notion a guilty person would not request DNA testing...
I have told you what I think on this score and you won't shift me.
-
I have told you what I think on this score and you won't shift me.
I don't care if you want to believe something ill advised. Saying nothign can change your mind simply confirms your opinion is no tevidence based but simply somethign you schoose to beleive regardless of facts and evidence. My goal is to simply demonstrate your position has no rational basis in fact and thus should be discounted by others. Your position rests upon the notion that someone who used a moderator would not want it to be DNA tested and I demonstrated why such claim has no validity at all.
Much like your suggestion police siphoned blood from the samples Vanezis provided before being sent to the lab does not have any evidentiary support.
The blood was housed at the police station evidence room for about 15 hours between August 7-8 and then transported to HQ. It was then conveyed to the lab and arrived at the lab on Augst 9. So that provides a very short window for police to have decided Jeremy was guilty and that they should take blood and save it to plant at some later date if they could find a suitable place to plant it. The whole idea of taking blood to use for a later date makes no sense though.
In the meantime though there is no evidence that such blood was tampered with. Each sample had 2 different seals. The lab found no evidence of the seals having been compromised or any missing blood. COLP was takes with investigating the allegations of blood being planted and found no evidence of any kind.
Worse yet, once police because aware of the moderator they considered the vlaue to be in the form of potential fingerprints. The moderator arrived at the lab 8/13/85 and yet by 8/14/85 the lab had already determined the moderator had human blood in it and notified police of the findings. What was the police reaction to this? They still only cared about fingerprinting it they didn't recognize the blood would help prove Sheila did not kill herself. The lab came up with that through the firearms and biological experts coordinating their efforts.
If you still choose to stick with theories that you have no evientiary basis for that's your business but your theories have no valid basis and thus are of no consequence.
-
If you still choose to stick with theories that you have no evidentiary basis for.. that's your business but your theories have no valid basis and thus are of no consequence.
Well I think that's Caroline well and truly told. Perhaps you should have told her to empty her desk by close of day?
-
Caroline, are you any closer to posting the topic we're all waiting for?
-
Roch and not to forget her pot plant.
-
Caroline, are you any closer to posting the topic we're all waiting for?
Depends what you're waiting for Mat?
-
Depends what you're waiting for Mat?
I thought I'd seen you twice say you'd post a topic with your reasons for guilt - I thought you had said you would post it a few days ago - either that or I've been seeing things. :-\
-
I don't care if you want to believe something ill advised. Saying nothign can change your mind simply confirms your opinion is no tevidence based but simply somethign you schoose to beleive regardless of facts and evidence. My goal is to simply demonstrate your position has no rational basis in fact and thus should be discounted by others. Your position rests upon the notion that someone who used a moderator would not want it to be DNA tested and I demonstrated why such claim has no validity at all.
Much like your suggestion police siphoned blood from the samples Vanezis provided before being sent to the lab does not have any evidentiary support.
The blood was housed at the police station evidence room for about 15 hours between August 7-8 and then transported to HQ. It was then conveyed to the lab and arrived at the lab on Augst 9. So that provides a very short window for police to have decided Jeremy was guilty and that they should take blood and save it to plant at some later date if they could find a suitable place to plant it. The whole idea of taking blood to use for a later date makes no sense though.
In the meantime though there is no evidence that such blood was tampered with. Each sample had 2 different seals. The lab found no evidence of the seals having been compromised or any missing blood. COLP was takes with investigating the allegations of blood being planted and found no evidence of any kind.
Worse yet, once police because aware of the moderator they considered the vlaue to be in the form of potential fingerprints. The moderator arrived at the lab 8/13/85 and yet by 8/14/85 the lab had already determined the moderator had human blood in it and notified police of the findings. What was the police reaction to this? They still only cared about fingerprinting it they didn't recognize the blood would help prove Sheila did not kill herself. The lab came up with that through the firearms and biological experts coordinating their efforts.
If you still choose to stick with theories that you have no evientiary basis for that's your business but your theories have no valid basis and thus are of no consequence.
And I don't care if you care! It's only in your opinion it's ill advised and I doubt I'll lose sleep over that ;)
-
I thought I'd seen you twice say you'd post a topic with your reasons for guilt - I thought you had said you would post it a few days ago - either that or I've been seeing things. :-\
Mat, look at The Last Trailer thread.
-
Mat, look at The Last Trailer thread.
Oh, I saw that. But I thought there would be more reasons that that. I thought a topic was forthcoming with all reasons?
-
I thought I'd seen you twice say you'd post a topic with your reasons for guilt - I thought you had said you would post it a few days ago - either that or I've been seeing things. :-\
I've already said why I think he may be guilty. If you mean you're waiting for me to reply to Scipio's essay, I won't be doing that - he believes one thing, I believe another but we share some opinions on other things. There was a whole thread dedicated to why I believe he may be guilty which included the wallet incident and he evasiveness. Didn't you read it? I sure you commented on it? I'm still not sure either way but I do lean towards guilty.
-
I've already said why I think he may be guilty. If you mean you're waiting for me to reply to Scipio's essay, I won't be doing that - he believes one thing, I believe another but we share some opinions on other things. There was a whole thread dedicated to why I believe he may be guilty which included the wallet incident and he evasiveness. Didn't you read it? I sure you commented on it? I'm still not sure either way but I do lean towards guilty.
No I don't mean replying to Scipio at all. I read the thread about the wallet and the tractor - I just thought you'd said you were posting a topic with all your reasons. Must have imagined it sorry. :-\
-
No I don't mean replying to Scipio at all. I read the thread about the wallet and the tractor - I just thought you'd said you were posting a topic with all your reasons. Must have imagined it sorry. :-\
I did, but as I've already mentioned them, what's the point? Most people know if they were interested enough. However, once you have doubts, you begin to look at things in a different way. The only thing that doesn't seem to fit, is the silencer.
-
Jeremy did go to WHF on the eve of the funerals,JM and a few friends went with him to collect some glasses and crockery which he said " were for the wake ". All had been drinking.. While there,he was looking around the farmhouse for cash that his father may have left somewhere.
Jeremy had picked up odd bits and pieces,then they all went off to a local restaurant.
Would this have been the time when he helped himself to a few quid from his dads' wallet ? Why not have taken the whole lot,wallet and all ? Nobody would have been any the wiser.
I was led to believe that it was a few days that Jeremy had brought himself to go into the farmhouse,and that was at the request of AE.
Jeremys' need for ready cash was because at that particular time,he knew he'd have had to have waited at least 4 months for the probate,possibly longer because of the complexities of his fathers' will,,and again,this was another reason for him to have sold what he could from the farmhouse to raise some cash,as he'd no longer receive a wage from his father,so at that point,it was need and not greed. Obviously at the age of 24,you'd be hard-pushed to find a material person anyway,hence the reason why the relatives were up in arms about what went to Sothebys'. He had bills to pay. Was he offered financial assistance meanwhile ? I don't think so. Or any assistance for that matter ? Nope.
However,any money raised was spent on a weekend in Amsterdam with JM and BC.
A close family would have taken him to one side to give him some advice,,but this wasn't a close family,which at the time,was probably an advantage ! Because while Jeremy was putting his loss behind him in his own way,,others were phoning/visiting police officers dealing with their own losses of sorts by writing or phoning to the " top brass " in the force telling them how dissatisfied they were with the non-investigation and that they themselves were not being given a fair hearing about their side of the case. Although none of them knew what they were looking for until it was " found ",,along with several other clues ?? Which they said that the" police in their carelessness had overlooked ".
ALL the officers after their investigations,were/had been satisfied that it was 4 murders and a suicide,as were other professionals who were involved,,but the weight was behind the fact that a young woman ( who couldn't watch a chickens' neck being wrung ) had killed all her family.
-
Jeremy did go to WHF on the eve of the funerals,JM and a few friends went with him to collect some glasses and crockery which he said " were for the wake ". All had been drinking.. While there,he was looking around the farmhouse for cash that his father may have left somewhere.
Jeremy had picked up odd bits and pieces,then they all went off to a local restaurant.
Would this have been the time when he helped himself to a few quid from his dads' wallet ? Why not have taken the whole lot,wallet and all ? Nobody would have been any the wiser.
I was led to believe that it was a few days that Jeremy had brought himself to go into the farmhouse,and that was at the request of AE on 12th August and it was then that he asked about the wallet.
Jeremys' need for ready cash was because at that particular time,he knew he'd have had to have waited at least 4 months for the probate,possibly longer because of the complexities of his fathers' will,,and again,this was another reason for him to have sold what he could from the farmhouse to raise some cash,as he'd no longer receive a wage from his father,so at that point,it was need and not greed. Obviously at the age of 24,you'd be hard-pushed to find a material person anyway,hence the reason why the relatives were up in arms about what went to Sothebys'. He had bills to pay. Was he offered financial assistance meanwhile ? I don't think so. Or any assistance for that matter ? Nope.
However,any money raised was spent on a weekend in Amsterdam with JM and BC.
A close family would have taken him to one side to give him some advice,,but this wasn't a close family,which at the time,was probably an advantage ! Because while Jeremy was putting his loss behind him in his own way,,others were phoning/visiting police officers dealing with their own losses of sorts by writing or phoning to the " top brass " in the force telling them how dissatisfied they were with the non-investigation and that they themselves were not being given a fair hearing about their side of the case. Although none of them knew what they were looking for until it was " found ",,along with several other clues ?? Which they said that the" police in their carelessness had overlooked ".
ALL the officers after their investigations,were/had been satisfied that it was 4 murders and a suicide,as were other professionals who were involved,,but the weight was behind the fact that a young woman ( who couldn't watch a chickens' neck being wrung ) had killed all her family.
The funeral was AfTER AE asked him up to WHF and that was the first time he's been there since the murders.
-
Not according to Claire Powell,Caroline.
-
Not according to Claire Powell,Caroline.
Not sure what you're referring to Lookout? He may have gone to the house before the funeral BUT he also went on 12 August at the request of AE and this was the first time he's been back since the murders. This was when he asked about the wallet. It's in AE statement.
-
Not sure what you're referring to Lookout? He may have gone to the house before the funeral BUT he also went on 12 August at the request of AE and this was the first time he's been back since the murders. This was when he asked about the wallet. It's in AE statement.
This was on the eve the funerals,sorry.
-
This was on the eve the funerals,sorry.
Right but he returned to WHF on 12th August on the request of AE - BEFORE the funerals which weren't until 15th or 16th Aug
-
Right but he returned to WHF on 12th August on the request of AE - BEFORE the funerals which weren't until 15th or 16th Aug
Yes,,I remember now. Though I hadn't known about the time that he and his friends went in,,but I remember it said that AE had invited him,and had forgotten if it was before or after the funerals,as they were held a week or so after the tragedies.
-
Have you read Claire Powells' version at all,Caroline ?
-
I was thinking as I was reading that and the thought suddenly came to me that if that had been my family murdered in that house and I went in there I would probably be inconsolable. Jeremy wasn't. I suppose people are different in that way. That would devastate me forever.
As far as I remember from AE´s statement, Jeremy did break down. He also very reluctantly went into the rooms upstairs. The worst two rooms were the twins´ room and Sheila´s. He practically crept through the corridor towards the twins´room, but when AE told him that she had removed the beds and made up the room as it was when Sheila had it growing up at the farm, he went in there with Julie.
AE had to tell him that nothing had happened in Sheila´s room before he would enter.
-
Interesting Alias. I'm not sure that I would ever get over such a thing?
That would be hard, can´t even go there in my wildest imagination.
-
I was thinking as I was reading that and the thought suddenly came to me that if that had been my family murdered in that house and I went in there I would probably be inconsolable. Jeremy wasn't. I suppose people are different in that way. That would devastate me forever.
You have to remember Jeremy had been prescribed valium which can numb emotions especially mixed with alcohol it can cause hallucinations as well.
-
That would be hard, can´t even go there in my wildest imagination.
I know but shock is weird and our brains can block out all sorts of emotions which are too difficult for us to deal with and of course the drugs, prescribed like valium and the cannabis and alcohol etc. Dulls everything I would think.
-
I know but shock is weird and our brains can block out all sorts of emotions which are too difficult for us to deal with and of course the drugs, prescribed like valium and the cannabis and alcohol etc. Dulls everything I would think.
I know. I did say that he actually had a breakdown upon entering the house, so I am not saying he was indifferent - the opposite. :)
-
Have you read Claire Powells' version at all,Caroline ?
Hi Lookout, soz, had to take the dog out - no, I think that's the only one I haven't read. Is it any good?
-
Hi Lookout, soz, had to take the dog out - no, I think that's the only one I haven't read. Is it any good?
I saw it on Amazon for just over a quid a few weeks ago.
-
I did, but as I've already mentioned them, what's the point? Most people know if they were interested enough. However, once you have doubts, you begin to look at things in a different way. The only thing that doesn't seem to fit, is the silencer.
Doesn't fit where?
There was a reason for Jeremy to use it and no logical reason that he would decide not to and there is physical evidence which says that he did use it.
-
I know. I did say that he actually had a breakdown upon entering the house, so I am not saying he was indifferent - the opposite. :)
I know you know Alias, wasn't telling you as know you are well aware how grief affects us all differently. :)
-
Hi Lookout, soz, had to take the dog out - no, I think that's the only one I haven't read. Is it any good?
Oh gosh,you're allowed to take the dog out,poor thing I bet it was cross-legged. ;D ;D
The book gives more detail as regards the children growing up.In fact Claire doesn't hold back in her commentary of when both were teenagers/young adults.
It's not a bad read really,and she too did her research both with all the leading participants as well as Jeremy himself.
-
Doesn't fit where?
There was a reason for Jeremy to use it and no logical reason that he would decide not to and there is physical evidence which says that he did use it.
Look, you believe it, I don't - I have already said why and you won't convince me otherwise. I don't believe it was used, the witness statements conflict with each other and we have only just recently had Babs Wilson pipe up and say she saw it. What? It took her almost 30years to remember she saw the silencer and the blood? Really? ::)
-
Oh gosh,you're allowed to take the dog out,poor thing I bet it was cross-legged. ;D ;D
The book gives more detail as regards the children growing up.In fact Claire doesn't hold back in her commentary of when both were teenagers/young adults.
It's not a bad read really,and she too did her research both with all the leading participants as well as Jeremy himself.
I'll have a look for it - last time I look on Amazon, they wanted an arm and a leg for it. I'll have another look :)
-
I saw it on Amazon for just over a quid a few weeks ago.
Bloody hell!! There is one for £179.00????? I'll wait ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Look, you believe it, I don't - I have already said why and you won't convince me otherwise. I don't believe it was used, the witness statements conflict with each other and we have only just recently had Babs Wilson pipe up and say she saw it. What? It took her almost 30years to remember she saw the silencer and the blood? Really? ::)
Yeah but your reasoning is illogical, not supported by a shred of evidence and even conflicts with your own theory of police not planting evidence unless they were convinced he was guilty. The blood was at the police station for 15 hours maybe before being sent to HQ and then on to the lab. There is no evidence at all to even suggest this blood was tampered with but worse yet you are suggesting police took it to plant before they were convinced of his guilt and before they knew whether there would be solid evidence or not to estbalish his guilt.
Your position is on no better footing than any of Mike's unsupported claims.
-
Bloody hell!! There is one for £179.00????? I'll wait ;D ;D ;D ;D
Their prices go UP and DOWN!! Check in regularly, you might get lucky like me with Colin´s book! 1 pence! Can´t believe they shipped it over here at that price!
-
Take my advice. Don't by it if it's an arm and a leg. (1) Without a leg you will have nowhere to rest it on. (2) Without an arm you won't be able to turn the pages. ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Their prices go UP and DOWN!! Check in regularly, you might get lucky like me with Colin´s book! 1 pence! Can´t believe they shipped it over here at that price!
I got Wilkes's book really cheap but £179.00 for Claire Powell's book? Is it illuminated in gold leaf by an ancient order of monks? :o
-
I'll have a look for it - last time I look on Amazon, they wanted an arm and a leg for it. I'll have another look :)
I didn't pay that much. It's an old hard-backed library one ( Calderdale Library ) a couple of quid.
-
Caroline, you can get it used from 15.16 pounds at Amazon.uk.
-
Caroline, you can get it used from 15.16 pounds at Amazon.uk.
Yes, I saw that one too but I want it for 1p like you! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, I saw that one too but I want it for 1p like you! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Deffo saw it just over a quid a while back, should have bought it. ::) Thought it was too pricey ;D
-
Quote from: mat on Yesterday at 06:46 PM
I thought I'd seen you twice say you'd post a topic with your reasons for
guilt - I thought you had said you would post it a few days ago - either that or I've been seeing things
I've already said why I think he may be guilty. If you mean you're waiting for me to reply to Scipio's essay, I won't be doing that - he believes one thing, I believe another but we share some opinions on other things. There was a whole thread dedicated to why I believe he may be guilty which included the wallet incident and he evasiveness. Didn't you read it? I sure you commented on it? I'm still not sure either way but I do lean towards guilty.
"I've already said why I think he may be guilty."
No, you have not! I am being accused of “harassing” you because I take great exception to somebody pushing the pro guilt message without giving any substantial reasons to support it. And you keep doing that.
I don’t believe that Mat is stupid. I think that, if you really had given your reasons for thinking that Bamber is guilty, he would at least have noticed it. Remember that you reject the evidence used to convict him, so logically, you require something to take it's place.
As far as I’m concerned you are a propagandist. Your basic modus operandi is to just keep repeating an unsupported assertion.
“I think he's guilty, but that he was framed.”
That naturally begs the question WHY do you think he is guilty? All you’ve managed to come up with so far is Jeremy knowing how much was in his father’s wallet.
The Last Trailer
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.msg243191.html#msg243191
Your scenario The Last Trailer does not contain any reference to evidence of Bamber’s guilt. It is just a made up story which has Jeremy make the a call from Whitehouse Farm to his answering machine. Very clever! I suppose it allows you to add another slogan to your list
“Even if there was a call, that does not prove he is innocent.”
So, even if it can be proven that the silencer evidence was faked and that the phone call did take place, you and your friend Nick still have a fall back position in place, which allows you to continue poisoning the well.
Did the relatives put pressure on the police?
Speaking for myself I don’t believe that your change of position has anything to do with the evidence, but that it is one made for some other reason. The way that you now steadfastly defend the relatives against the accusation that they “badgered” the police into pursuing Jeremy is to me a strong indication of where you might really be coming from. Until quite recently, you supported that view and have even used that word yourself.
What I don’t like is seeing you getting away with fooling good people. Some of them think that there is something mysterious behind your new guilty stance, as if you were aware of some piece of evidence which they are unaware of. Or, that you have, recently, thought of something which for some reason you must withhold for the time being. I just don't buy it.
They don’t like me for not respecting your right to keep your reasons to yourself. They think that I should just leave you alone. But you are not a child. You are a psychologist and, if I may say so, a very skilful one.
I maintain that it is legitimate to press you for reasons as long as you continue to make unsupported assertions which, as such, amount to nothing more than anti Bamber propaganda. This is not the girl guides. Try telling that to your friends.
-
I like you Martin. ;D
-
I like you Martin. ;D
Lookout, you've made my day.
-
I like you Martin. ;D
Thanks Lookout
-
"I've already said why I think he may be guilty."
No, you have not! I am being accused of “harassing” you because I take great exception to somebody pushing the pro guilt message without giving any substantial reasons to support it. And you keep doing that.
I don’t believe that Mat is stupid. I think that, if you really had given your reasons for thinking that Bamber is guilty, he would at least have noticed it. Remember that you reject the evidence used to convict him, so logically, you require something to take it's place.
As far as I’m concerned you are a propagandist. Your basic modus operandi is to just keep repeating an unsupported assertion.
“I think he's guilty, but that he was framed.”
That naturally begs the question WHY do you think he is guilty? All you’ve managed to come up with so far is Jeremy knowing how much was in his father’s wallet.
The Last Trailer
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.msg243191.html#msg243191
Your scenario The Last Trailer does not contain any reference to evidence of Bamber’s guilt. It is just a made up story which has Jeremy make the a call from Whitehouse Farm to his answering machine. Very clever! I suppose it allows you to add another slogan to your list
“Even if there was a call, that does not prove he is innocent.”
So, even if it can be proven that the silencer evidence was faked and that the phone call did take place, you and your friend Nick still have a fall back position in place, which allows you to continue poisoning the well.
Did the relatives put pressure on the police?
Speaking for myself I don’t believe that your change of position has anything to do with the evidence, but that it is one made for some other reason. The way that you now steadfastly defend the relatives against the accusation that they “badgered” the police into pursuing Jeremy is to me a strong indication of where you might really be coming from. Until quite recently, you supported that view and have even used that word yourself.
What I don’t like is seeing you getting away with fooling good people. Some of them think that there is something mysterious behind your new guilty stance, as if you were aware of some piece of evidence which they are unaware of. Or, that you have, recently, thought of something which for some reason you must withhold for the time being. I just don't buy it.
They don’t like me for not respecting your right to keep your reasons to yourself. They think that I should just leave you alone. But you are not a child. You are a psychologist and, if I may say so, a very skilful one.
I maintain that it is legitimate to press you for reasons as long as you continue to make unsupported assertions which, as such, amount to nothing more than anti Bamber propaganda. This is not the girl guides. Try telling that to your friends.
I care not for your exceptions! But did you not read the thread about the Freudian slip? Well, you must have done because you commented on it blithering on about conspiracies. You might not like the fact that this point (and also the phone call which is suspect) made me suspicious - but what can I tell you? I think that after killing the family he went looking for ready cash, something he'd be able to get his hands on with immediate affect and the wallet was his first and obvious port of call. He was furious when he found it was missing a few days later and he let slip (Fraudulently) how much was in it. When I asked him about it he wasn't just evasive, he 'avoided answering'. People who lie do that, they either answer a question with another question or answer it in a way that never actually gives an answer - politicians and it seems Jeremy, use the second method. Remember the phrase "You must tell the truth where possible'? When I asked him about the wallet his response was "I know you asked me a 'specific' question but I can't remember what it was but I think the answer was no or I didn't. So, he remembered it was a 'specific' question and he remembered the answer but not the question? Also, why didn't he simply refer to the letter? I think he lied Martin. But that's NOT the only reason, I don't believe the phone call happened, it's convenient that the phone was off the hook, it looks staged, the messing with the gun, it looks staged and too may independent witnesses testified that he mentioned hating his family. Once doubt enters your mind, you start to look at things differently.
Please indicate to me WHERE I have defended the relatives? You're talking absolute garbage!! I have never defended the relatives. I have said more times than I care to remember that I DON'T BELIEVE THE SILENCER EVIDENCE!! I do think they badgered the police what I don't believe is that that ALONE would have the effect of changing the whole investigation and that IF THEY HAD PROOF that Sheila was responsible they would have shoved it up the relatives noses.
I must just pull you up on your suggestion that I am a 'psychologist'? Eh? I have a psychology degree but until fairly recently, I worked off-shore as a navigator on a seismic survey vessel so don't know where you got the idea I was a psychologist????? Also, I was never in the Girl Guides, I'm from Peterlee not St. Mary Meade ;D
Fooling good people? You've just lectured me about being an adult? You're patronising other members in order to have a dig at me and you call me a manipulator. For your information Martin, we are ALL adults here and people can make their own minds up. What you don't like is that what I said struck a chord - I wrote what I thought and the reason behind it people are free to accept or reject other people's opinions. This is ONLY my opinion Martin and I honestly don't know why it matters to you so much? Instead of trying to undermine my opinion, why don't you try defending Jeremy and your OWN opinion? All you ever do is try to 'out' people simply because they feel Jeremy might be guilty. I find you quite odd, I don't care what you buy, or don't buy and the reason why I don't push my opinion is because I can't be arsed to defend myself to people like you, who take other people's opinions as a personal slant - like I said, I think you're odd! ::)
-
"too may independent witnesses testified that he mentioned hating his family"
I dont think in any way that it means someone is a murderer - in fact I challenge you to find many familys where adolescents dont state this several times during their lives .
I think he probably was recentful of his fornative years /schooling etc - but not enough to slaughter his family
But out of interest how many independant witnesses were there outside "the family" and Julie and her mother?
Also dont count Barbara because she changed her story so completely that I am afraid her credibility is hardly reliable.
-
"too may independent witnesses testified that he mentioned hating his family"
I dont think in any way that it means someone is a murderer - in fact I challenge you to find many familys where adolescents dont state this several times during their lives .
I think he probably was recentful of his fornative years /schooling etc - but not enough to slaughter his family
But out of interest how many independant witnesses were there outside "the family" and Julie and her mother?
Also dont count Barbara because she changed her story so completely that I am afraid her credibility is hardly reliable.
The point is Jansus, you don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you but we BOTH have a right to believe what we like without being hounded by someone like Martin. I really don't care if anyone takes on board what I said about the wallet or anything else for that matter and people can brush it away if they wish. However, I know he evaded answering and so that's enough for me - there was no reason not to answer and THAT put 'more' doubt in my mind given that I was never sure about the way the phone was found (conveniently the handset is off the cradle to support the notion of a phone call). Like I said, you don't have to agree with me but I have a right to my opinion the same as the rest of you. I don't have a campaign against Jeremy Bamber (I'd prefer to believe he was innocent) and the suggestion is bloody ridiculous but I expect nothing more from Martin these days! I'm not going to lie about what I think, not for anyone!
-
"too may independent witnesses testified that he mentioned hating his family"
I dont think in any way that it means someone is a murderer - in fact I challenge you to find many familys where adolescents dont state this several times during their lives .
I think he probably was recentful of his fornative years /schooling etc - but not enough to slaughter his family
But out of interest how many independant witnesses were there outside "the family" and Julie and her mother?
Also dont count Barbara because she changed her story so completely that I am afraid her credibility is hardly reliable.
There was to have been a full inquiry into the handling of the case by EP. It had been discussed with the Home secretary at the time on what action to take with Sir Lawrence Byford who was the chief inspector of constabulary. The last time this had taken place was during the debacle involving the Yorkshire Ripper. This was felt to have been a brazen attitude among EP.
Headlines at the time which were spread across the Daily Mail,read, I quote," Twenty Incredible Police Blunders,unquote ".
P.S. I don't recollect the " full inquiry " coming into fruition ?? Does anyone else ?
-
The point is Jansus, you don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you but we BOTH have a right to believe what we like without being hounded by someone like Martin. I really don't care if anyone takes on board what I said about the wallet or anything else for that matter and people can brush it away if they wish. However, I know he evaded answering and so that's enough for me - there was no reason not to answer and THAT put 'more' doubt in my mind given that I was never sure about the way the phone was found (conveniently the handset is off the cradle to support the notion of a phone call). Like I said, you don't have to agree with me but I have a right to my opinion the same as the rest of you. I don't have a campaign against Jeremy Bamber (I'd prefer to believe he was innocent) and the suggestion is bloody ridiculous but I expect nothing more from Martin these days! I'm not going to lie about what I think, not for anyone!
I was only asking who the other witnesses were? I respect both your rights to your opinion as I do martins.
my only comment has ever been that I think it is a bit strange considering your position on the forum. But that's only my personal opinion as is yours that Martin is odd.
I even asked for Scipio to be allowed back so I am not exactly against all opinions being allowed on the forum.
-
I was only asking who the other witnesses were? I respect both your rights to your opinion as I do martins.
my only comment has ever been that I think it is a bit strange considering your position on the forum. But that's only my personal opinion as is yours that Martin is odd.
I even asked for Scipio to be allowed back so I am not exactly against all opinions being allowed on the forum.
My position?
-
So Caroline you have made your position clear on Jeremy do you now intend to fight to keep him in prison on the forums or have you lost interest in the case now?
-
So Caroline you have made your position clear on Jeremy do you now intend to fight to keep him in prison on the forums or have you lost interest in the case now?
Good to see you posting again Jackie
-
"I've already said why I think he may be guilty."
No, you have not! I am being accused of “harassing” you because I take great exception to somebody pushing the pro guilt message without giving any substantial reasons to support it. And you keep doing that.
I don’t believe that Mat is stupid. I think that, if you really had given your reasons for thinking that Bamber is guilty, he would at least have noticed it. Remember that you reject the evidence used to convict him, so logically, you require something to take it's place.
As far as I’m concerned you are a propagandist. Your basic modus operandi is to just keep repeating an unsupported assertion.
“I think he's guilty, but that he was framed.”
That naturally begs the question WHY do you think he is guilty? All you’ve managed to come up with so far is Jeremy knowing how much was in his father’s wallet.
The Last Trailer
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.msg243191.html#msg243191
Your scenario The Last Trailer does not contain any reference to evidence of Bamber’s guilt. It is just a made up story which has Jeremy make the a call from Whitehouse Farm to his answering machine. Very clever! I suppose it allows you to add another slogan to your list
“Even if there was a call, that does not prove he is innocent.”
So, even if it can be proven that the silencer evidence was faked and that the phone call did take place, you and your friend Nick still have a fall back position in place, which allows you to continue poisoning the well.
Did the relatives put pressure on the police?
Speaking for myself I don’t believe that your change of position has anything to do with the evidence, but that it is one made for some other reason. The way that you now steadfastly defend the relatives against the accusation that they “badgered” the police into pursuing Jeremy is to me a strong indication of where you might really be coming from. Until quite recently, you supported that view and have even used that word yourself.
What I don’t like is seeing you getting away with fooling good people. Some of them think that there is something mysterious behind your new guilty stance, as if you were aware of some piece of evidence which they are unaware of. Or, that you have, recently, thought of something which for some reason you must withhold for the time being. I just don't buy it.
They don’t like me for not respecting your right to keep your reasons to yourself. They think that I should just leave you alone. But you are not a child. You are a psychologist and, if I may say so, a very skilful one.
I maintain that it is legitimate to press you for reasons as long as you continue to make unsupported assertions which, as such, amount to nothing more than anti Bamber propaganda. This is not the girl guides. Try telling that to your friends.
You calling Caroline a propagandist is funny. All you do is propagandize on behalf of Jeremy.
Caroline has not fully explained her case against Jeremy or precisely which physical evidence was planted and what wasn't. She has provided some snippents of why she thinks be did it but not the full explanation.
I called her out on this because I made my FULL position clear including the basis upoon which my positions rest.
I didn't only call out her though I called out everyone who thinks Jeremy is innocent to explain in detial why tand the exact evidence that is the foundation for each of their beleifs.
You are on one hand attakcing her for not being as specific as you woudl liek her to be but are an extreme hypocrite because you have never made your position clear at all beyond asserting Jeremy is innocent. You have not laid out your case and all your evidence that supports his innocence.
Since he was found guilty and thus no longer presumed innocent but rather "proven guilty by a court of law" in order for your belief that he is inncent to be reasonable you need evidence that rebuts the evidence that convicted him. You have never put forth any such evidence or evidence at all just unsupported opinion that in effect amounts to propaganda on behalf of Jeremy.
Since you are so forcefully attacking Caroline does tha tmean you actually have the guts to post your complete case of why Jeremy is innocent and to present an evidentiary basis
to establish your claims not just unsupported opinion that is woefully non-specifica and extremely general like, "I believe the evidence was planted" but rather specify what was faked and provide evidence who faked it, when and how.
Unless you can do so and thus establish you have a reasonable basis for asserting he is innocent all you are is a propagandist.
-
"I've already said why I think he may be guilty."
No, you have not! I am being accused of “harassing” you because I take great exception to somebody pushing the pro guilt message without giving any substantial reasons to support it. And you keep doing that.
I don’t believe that Mat is stupid. I think that, if you really had given your reasons for thinking that Bamber is guilty, he would at least have noticed it. Remember that you reject the evidence used to convict him, so logically, you require something to take it's place.
As far as I’m concerned you are a propagandist. Your basic modus operandi is to just keep repeating an unsupported assertion.
“I think he's guilty, but that he was framed.”
That naturally begs the question WHY do you think he is guilty? All you’ve managed to come up with so far is Jeremy knowing how much was in his father’s wallet.
The Last Trailer
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.msg243191.html#msg243191
Your scenario The Last Trailer does not contain any reference to evidence of Bamber’s guilt. It is just a made up story which has Jeremy make the a call from Whitehouse Farm to his answering machine. Very clever! I suppose it allows you to add another slogan to your list
“Even if there was a call, that does not prove he is innocent.”
So, even if it can be proven that the silencer evidence was faked and that the phone call did take place, you and your friend Nick still have a fall back position in place, which allows you to continue poisoning the well.
Did the relatives put pressure on the police?
Speaking for myself I don’t believe that your change of position has anything to do with the evidence, but that it is one made for some other reason. The way that you now steadfastly defend the relatives against the accusation that they “badgered” the police into pursuing Jeremy is to me a strong indication of where you might really be coming from. Until quite recently, you supported that view and have even used that word yourself.
What I don’t like is seeing you getting away with fooling good people. Some of them think that there is something mysterious behind your new guilty stance, as if you were aware of some piece of evidence which they are unaware of. Or, that you have, recently, thought of something which for some reason you must withhold for the time being. I just don't buy it.
They don’t like me for not respecting your right to keep your reasons to yourself. They think that I should just leave you alone. But you are not a child. You are a psychologist and, if I may say so, a very skilful one.
I maintain that it is legitimate to press you for reasons as long as you continue to make unsupported assertions which, as such, amount to nothing more than anti Bamber propaganda. This is not the girl guides. Try telling that to your friends.
Martin, I feel certain that you have no idea what an excellent job of reverse psychology you're doing. The way you're attacking Caroline, you're likely to encourage even the most ardent Jeremy supporters to come out in her defence. I really can't see what you're trying to achieve.
-
Aren't you also a propagandist ? After all you're doing a good job of TRYING to prove his guilt with NO proof ! Clever,that . You're as bad as the clowns who attended the trial spluttering their way through what they KNEW was a tissue of lies.
Is it also customary for high-ranking officers to treat relatives to a slap-up meal after such a trial ? If that wasn't done to soften the blow,I don't know what was. It was despicable !
They didn't have trouble eating their way through a banquet after sending an innocent man to prison.
Plans for a " knees-up " were dismissed smartish on account of more bad publicity with the press.
-
I've just seen a ghost & screamed.
-
Thank you Gringo I have some very exciting news which I will email Ngb tonight and he can make the decision what he thinks I should do.
It will definitely put this case in the public arena once again
-
Never mind.Keep taking the tablets. ;D
-
Thank you Gringo I have some very exciting news which I will email Ngb tonight and he can make the decision what he thinks I should do.
It will definitely put this case in the public arena once again
Sounds good,Jackie.
-
It is very good news, some things are meant to be
-
Aren't you also a propagandist ? After all you're doing a good job of TRYING to prove his guilt with NO proof ! Clever,that . You're as bad as the clowns who attended the trial spluttering their way through what they KNEW was a tissue of lies.
Is it also customary for high-ranking officers to treat relatives to a slap-up meal after such a trial ? If that wasn't done to soften the blow,I don't know what was. It was despicable !
They didn't have trouble eating their way through a banquet after sending an innocent man to prison.
Plans for a " knees-up " were dismissed smartish on account of more bad publicity with the press.
His guilt was already proven. At any rate I provided not only the reasons why I believe he is guilty but the proof upon which those beliefs are based.
I laid out the evidence bare for all to see and try to discredit.
Most just make unsupported claims that fail to address my points and evidence and those who do address some of them simply post unsupported opinion that makes no sense. For instanc ebogus claims about multiple moderators which were disproved by COLP and thus can't be proven at all by anyone here with any credible evidence.
Evidence proves it is a fact that Sheila was shot while seated propped up against something. The evidenc eof such is by virtue of the blood going down her shoulder and arm. That can ONLY happen if she was seated. If she were not propped against somethign she woudl have fallen flat down and woudl not have bled on her shoulder and arm.
Evidence proves it is a fact that shortly after dying sheila's body was moved flat. While she was still bleeding she was moved flat and the blood leaked down the side of her neck onto the floor where it pooled.
Evidence proves it is a fact that the bible was placed in the pool of blood that formed after she died and thus got a stain from the pool. It is a fact that the bible had mirror image stains of adjacent pages indicating it had been repeatedly opened and closed while the blood was still wet. So the bible was opened and closed in a pool of blood that formed after she was dead.
Evidence proves it is a fact the moderator was attached and used during the struggle in the kitchen and still attached when Sheila was shot. It is a fact she could not have shot herself with the moderator attached let alone after she was dead have removed the moderator and put it away in the closet.
All of this evidence proves someone else killed her, someone other than the victims. Jeremy is th eonly other person who knew what happaened and th eonly way he would know is if he were the murderer. Clearly he made up the phone call from Nevill to frame her and he did many other things to frame other which I discussed in detail already.
This is the proof that Jeremy is guilty. All this evidence must be rebutted in orde rot establish he is innocent but neither you nor any other Jeremy supporter has been able to provide any evidence to rebut it that is why he is locked up in prison.
-
Yes,Sheila was moved,but prove that it was Jeremy who moved her !
-
YOUR belief,Scipio ! Not the same as everyone else's.
-
YOUR belief,Scipio ! Not the same as everyone else's.
My beliefs are supported by eivdnece your are not so your beliefs are wholly meaningless and worthless.
My beliefs don't matter the evidence that they are based on does though. That evidence is why he is rotting in jail and unless and until it is ever disproved will regard him as proven guilty.
"Presume innocent until proven guilty" He is are the proven guilty stage no longer presumed innocent and he was proven innocent by evidence.
Your unsupported opinion tha the is innocent anyway means nothing at all. All that matters is whether your beliefs are based on evidence that can prove he is innocent by refuting the evidence that proves him guilty.
-
Scipio
the crime scene could have been moved by the police and I posted evidence email from a forensic expert that explained the blood evidence had still been misunderstood. Which means the silencer may not have even been used. You know as well as anyone else that when you put two "experts" in a court of law then it will often boil down to who presents their argument in the most convincing way. And just because someone else has been found guilty by a court of law it does not PROVE guilt. Otherwise we would never have appeals or MOJ would we?
You are presenting your arguments in what you feel is the most convincing way. But as he is exactly where you want him and where you think know he should be then you are wasting your time. I just hope when there is good news , which I think there will be you have some humility.
-
So Caroline you have made your position clear on Jeremy do you now intend to fight to keep him in prison on the forums or have you lost interest in the case now?
Hi Jackie and welcome back. To be honest, I'm still not 100% convinced either way but because I think he was framed as far as the silencer goes, I think he should have a retrial.
-
Well I too and undecided. But at least your indecision gets praise from scipio and he doesn't call you a liar like he has me.
Neither of us are liars! Confused maybe, but not liars!
-
He's a twit. But I don't always keep on about it. I just accept that he's only an America and endure his garrulous meaningless essays.
Language Grahame ;D
-
Do you imagine me to be some kind of Svengali who can control people's minds and make them follow my thinking? Martin, you seriously have some kind of a problem!! However, the silencer being faked doesn't mean Jeremy Bamber is innocent and now you have pushed me - I will further say that, he is very confident that the silencer wasn't used. It has been heavily involved in his appeals and underwent DNA testing. There had to be a LOT of confidence that the silencer wasn't used to go down that road and only someone who was SURE it wasn't used could be that confident and the only way someone could be that confident is if they were involved.
"However, the silencer being faked doesn't mean Jeremy Bamber is innocent and now you have pushed me - I will further say that, he is very confident that the silencer wasn't used.
It has been heavily involved in his appeals and underwent DNA testing. There had to be a LOT of confidence that the silencer wasn't used to go down that road and only someone who was SURE it wasn't used could be that confident and the only way someone could be that confident is if they were involved."
So that’s one of your reasons for thinking he’s guilty. Well at least it's something. It’s assertions without reasons to back them up which I don’t like.
Seriously, though, do you really consider that to be a powerful argument? I mean wouldn't he be just as confident if he was completely innocent?
A feeling of suspicion.
It seems to me that your modus operandi these days is to try to stir up a feeling of suspicion on the basis of something which hardly seems to justify it-like Jeremy knowing how much was in his father's wallet-and to try to read much more into it than is really there.
Incidentally, I have always taken a close interest in your views, because I was very much impressed by your reasoning. There was a certain similarity to Keira, who also argued a case well. That is why I find it so hard to understand how you can be sincere writing the kind of stuff which you would only have made fun of before.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.msg243191.html#msg243191
The Last Trailer
“Something has always bugged me about Jeremy's story of what happened the previous evening, specifically - why it took him so long to take the last trailer to the combine.”
Well, maybe he was a bit tired!
-
Unfortunately for Jeremy, after conviction the jury's decision is held as final, so that the burden of proof does actually shift from the Crown Prosecution to the one convicted. This is because of the simple nature of the jury system, which respects the decision of 12 persons of his own peers. It is probably, although not perfect the best system of justice in a democratic society?
That is incorrect Grahame, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish guilt.
If the evidence on which the conviction was based is accepted by the Court of Appeal as unreliable that will lead to the conviction being quashed.
The point is simply that the defence at appeal is not required to prove actual innocence, but only to discredit the basis of the conviction.
Bamber was convicted on the basis of the silencer evidence so, if it is accepted by the Court that it was fabricated, the conviction should be overturned. Julie Mugford's testimony is easy to expose as full of lies. That does not mean it would be overturned, but it is what should happen according to the law.
-
Hello Grahame I agree Caroline is I guess like most of us undecided. Your posts to Scipio make me laugh but I think he is not a bad guy just not a steve uk with words don't take it personally :).
-
Martin old chap could I suggest that you cease this campaign of yours against Caroline and concentrate on the campaign for Jeremy? She's not your enemy the guilty party in their ivory towers are. They are all slinging excrement at us and you are having a go at Caroline, who dispite your suspicions is not some kind of 5th columnist. She is like a lot of us, we haven't made our mind up either way. Just because there are a few numb skull guilters who have no power of reason to be able to think for both sides of the case it doesn't mean that Caroline is a quary to be hunted down as an individual.
Thanks Grahame, I'm not even reading Martin's latest and won't be reading any of his posts in future, :)
-
The point is Jansus, you don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you but we BOTH have a right to believe what we like without being hounded by someone like Martin. I really don't care if anyone takes on board what I said about the wallet or anything else for that matter and people can brush it away if they wish. However, I know he evaded answering and so that's enough for me - there was no reason not to answer and THAT put 'more' doubt in my mind given that I was never sure about the way the phone was found (conveniently the handset is off the cradle to support the notion of a phone call). Like I said, you don't have to agree with me but I have a right to my opinion the same as the rest of you. I don't have a campaign against Jeremy Bamber (I'd prefer to believe he was innocent) and the suggestion is bloody ridiculous but I expect nothing more from Martin these days! I'm not going to lie about what I think, not for anyone!
Well said Caroline and good point about the telephone handset. No blood on it or anywhere else on the kitchen counter tells its own tale. Deffo a false trail left by Jerry.
-
Well said Caroline and good point about the telephone handset. No blood on it or anywhere else on the kitchen counter tells its own tale. Deffo a false trail left by Jerry.
Thanks John :)
-
That is incorrect Grahame, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish guilt.
If the evidence on which the conviction was based is accepted by the Court of Appeal as unreliable that will lead to the conviction being quashed.
The point is simply that the defence at appeal is not required to prove actual innocence, but only to discredit the basis of the conviction.
Bamber was convicted on the basis of the silencer evidence so, if it is accepted by the Court that it was fabricated, the conviction should be overturned. Julie Mugford's testimony is easy to expose as full of lies. That does not mean it would be overturned, but it is what should happen according to the law.
Codswallop! There is a hell of a lot more to the case than a silencer and Miss Mugford. The case against Bamber is overwhelming, not a single shred of anything resembling evidence has ever been produced which can show the contrary. Better luck next time...oh I forgot...there wont be a next time.
ETA How would you know what Mugford's testimony was, were you in court?
-
Where's this " overwhelming " evidence ?
-
Where's this " overwhelming " evidence ?
Caffell innocent ergo Bamber guilty...simples! QED
-
Caffell innocent ergo Bamber guilty...simples! QED
And that's the overwhelming evidence ? Just like that ?
-
Oh not you again. Go back to your own nest.
Don't chase him back yet,Grahame,,I want to see this overwhelming evidence that he's got.
-
Scipio has done an excellent job over the last few weeks of detailing precisely what the evidence is which keeps Bamber inside. All we see in response are wild theories and hearsays and attempts to discredit former detectives and forensic specialists. Tesko's long lauded photo of Sheila on the bed claim and his claims of secret rendezvous with informers are nothing more than tantalisers aimed solely at keeping this ridiculous farce of a case in the public eye. The public are no longer interested, the CCRC are no longer interested and the Court of Appeal is most certainly never going to entertain any more ludicrous appeals.
Bamber should grow a pair, admit his lurid crimes and maybe some day he will get parole because as it stands he will come out in a box imo.
-
Scipio has done an excellent job over the last few weeks of detailing precisely what the evidence is which keeps Bamber inside. All we see in response are wild theories and hearsays and attempts to discredit former detectives and forensic specialists. Tesko's long lauded photo of Sheila on the bed claim and his claims of secret rendezvous with informers are nothing more than tantalisers aimed solely at keeping this ridiculous farce of a case in the public eye. The public are no longer interested, the CCRC are no longer interested and the Court of Appeal is most certainly never going to entertain any more ludicrous appeals.
Bamber should grow a pair, admit his lurid crimes and maybe some day he will get parole because as it stands he will come out in a box imo.
I asked you for YOUR overwhelming evidence------not Scipio,who I take with a LARGE pinch of salt.
-
That is incorrect Grahame, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish guilt.
If the evidence on which the conviction was based is accepted by the Court of Appeal as unreliable that will lead to the conviction being quashed.
The point is simply that the defence at appeal is not required to prove actual innocence, but only to discredit the basis of the conviction.
Bamber was convicted on the basis of the silencer evidence so, if it is accepted by the Court that it was fabricated, the conviction should be overturned. Julie Mugford's testimony is easy to expose as full of lies. That does not mean it would be overturned, but it is what should happen according to the law.
There is a whole lot of evidence to convict Jeremy, finding that the moderator was tampered with would result in a retrial merely. At any rate substantial evidence is necessary to establish the moderator was tampered with but no Jeremy supporter can come up with any. Not one person who believes the moderator was tampered with can even posit who did it, when and how let alone has a signles shred of evidence to base their beliefs on. thus there is a snowball's chance in hell of the Coart of Appeals ever being convinced of such.
-
There must be something new contained in the latest submissions otherwise it wouldn't have been accepted. There'll be no need for any Court of Appeal if the new documents can prove that something has been overlooked,as hopefully the sentence will be quashed.
-
Thanks John :)
Blood not being on the phone makes sense. The call was allegedly made before Sheila ever started shooting. There is no way for Jeremy supporters to claim the call was made after any shooting had occurred because if that had been the case then:
1) Nevill would have called 999 requesting medical help for his family
2) If he called Jeremy instead then in that case he would have stated SHeila had opened fire not merely that she had a gun and requested Jeremy to call for medical help not just to come over because Jeremy could not heal wounds.
Even the staunchest Jeremy supporter is forced to operate from the position that Nevill's alleged call predated any shooting.
The phone being located in the kitchen and not the bedroom means that Sheila had to have the gun and somehow give the opportunity for Nevill to go alone into the kitchen to dial and wait for Jeremy to answer, which would not be fast. This would require Nevill to leave his family at the mercy of an armed Sheila.
It makes no sense to leave an armed Sheila roaming around to harm his fmaily but even less sense in such circulstances to call Jeremy to come try to stop her. Why would you wait at least 20 minutes for Jeremy to come try to disarm her instead of doing it yourself? You are going to just do nothing for 20 plus minutes hoping and praying she doesn't shoot and hoping Jeremy could somehow disarm her without her opening fire at everyone upon seeing him? If you are truly worried you grab a weapon of some sort to try to disarm her with even if a broom to try to knocke the gun away. As a practical matter a rifle is easier to push away than a handgun. A handgun can be fired at you while wresting over it a long gun cannot. But he also could have stabbed her arm to make her drop it or confronted her with a shotgun. Physically there is nothing Jeremy coudl have done to disarm her that Nevill could not have done. Nevill was on the scene with the need to act while Jeremy was not. So the call itself makes no sense.
Why would June remain in bed throughout this commotion? She only got out of bed after being shot. So a lot of things make no sense.
The problem posed by the call being allegedly disonnected but the phone being left off the hook is that it means Nevill can't have simply panicked and dropped the phone. Nor would he have any reason to hang up the phone and then immediately take it back off the hook. The only 2 explanations for this that Jeremy supporters cna come up with to try to account for the phone being off the hook and yet the call disconnected is:
A) Sheila walked over to the phone and pushed the buttons down to disconnect the call then made Nevill drop the phone
or
B) Sheila grabbed the phone from Nevill, hung it up and then took it off the hook
In either event Sheila had to be there causing the phone to be disconnected and left off the hook.
This presents 2 giant questions:
1) Why would Nevill not have disarmed her because in order to do either of these things she would have to be extremely close and yet have only one hand on the gun. Being so close and yet with only 1 hand on the gun it would be easy for Nevill to grab the gun in a manner that prevented her from shooting him with it and then to yank it from her control.
2)) why would someone in a crazy rage having delusions not shoot him upon seeing him on the phone but instead make sure the phone is hung up, then take it off the hook again so no one can call the house (why would she be worried about preventing someone from calling the house?) and then march him up to the bedroom to shoot him and June together? It makes no sense at all for someone in her alleged position to want to march him upstairs to shoot them together.
There are just so amny things that make no sense about this alleged call that make it implausible and not credible.
If Sheila went down to the kitchen then saw the gun and grabbed it and went up to the bedroom to wake her parents to shoot them then she would have shot them there and then. June staying in bed while Nevill walks around with her and then using the phone when he manages to be alone, and her finding him at the very end after he passes his message on and then her disconnecting the call but leaving the phone off the hook and marching him to the bedroom to kill both together simply makes no sense at all and denies belief.
Worse though she managed to supposedly kill everyone without getting so much as a scratch let alone of bloos spatter from the victims on her destipe a severe struggle that ende dup brekaing the stock of the gun stock in a location that would have resulted in the broken piece striking her hand.
This is before even looking at the impossiiblity of her having shot herself.
-
Blood not being on the phone makes sense. The call was allegedly made before Sheila ever started shooting. There is no way for Jeremy supporters to claim the call was made after any shooting had occurred because if that had been the case then:
1) Nevill would have called 999 requesting medical help for his family
2) If he called Jeremy instead then in that case he would have stated SHeila had opened fire not merely that she had a gun and requested Jeremy to call for medical help not just to come over because Jeremy could not heal wounds.
Even the staunchest Jeremy supporter is forced to operate from the position that Nevill's alleged call predated any shooting.
The phone being located in the kitchen and not the bedroom means that Sheila had to have the gun and somehow give the opportunity for Nevill to go alone into the kitchen to dial and wait for Jeremy to answer, which would not be fast. This would require Nevill to leave his family at the mercy of an armed Sheila.
It makes no sense to leave an armed Sheila roaming around to harm his fmaily but even less sense in such circulstances to call Jeremy to come try to stop her. Why would you wait at least 20 minutes for Jeremy to come try to disarm her instead of doing it yourself? You are going to just do nothing for 20 plus minutes hoping and praying she doesn't shoot and hoping Jeremy could somehow disarm her without her opening fire at everyone upon seeing him? If you are truly worried you grab a weapon of some sort to try to disarm her with even if a broom to try to knocke the gun away. As a practical matter a rifle is easier to push away than a handgun. A handgun can be fired at you while wresting over it a long gun cannot. But he also could have stabbed her arm to make her drop it or confronted her with a shotgun. Physically there is nothing Jeremy coudl have done to disarm her that Nevill could not have done. Nevill was on the scene with the need to act while Jeremy was not. So the call itself makes no sense.
Why would June remain in bed throughout this commotion? She only got out of bed after being shot. So a lot of things make no sense.
The problem posed by the call being allegedly disonnected but the phone being left off the hook is that it means Nevill can't have simply panicked and dropped the phone. Nor would he have any reason to hang up the phone and then immediately take it back off the hook. The only 2 explanations for this that Jeremy supporters cna come up with to try to account for the phone being off the hook and yet the call disconnected is:
A) Sheila walked over to the phone and pushed the buttons down to disconnect the call then made Nevill drop the phone
or
B) Sheila grabbed the phone from Nevill, hung it up and then took it off the hook
In either event Sheila had to be there causing the phone to be disconnected and left off the hook.
This presents 2 giant questions:
1) Why would Nevill not have disarmed her because in order to do either of these things she would have to be extremely close and yet have only one hand on the gun. Being so close and yet with only 1 hand on the gun it would be easy for Nevill to grab the gun in a manner that prevented her from shooting him with it and then to yank it from her control.
2)) why would someone in a crazy rage having delusions not shoot him upon seeing him on the phone but instead make sure the phone is hung up, then take it off the hook again so no one can call the house (why would she be worried about preventing someone from calling the house?) and then march him up to the bedroom to shoot him and June together? It makes no sense at all for someone in her alleged position to want to march him upstairs to shoot them together.
There are just so amny things that make no sense about this alleged call that make it implausible and not credible.
If Sheila went down to the kitchen then saw the gun and grabbed it and went up to the bedroom to wake her parents to shoot them then she would have shot them there and then. June staying in bed while Nevill walks around with her and then using the phone when he manages to be alone, and her finding him at the very end after he passes his message on and then her disconnecting the call but leaving the phone off the hook and marching him to the bedroom to kill both together simply makes no sense at all and denies belief.
Worse though she managed to supposedly kill everyone without getting so much as a scratch let alone of bloos spatter from the victims on her destipe a severe struggle that ende dup brekaing the stock of the gun stock in a location that would have resulted in the broken piece striking her hand.
This is before even looking at the impossiiblity of her having shot herself.
The curious thing is that it's YOU who have always claimed what we supposedly have thought. It NEVER made sense to me that shots had been fired PRIOR to a call being made. Hid I not say it loudly enough or did it simply not fit with what you were saying?
-
Scipio? I may have dreamt this so I apologise in advance if I have this wrong BUT - did you say there was no flake found in the sound moderator?
-
The curious thing is that it's YOU who have always claimed what we supposedly have thought. It NEVER made sense to me that shots had been fired PRIOR to a call being made. Hid I not say it loudly enough or did it simply not fit with what you were saying?
What part of:
"Even the staunchest Jeremy supporter is forced to operate from the position that Nevill's alleged call predated any shooting."
confuses you?
I clearly state that Jeremy supporters all argue that the phone call predated the shooting and therefore there would be no blood on the phone under their reasoning so the lack of blood on the phone is unable to refute their claims.
I didn't misrepresent the position of supporters, especially not you since you confirm my point and operate under the assumption the shots were fired after just like I stated.
While you are busy trying to create a conflict that doesn't exist you ignored all my points about how the phone call claim hurt Jeremy.
-
What part of:
"Even the staunchest Jeremy supporter is forced to operate from the position that Nevill's alleged call predated any shooting."
confuses you?
I clearly state that Jeremy supporters all argue that the phone call predated the shooting and therefore there would be no blood on the phone under their reasoning so the lack of blood on the phone is unable to refute their claims.
I didn't misrepresent the position of supporters, especially not you since you confirm my point and operate under the assumption the shots were fired after just like I stated.
While you are busy trying to create a conflict that doesn't exist you ignored all my points about how the phone call claim hurt Jeremy.
Well if you want to play at being a big kid, I made the claim long before you joined the forum. So you think I ignore YOUR points? GREAT!!! Now you know how it feels.......................should you care.
-
Well if you want to play at being a big kid, I made the claim long before you joined the forum. So you think I ignore YOUR points? GREAT!!! Now you know how it feels.......................should you care.
For me it is good if you fail to address my points. If you fail to challenge an opponents points then they prevail by default because their arguments are unrebutted. You are the one acting like a kid by saying you are going to ignore me and not address anything, it not only is childish but futile.
You also are demonstrating childishness in saying that you held the view that the call was made before any shooting occurred long before I came on the scene. You are making things personal for no reason at all.
I never claimed that I am the one who convinced Jeremy supporters that the call had to be made before any shooting occurred. I simply pointed out some of the reasons WHY Jeremy supporters hold such view.
My point was that the fact blood was not found on the phone fails to dent the claims of Jeremy supportes a different avenue must be use dand then I presented that avenue.
You failed to address that avenue so my points were all unrebutted. People refusing to address them doesn't make them go away so I couldn't care less if Jeremy supporters can't address them it just makes it harder for Jeremy supporters to claim their positions have a solid basis when they can't refute such points.
-
For me it is good if you fail to address my points. If you fail to challenge an opponents points then they prevail by default because their arguments are unrebutted. You are the one acting like a kid by saying you are going to ignore me and not address anything, it not only is childish but futile.
You also are demonstrating childishness in saying that you held the view that the call was made before any shooting occurred long before I came on the scene. You are making things personal for no reason at all.
I never claimed that I am the one who convinced Jeremy supporters that the call had to be made before any shooting occurred. I simply pointed out some of the reasons WHY Jeremy supporters hold such view.
My point was that the fact blood was not found on the phone fails to dent the claims of Jeremy supportes a different avenue must be use dand then I presented that avenue.
You failed to address that avenue so my points were all unrebutted. People refusing to address them doesn't make them go away so I couldn't care less if Jeremy supporters can't address them it just makes it harder for Jeremy supporters to claim their positions have a solid basis when they can't refute such points.
Yeh, yeh, what ever!!! If we'd been having this conversation face to face, I wouldn't have spoken a word because I wouldn't have got one in edgeways. It seems that whilst you're determined that no one but you can be allowed to be right - ie NOT ONLY DO I APPEAR TO BE RIGHT, I AM RIGHT"- but you throw a tantrum when no one will play with you. WHY, in God's name would anyone want to. Perhaps it's not so much your points we don't want to address, as your admitted "couldn't care less" attitude to us which is hardly friendly but maybe we're picking up on your attitude and are caring less about your opinion of us.
-
Scipio? I may have dreamt this so I apologise in advance if I have this wrong BUT - did you say there was no flake found in the sound moderator?
Just in case you missed it!
-
Just in case you missed it!
No it wasn't me.
I have disputed Mike's claims that the flake was a losse flake that was floating around the moderator.
I characterize the flake in the same manner as the 2002 Court of Appeal decision which stated, "At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing."
I contend that blood pooled, dried to form a flake and such flake was stuck to the moderator because it dreid onto it and this flake was scraped out of the moderator and then tested.
Also that visible blood dried on the first 4-6 baffles with blood diminishing as the baffles were deeper inside and this was all removed and some of it tested. Finally that the defense found and removed microscopic drops of blood from the first 8 baffles that was tested. The prosecution and defents experts agreed that the flake, visible blood from the baffles and microscopic drops from the baffles were all group A and Sheila was the sole individual who could have been the source of such blood.
My final conclusion is that such blood could not have been transferred innocently into the moderator the only way to account for all this blood is for blood to have sprayed inside, a spray is the only way to get blood on each successive baffle and yet to dimish each successive wave like that. The only natural phenomena that could cause such is drawback. For the blood to instead have been planted would require using some device that would spray blood on the initial 8 baffles but not beyond and thus to mimick spatter which also only travels a few inches.
I have never heard of any case where a device was successfully used to mimick drawback and thus used to frame someone. The typical planting attempt features taking a vial or dropper and dripping/pouring blood inside a barrel and that results in blood going too far inside or not far enough depending on the situation. Certainly pouring it in a moderator or using a dropper would fail to result in getting blood on each baffle to a certain point and result in amount on each reducing until finally stopping. Chances are the initial baffles could be entirely missed unless the moderator is kept horizinatlaly in which case the blood would not go very deep.
So there are 2 takeaways:
1) Innocent contamination is out the window the blood would have to have been planted if it was not from drawback
2) Planting it would have been a complex act that required great knowledge and skill
-
That's not actually true as i have posted evidence from one of the experts that says the ccrc did not understand the blood evidence or chose to ignore it. Therefore if it was not sheila blood your argument falls to pieces.
-
That's not actually true as i have posted evidence from one of the experts that says the ccrc did not understand the blood evidence or chose to ignore it. Therefore if it was not sheila blood your argument falls to pieces.
Jansus, whilst I'm certain he'd deny it, if Scipio's script isn't vastly different from ours, at the very least, it's embroidered. He claims Jeremy drove to the farm at 5mph. I don't recall that we knew that previously.
-
No it wasn't me.
I have disputed Mike's claims that the flake was a losse flake that was floating around the moderator.
I characterize the flake in the same manner as the 2002 Court of Appeal decision which stated, "At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing."
I contend that blood pooled, dried to form a flake and such flake was stuck to the moderator because it dreid onto it and this flake was scraped out of the moderator and then tested.
Also that visible blood dried on the first 4-6 baffles with blood diminishing as the baffles were deeper inside and this was all removed and some of it tested. Finally that the defense found and removed microscopic drops of blood from the first 8 baffles that was tested. The prosecution and defents experts agreed that the flake, visible blood from the baffles and microscopic drops from the baffles were all group A and Sheila was the sole individual who could have been the source of such blood.
My final conclusion is that such blood could not have been transferred innocently into the moderator the only way to account for all this blood is for blood to have sprayed inside, a spray is the only way to get blood on each successive baffle and yet to dimish each successive wave like that. The only natural phenomena that could cause such is drawback. For the blood to instead have been planted would require using some device that would spray blood on the initial 8 baffles but not beyond and thus to mimick spatter which also only travels a few inches.
I have never heard of any case where a device was successfully used to mimick drawback and thus used to frame someone. The typical planting attempt features taking a vial or dropper and dripping/pouring blood inside a barrel and that results in blood going too far inside or not far enough depending on the situation. Certainly pouring it in a moderator or using a dropper would fail to result in getting blood on each baffle to a certain point and result in amount on each reducing until finally stopping. Chances are the initial baffles could be entirely missed unless the moderator is kept horizinatlaly in which case the blood would not go very deep.
So there are 2 takeaways:
1) Innocent contamination is out the window the blood would have to have been planted if it was not from drawback
2) Planting it would have been a complex act that required great knowledge and skill
If it was successful, you wouldn't have heard of it! Also, this was back in 1985 and in the UK where the phenomenon of drawback wouldn't have been something that was seen on a regular basis and so the conclusion of 'drawback' was most likely made simply to explain how blood got inside. I don't think they would have been looking for signs of a frame up, rather they were more concerned with finding out who's blood was inside. As I have previously said, there were three samples taken and only two were referred to as having been used. I know that all three were said to be sealed and delivered to the lab BUT we have nothing from the lab to verify this claim
-
If it was successful, you wouldn't have heard of it! Also, this was back in 1985 and in the UK where the phenomenon of drawback wouldn't have been something that was seen on a regular basis and so the conclusion of 'drawback' was most likely made simply to explain how blood got inside. I don't think they would have been looking for signs of a frame up, rather they were more concerned with finding out who's blood was inside. As I have previously said, there were three samples taken and only two were referred to as having been used. I know that all three were said to be sealed and delivered to the lab BUT we have nothing from the lab to verify this claim
We have the Holab forms the lab signed- upon receipt of items at the lab the lab signs the Holab forms one of which is returned to the police, the second of which is retained for the lab's files and among other things the statement from Allen. If the seals had been broken then the lab would have noted such upon arrival on the Holab forms and certainly in their statements and probably would not have even used the samples at all but instead rejected them for testing.
(http://s28.postimg.org/9cato00lp/allenp1.jpg)
(http://s21.postimg.org/frvb2oe8n/allenp2.jpg)
The samples were brought to the police station the evening of the murders. They remained there 12-15 hours and on 8/8/85 were conveyed to HQ and then were conveyed to the lab arriving on 8/9/85.
What cops on 8/8/85 were convinced Jeremy was guilty, figured there would not be any evidence to prove his guilt even though nothing had been processed yet so decided to swipe blood to plant somewhere convenient in the future to frame him?
In the meantime your points about drawback being not well known cuts heavily against suggestions that police planted the blood. That early on police had no idea whether the wounds to Sheila were contact wounds or not. All police statements and actions make clear they considered the moderator's importance to be for potential fingerprints. Cook makes it clear that was his concern- fingerprints.
The lab figured out the whole issue of drawback in Septemebr it didn't come from police suggesting anything to the lab. That was a joint effort between the biologists and the ballistics expert.
The lab already had tested and found out the blood in the moderator was human by 8/14/95 because the lab sent a message to police indicating such but police still had no clue what the significance of such could be and still cared only about supergluing it for latent fingerprints.
How would police know to spray blood inside and what could they use to do it? If there were going to plant blood they would have poured it in or used a dropper most likely.
Your suggestion they did this doesn't fit in the short timeframe during which the moderator was delivered to the lab and human blood found let laone the short timeframe that the blood was at the police station.
Nor do you take into account that if the rifle had been used without the moderator then blood would have been inside the rifle and they would have to have known it would be in there and to clean it out. They would have to have done such also within the first 2 days of the investigation.
The only ones who would have had the expertise and opportunity to doctor the evidence is the lab and it would have to have happened with their help police could not have done it alone, there is no getting around that. If police were going to doctor the evidence they would not involve the family hoping that the fmaily would be on board and not rat them out. They would not put their careers in the hands of strangers who coudl talk at any point in time even by accident and kill their careers. If they were going to doctor evidence they would invovle only a tight knit circule of cops.
They would have no need for the family to be invovled at all anyway. All that does is make people suspicious so they could and woudl have simply made up that police found the moderator if they were going to fake it.
-
In my own personal estimation, the Haloperidol which was given intra-muscularly to Sheila,made her worse than the condition that she already had. ( adversely affected )
Medication given to patients with mental illnesses,,or indeed with medical problems is very hit and miss, and trial and error is usually the normal practice until something suitable is found. I very much doubt that Sheila had the right medication/treatment.
As used to be with private practices,money came first,treatment second. Unlike now where consultants work between the private sector and the NHS.
Sheila needed love,reassurance and emotional stability which wasn't forthcoming from a mother who treated her and everything Sheila did,with a military attitude. Such as the time Sheila aborted/miscarried,was more or less told to get on with it. It's staggering to learn that this young woman had NO support from ANYONE,,and her confidence took a bashing too.
Every emotion that Sheila had suffered was lying dormant until such times as she exploded,,as it would with most,,and it's an absolute myth to think that someone like Sheila would explode to the extent that she did,so it was easier to blame her brother,and have him arrested for burglary before leading up to the fact that " it must have been him " who'd murdered his family.
What a bloody mess this case is,brought about by the sheer misunderstanding of Sheila and Jeremy,who remains a VICTIM too !
-
In my own personal estimation, the Haloperidol which was given intra-muscularly to Sheila,made her worse than the condition that she already had. ( adversely affected )
Medication given to patients with mental illnesses,,or indeed with medical problems is very hit and miss, and trial and error is usually the normal practice until something suitable is found. I very much doubt that Sheila had the right medication/treatment.
As used to be with private practices,money came first,treatment second. Unlike now where consultants work between the private sector and the NHS.
Sheila needed love,reassurance and emotional stability which wasn't forthcoming from a mother who treated her and everything Sheila did,with a military attitude. Such as the time Sheila aborted/miscarried,was more or less told to get on with it. It's staggering to learn that this young woman had NO support from ANYONE,,and her confidence took a bashing too.
Every emotion that Sheila had suffered was lying dormant until such times as she exploded,,as it would with most,,and it's an absolute myth to think that someone like Sheila would explode to the extent that she did,so it was easier to blame her brother,and have him arrested for burglary before leading up to the fact that " it must have been him " who'd murdered his family.
What a bloody mess this case is,brought about by the sheer misunderstanding of Sheila and Jeremy,who remains a VICTIM too !
Your eestimation is not worht much because it is not based on any evidence but rather what you want to believe because you support Jeremy.
There is nothing at all to suggest her medication was not working. The notion that after months suddenly at 3AM it gave her problems is not credible at all. Teh doctors treating here wer ein the best position to know.
In the meantime the physical evidence matters greatly because it establishes she didn't do squat to anyone including herself.
You and other Jeremy supporters put all your eggs in one basket. Your simplistic claims are she was crazy so she did it end of story you don't give a crap that Jeremy was proven a liar over and over and, made nonsenscial claims, told Sheila of his plans, that there is a complete lack of any physical evidence to establish Sheila beat or killed anyone and evidence that proves Sheila can't have killed herself.
You don't care about any of this or her doctor's assessments of her condition at the time of the murders.
She's crazy so she did it that is all you have at the end of the day.
Naturally rational peopel laugh at such and consider it drivel.
-
Your eestimation is not worht much because it is not based on any evidence but rather what you want to believe because you support Jeremy.
There is nothing at all to suggest her medication was not working. The notion that after months suddenly at 3AM it gave her problems is not credible at all. Teh doctors treating here wer ein the best position to know.
In the meantime the physical evidence matters greatly because it establishes she didn't do squat to anyone including herself.
You and other Jeremy supporters put all your eggs in one basket. Your simplistic claims are she was crazy so she did it end of story you don't give a crap that Jeremy was proven a liar over and over and, made nonsenscial claims, told Sheila of his plans, that there is a complete lack of any physical evidence to establish Sheila beat or killed anyone and evidence that proves Sheila can't have killed herself.
You don't care about any of this or her doctor's assessments of her condition at the time of the murders.
She's crazy so she did it that is all you have at the end of the day.
Naturally rational peopel laugh at such and consider it drivel.
There would be no need for this conversation if what you said had actually transpired. I agree ENTIRELY that the doctor who was treating her was the person best placed to know -albeit, now, we would probably look for other ways of treating her- HAD he been seeing her on a regular basis but as I've said MANY times, he, NOR any other medical expert -despite that she was supposed to have been visited regularly by a psychiatric nurse, presumably because it was believed she needed to be monitored- since she left the hospital 18 weeks prior to her death. You have implied on numerous occasions that there was nothing wrong with her. If Ferguson had agreed with you he wouldn't have arranged for those home visits and he apparently wasn't aware that they hadn't happened. The medical experts who made statements regarding her mental health, had, I believe, never seen her.
-
There would be no need for this conversation if what you said had actually transpired. I agree ENTIRELY that the doctor who was treating her was the person best placed to know -albeit, now, we would probably look for other ways of treating her- HAD he been seeing her on a regular basis but as I've said MANY times, he, NOR any other medical expert -despite that she was supposed to have been visited regularly by a psychiatric nurse, presumably because it was believed she needed to be monitored- since she left the hospital 18 weeks prior to her death. You have implied on numerous occasions that there was nothing wrong with her. If Ferguson had agreed with you he wouldn't have arranged for those home visits and he apparently wasn't aware that they hadn't happened. The medical experts who made statements regarding her mental health, had, I believe, never seen her.
I have never implied there was nothing wrong with her. in fact many of the things wrong with her are a problem for the defense because they make her less capable of committing the alleged crimes.
The heart of the matter in terms of her mental condition is:
1) whether she was a threat to anyone
2) whether she was a threat to herself
3) whether her mental condition was changing around the time of the murders
None of this is of any value at all unless there is evidence to establish she could have potentially done something because mental state alone proves nothing.
Someone could say they want to kill themself and have a hisotry of trying to commit suicide but if the evidence proves they can't have shot themself then that is not enough to defeat a murder charge against someone else.
But let's go through the motions anyway,
What evidence is there to establish she was suicidal? None!
What evidence is there to establish she was at risk to try to kill anyone? None!
Even when intreated she didn't try any such things and she did in fact respond to treatment.
What evidence to suggest she was recently changing and becoming at risk of doing any of the above? None.
WHich is why the defense and Jeremy supports keep harking back to 1983 before she was treated when she had stated she had suicidal thoughts and delusions about her kids. Even then though she didn't do anything to even try to harm her family or herself. And after treatment she no longe rhad delusions about her family and no longer expressed any suicidal thoughts.
Jeremy supporters have a simplistic notion that Sheila was ill and that's all that matters that means she did it. That argument can't get before a court becaus eit is ridiculous and unrelaible. Evidence must be reliable in order to reach a court and must be well founded and convincing to persuade a court.
Most people have the same requirements to be convinced of something. While biased people don't have such standards most people do so there is still a need to make rational arguments supported by evidence to try to establish something.
A texbook example of taking apart a prosecution point is from the Knox case. The prosecution argued that Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood in the sink and this means she participated in the murder. The defense pointed out that Knox's DNA was not blood based. It was not an example of Knox's blood mixed with the victim's. The defense also showed a video of the prosecution swabbing all over the bathroom. Knox's DNA was bound to be in the bathroom because she used it. There is no way to prove her DNA was mixed with the blood at all the same swabs used to swab blood were also swabbed all over the bathroom. That means that the swab could pick up DNA from normal bathroom use. How does this provide a basis to find that her DNA mixed with Kercher's blood as a result of the murders? This very point was used to achieve an acquittal the second trial.
The third trial court chose to ignore that the procedure used would necessarily result in DNA mixing and thus prove nothing and made the baseless finding that this proved Knox took part in the murder. Now there was a nother appeal filed by Knox. This was not the only issue but all the issues were for a similar reason. The findings of the court were not supported by the evidentiary record. The evidence cited could not support a finding that she took part.
That is the kind of claim that Jeremy supporters have to make. They have to make the argument that evidence wa sunable to support the findings made by the court. That in turn requires proving that the evidence can't result in such finding in a way similar to the example I gave.
The problem is that there is no way for Jeremy supporters to attack the evidence in the same way.
Jeremy supporters largely say the witnesses should not be believed. You have to prove what they say is objectively wrong in order to say a court had no basis to believe them. It is not enough to say you personally choose not to believe them.
There is no way to say Ferguson's assessments were objectively wrong. There is no evidence to prove his assessments objectively wrong.
This case is impossible for the defense to overturn because there is no such evidence to prove the prosecution's case to be objectively wrong.
Jeremy supporters can't resute most of the evidence used to convict Jeremy so instead gloss over it hoping that people will just ignore it. Supporters need to identify each arguent, take on each argument head on and try to find evidence to rebut each argument.
Supporters never do that and yet cry that he is still behind bars and say it is unfair.
-
I have never implied there was nothing wrong with her. in fact many of the things wrong with her are a problem for the defense because they make her less capable of committing the alleged crimes.
The heart of the matter in terms of her mental condition is:
1) whether she was a threat to anyone
2) whether she was a threat to herself
3) whether her mental condition was changing around the time of the murders
None of this is of any value at all unless there is evidence to establish she could have potentially done something because mental state alone proves nothing.
Someone could say they want to kill themself and have a hisotry of trying to commit suicide but if the evidence proves they can't have shot themself then that is not enough to defeat a murder charge against someone else.
But let's go through the motions anyway,
What evidence is there to establish she was suicidal? None!
What evidence is there to establish she was at risk to try to kill anyone? None!
Even when intreated she didn't try any such things and she did in fact respond to treatment.
What evidence to suggest she was recently changing and becoming at risk of doing any of the above? None.
WHich is why the defense and Jeremy supports keep harking back to 1983 before she was treated when she had stated she had suicidal thoughts and delusions about her kids. Even then though she didn't do anything to even try to harm her family or herself. And after treatment she no longe rhad delusions about her family and no longer expressed any suicidal thoughts.
Jeremy supporters have a simplistic notion that Sheila was ill and that's all that matters that means she did it. That argument can't get before a court becaus eit is ridiculous and unrelaible. Evidence must be reliable in order to reach a court and must be well founded and convincing to persuade a court.
Most people have the same requirements to be convinced of something. While biased people don't have such standards most people do so there is still a need to make rational arguments supported by evidence to try to establish something.
A texbook example of taking apart a prosecution point is from the Knox case. The prosecution argued that Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood in the sink and this means she participated in the murder. The defense pointed out that Knox's DNA was not blood based. It was not an example of Knox's blood mixed with the victim's. The defense also showed a video of the prosecution swabbing all over the bathroom. Knox's DNA was bound to be in the bathroom because she used it. There is no way to prove her DNA was mixed with the blood at all the same swabs used to swab blood were also swabbed all over the bathroom. That means that the swab could pick up DNA from normal bathroom use. How does this provide a basis to find that her DNA mixed with Kercher's blood as a result of the murders? This very point was used to achieve an acquittal the second trial.
The third trial court chose to ignore that the procedure used would necessarily result in DNA mixing and thus prove nothing and made the baseless finding that this proved Knox took part in the murder. Now there was a nother appeal filed by Knox. This was not the only issue but all the issues were for a similar reason. The findings of the court were not supported by the evidentiary record. The evidence cited could not support a finding that she took part.
That is the kind of claim that Jeremy supporters have to make. They have to make the argument that evidence wa sunable to support the findings made by the court. That in turn requires proving that the evidence can't result in such finding in a way similar to the example I gave.
The problem is that there is no way for Jeremy supporters to attack the evidence in the same way.
Jeremy supporters largely say the witnesses should not be believed. You have to prove what they say is objectively wrong in order to say a court had no basis to believe them. It is not enough to say you personally choose not to believe them.
There is no way to say Ferguson's assessments were objectively wrong. There is no evidence to prove his assessments objectively wrong.
This case is impossible for the defense to overturn because there is no such evidence to prove the prosecution's case to be objectively wrong.
Jeremy supporters can't resute most of the evidence used to convict Jeremy so instead gloss over it hoping that people will just ignore it. Supporters need to identify each arguent, take on each argument head on and try to find evidence to rebut each argument.
Supporters never do that and yet cry that he is still behind bars and say it is unfair.
18 weeks is a long time so you have to concede that her condition could have deteriorated within that 18 weeks. Just because the medical persons involved did not see her in that period of time does not prove it did not happen. So I see your argument as proof by omission. Weak
-
18 weeks is a long time so you have to concede that her condition could have deteriorated within that 18 weeks. Just because the medical persons involved did not see her in that period of time does not prove it did not happen. So I see your argument as proof by omission. Weak
The bruden is on you to prove that it did deteriorate and in a way which woudl have caused her to be liekly to kill and commit suicide. The fact of the matter is that you can't which is why you and other supporters constantly bring up 1983 before she was treated.
You have zilch to suggest she woudl be having any delusions let alone kill as a result of them. No evidence she was having delusions the day of the murder let alone days around it. Nothing to suggest anyhting wrong around the itme of the murders other than she was even mor equiet than usual lon the phone and decided to go to bed without saying good night.
Even more damning than having nothing to indicate she would kill anyone is a complete lack of any evidence that she did and worse evidence she can't have killed herself.
What evidence could have convicted her? Nada there is evidence to convict Jeremy but not her.
I know it is frustrating arguing a position with the facts completely against you but that is your fault. you decided to take a position that is the complete opposite of what the facts demonstrate.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,159.msg375.html
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,153.msg316.html#msg316
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,159.msg375.html
And? This doesn't help on the contrary it hurts.
1) It says since the second hospital stay she spoke very slowly and deliberate thus hard to talk to because he lacked the patience to deal with her being so slow. He siad he only saw her socially one time after her second breakdown. He said she was pleasant and noted no problems or issues observed during such encounter. That is the timeframe that actually matters in trying to show she changed in between leaving the hospital and before the murders. Yet he provides no examples of her relapsing or the like.
2) He doesn'tnote anything that would change from the second hospital stay to the murders. Instead he noted a change from before and after the stay. She was very subdued and slow. That is what Haldol does to people it has sedative effects even though Jeremy supporters would like to pretend otherwise. She went from being high strung upon entering to being extremely slow talking and acting after it. That certianly doesn't exhibit anything suggestive of increasing the likelihood of her being violent let alone killing anyone.
3) Part of the problem related to her second breakdown was that she had stopped taking her medication. He noted that no one could get her to take her medication or clam down but she instantly calmed down as soon as she saw Nevill- he immediately had an effect to balance her and she conversed rationally with him. He was amazed. This certainly doesn't help. It makes it harder to claim Nevill would need Jeremy when Nevill had such a calming effect and greatly hurts any suggestion she would be likely to harm Nevill. He was able to get her back on track even though she was not taking her medication and at the time fo the murders she was on her medication.
4) He was shocked by the murders and found it difficult to believe she was responsible.
This offers nothing at all to help establish that Sheila changed between her hospital stay and the murders as would be indicative of suddenly becoming prone to commit violence or murder.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,153.msg316.html#msg316
and?
It says that the after the second hospital stay her doctor told him he did not see her as a threat to herself and others. He presents no evidence to the contrary or anything about her changing between that release and the murders.
He observes what everyone else did she was vacant and not very talkative after going on Haldol.
Moreover he gave a much longer subsequent statement where he elaborates about how she became closer to her mother after the second hospital stay as they bonded over religion. He stated that she didn't show much interest in the kids and the kids would complain about her ignoring them as she was in her own world. He also said he didn't believe she was capable of the murders.
This doesn't help at all to establish she changed between being released and the time of the murders and was likely to become violent and kill.
-
1) - About four months ago I called on Sheila at her flat, at her suggestion. She appeared to me to be jumpy, uptight and panicky although I do not know what about...
(2) - Whilst I was there she telephoned Tara, a close friend. She was apologizing to Tara for a religious book that her step mother had dropped off at Tara's house a couple of days previously. During the call the phone went dead. Sheila suddenly became hysterical mumbling about the phone bugged. She became like someone possessed ranting and raving. She was striking herself and beating the wall with her fists.I tried to calm her but she did not seem to hear me...
(3) - I became extremely frightened not only for her but for myself...
(4) - She kept talking about the devil and god, and stating that God was sitting opposite her and unlike what her stepmother said he in fact loved her...
(5) - I contacted her ex- mother in law and asked her to come around. This aggravated the situation and Sheila became even more violent and abusive...
This was not in 1983. It was 4 months before the murders. Ann Eaton hads not seen Sheila since Christmas, this was August. So she was not a reliable witness in regard to the state of Sheila's mind.
-
The bruden is on you to prove that it did deteriorate and in a way which woudl have caused her to be liekly to kill and commit suicide. The fact of the matter is that you can't which is why you and other supporters constantly bring up 1983 before she was treated.
You have zilch to suggest she woudl be having any delusions let alone kill as a result of them. No evidence she was having delusions the day of the murder let alone days around it. Nothing to suggest anyhting wrong around the itme of the murders other than she was even mor equiet than usual lon the phone and decided to go to bed without saying good night.
Even more damning than having nothing to indicate she would kill anyone is a complete lack of any evidence that she did and worse evidence she can't have killed herself.
What evidence could have convicted her? Nada there is evidence to convict Jeremy but not her.
I know it is frustrating arguing a position with the facts completely against you but that is your fault. you decided to take a position that is the complete opposite of what the facts demonstrate.
get off your high horse - we are not in court now.
And Sorry I dont agree .
I bet a lot of doctors plead that when they let people out into the community and they then commit crimes.
-
get off your high horse - we are not in court now.
And Sorry I dont agree .
I bet a lot of doctors plead that when they let people out into the community and they then commit crimes.
This is the problem, scipio seems to believe he's in court or is the CCRC while we are debating and questioning. It is almost impossible to prove you are innocent to an Appeal Court even if you are and scipio is using that as his defence. :-\
-
This is the problem, scipio seems to believe he's in court or is the CCRC while we are debating and questioning. It is almost impossible to prove you are innocent to an Appeal Court even if you are and scipio is using that as his defence. :-\
In order to debate this thing properly a person cannot keep retreating back to the decision of the court or the verdict. We are not in court. In fact we are questioning or debating the verdict and the decisions of the court. So anything the court or the judge had to say is irrelevant if we are to do this correctly and in an unbiased way.
-
Out of ALL the people who were questioned after the tragedy,Jeremy was/is the ONLY one who hasn't lied,embroidered,embellished,fabricated or altered his account in any way,all the years he's been in prison. His story to this day remains the same !
-
Out of ALL the people who were questioned after the tragedy,Jeremy was/is the ONLY one who hasn't lied,embroidered,embellished,fabricated or altered his account in any way,all the years he's been in prison. His story to this day remains the same !
As far as I can see he hasn't changed his story once. But I see many unproven snippets being posted here on the forum by the guilty party?
-
We know about JM,but did we know that she'd also added that she was engaged to Jeremy ? That,I'm afraid,was yet another lie. Oh dear !
-
We know about JM,but did we know that she'd also added that she was engaged to Jeremy ? That,I'm afraid,was yet another lie. Oh dear !
If Jeremy had asked her to marry him and she'd accepted, they would have been engaged -albeit for the short time it took him to tell his parents and for them to have their say and for him to change his mind- and in Victorian times she could have sued him for breach of promise of marriage.
-
and?
It says that the after the second hospital stay her doctor told him he did not see her as a threat to herself and others. He presents no evidence to the contrary or anything about her changing between that release and the murders.
He observes what everyone else did she was vacant and not very talkative after going on Haldol.
Moreover he gave a much longer subsequent statement where he elaborates about how she became closer to her mother after the second hospital stay as they bonded over religion. He stated that she didn't show much interest in the kids and the kids would complain about her ignoring them as she was in her own world. He also said he didn't believe she was capable of the murders.
This doesn't help at all to establish she changed between being released and the time of the murders and was likely to become violent and kill.
I'm interested in that Ferguson states that after her second stay in hospital Sheila bonded with her mother over religion.
I'm curious as to how he knew this as the last time he had contact with Sheila was IN hospital, 18 weeks prior to her death. There obviously wasn't any feedback from the psychiatric nurses who failed to visit her.
I'm also curious as to WHEN, after leaving hospital, this bonding occurred. We know that Sheila hadn't visited the farm since prior to the previous Christmas and whilst I concede that June may have visited Sheila in London, there is no proof of this OR of phonecalls between them. As you have, on numerous occasions, told us that any information we think we have doesn't count because there is no proof, I would be interested to know, given that you've presented it as proof, from where and how has this proof been extricated from the above.
-
I am interested to see that Ferguson states that after her last stay in hospital, Sheila had bonded with June over religion, given that the last time he had contact with her was IN hospital, 18 weeks prior to her death. He couldn't have got this information from the psychiatric nurses who visited her because they failed to.
It also occurs to me to wonder precisely WHEN this bonding happened. We know that Sheila hadn't visited the farm since prior to the previous Christmas and whilst I concede that it's possible June may have visited Sheila after her release from hospital, there is no proof of either that or phonecalls between then. MAYBE Ferguson was in contact with the Bambers, but there's no proof.
As you are so smug about lack of proof on OUR part, and insist that information without it is unacceptable, you probably won't find it TOO curious that I find it strange that you should accept as proof what Ferguson says of Sheila's relationship with June without questioning from where his proof of it comes.
Colin is the one who claimed they bonded over religion.
Apart from in his book he mentioned it in his statement, he didn't like religion so this bothered him greatly:
(http://s10.postimg.org/yf3bkz3t5/colinstat.jpg)
At trial Ann Eaton discussed a letter Sheila had written during her hospital stay in which she said she was gettig better and let God into her life so that she could understand her mother better. it seemed to suggest that she did such with the intention of having a better relationship with her mother not merely coincidental as Colin seemed to think.
As for the notion she didn't see them much after getting out of the hospital she stayed at WHF part of the time during her recovery. I also recall she spent Easter with them and had visited in June. The notion they had not had time together after her stay seems to be another of your assumptions. While you say I make assumptions you make far more and they are all ill considered.
-
This is the problem, scipio seems to believe he's in court or is the CCRC while we are debating and questioning. It is almost impossible to prove you are innocent to an Appeal Court even if you are and scipio is using that as his defence. :-\
I know I am not in court. However like a court requires rational evidence to support claims so do I. Hispotirans and lawyers operate in the same manner in evaluating evidence which is why the progression to law was so easy. Historians care about first hand accounts and so do courts.
The simple reality is that Jeremy supporters have not evlauated all the evidence and decided to follow it. Instead Jeremy suppoerters have decided what they want to believe regardless of what the evidence proves. That makes your opinions not supported by a rational basis and unable to defend your views with any evidence.
Instead it is always the same, "I have the right to believe anything I want" and dismay that others don't share such beliefes and instead follow evidence.
Anytime debating gets tough people flock to the well I can have any opinion I want and the debate is cut off before it begins in earnest.
Debating unsupported opinions is a waste fo time and wrothless. A debate should be over the evidence that can be brought to bear- the evidentiary basis that underlies the opinions. If there is no evidentiary basis then debate wise the opinions are worthless because all that matters debate wise is what there is a raitonal basis for.
-
This was not in 1983. It was 4 months before the murders. Ann Eaton hads not seen Sheila since Christmas, this was August. So she was not a reliable witness in regard to the state of Sheila's mind.
-
Actually Eaton saw Sheila on Easter and throughout the season when she visited the caravan site with June. She also might have seen her during a Christening in June but forgot unless for some reason Ann didn't attend the Christening.
-
Actually Eaton saw Sheila on Easter and throughout the season when she visited the caravan site with June. She also might have seen her during a Christening in June but forgot unless for some reason Ann didn't attend the Christening.
Source please. It was still a long way off from August anyway.
-
Colin is the one who claimed they bonded over religion.
Apart from in his book he mentioned it in his statement, he didn't like religion so this bothered him greatly:
(http://s10.postimg.org/yf3bkz3t5/colinstat.jpg)
At trial Ann Eaton discussed a letter Sheila had written during her hospital stay in which she said she was gettig better and let God into her life so that she could understand her mother better. it seemed to suggest that she did such with the intention of having a better relationship with her mother not merely coincidental as Colin seemed to think.
As for the notion she didn't see them much after getting out of the hospital she stayed at WHF part of the time during her recovery. I also recall she spent Easter with them and had visited in June. The notion they had not had time together after her stay seems to be another of your assumptions. While you say I make assumptions you make far more and they are all ill considered.
As you've done more "talking" in your short time with us than have I since I've been a member, the law of averages would have it that you're likely to have made more assumptions than I. Be that as it may, I haven't read Colin's book since the 1990's.
I had no idea that Sheila stayed at the farm following her second hospital stay although I was aware that she had after her first. She didn't visit the previous Christmas (1984) because of deteriorating health....................unless your going to tell me otherwise.
Now, unless I'm making MORE assumptions, in his statement of Aug.8 1985, Ferguson says "In hindsight I believe Sheila would have relapsed into a state of acute psychosis...................possibly involving her mother. At the time of the tragedy she would have been in a disturbed psychotic state.................." In his next statement of Sept.30 1986 he says "As I have previously stated I was concerned about her leaving hospital as soon as she did and was particularly anxious that there should be psychiatric patient follow up within the NHS. I understand that at the time of her death she was about to be referred to St Mary's London..........." Of Freddie's description of her violence prior to her second admission he says, of her potential for violence that whilst he hadn't witnessed it, if she found herself facing fears, real or imagined, he believed "She could respond with physical aggression to property, herself and others" and had "no reason to doubt what Freddie had said of her."
-
Source please. It was still a long way off from August anyway.
The sources are her various statements presumably her first statement from September is the one that gave the background on such because she started out in chronological order and the subsequent statements she gave carried on with a cohronological listing of events after the murders.
-
As you've done more "talking" in your short time with us than have I since I've been a member, the law of averages would have it that you're likely to have made more assumptions than I. Be that as it may, I haven't read Colin's book since the 1990's.
I had no idea that Sheila stayed at the farm following her second hospital stay although I was aware that she had after her first. She didn't visit the previous Christmas (1984) because of deteriorating health....................unless your going to tell me otherwise.
Do you have evidence she didn't visit her parents for Christmas or is that an assummption based on Ann Eaton's claim that she didn't see her Easter of 1984?
Now, unless I'm making MORE assumptions, in his statement of Aug.8 1985, Ferguson says "In hindsight I believe Sheila would have relapsed into a state of acute psychosis...................possibly involving her mother. At the time of the tragedy she would have been in a disturbed psychotic state.................." In his next statement of Sept.30 1986 he says "As I have previously stated I was concerned about her leaving hospital as soon as she did and was particularly anxious that there should be psychiatric patient follow up within the NHS. I understand that at the time of her death she was about to be referred to St Mary's London..........." Of Freddie's description of her violence prior to her second admission he says, of her potential for violence that whilst he hadn't witnessed it, if she found herself facing fears, real or imagined, he believed "She could respond with physical aggression to property, herself and others" and had "no reason to doubt what Freddie had said of her."
Ferguson was told she killed her family. When all his statements and testimony are combined it greatly harms your efforts so of course you don't want to discuss in total what he assessed.
He assessed:
1) she would not be likely to hurt her family or to commit suicide
2) she responded well to treatment and once on medication she was a totally different person
3) that taking illicit drugs aggravated her conditions as did stopping her medication
4) that Freddie was a bad influence on her
5) if Sheila were over medicated she would appear vacant, difficult to communicate with, sleep very soundly and deeply. Over sedation would result in slow deliberate movements, lack of coordination slowness in speech and involuntary movements. Her physical performance would be reduced.
6) That based on the descripion he received of her last weeks alive (based on all those who interacted with her) she was being over medicated and too sedated. Indeed all the things descibed by Freddie, Colin, Pam and others about her being vacant, slow speaking, tired and going to bed early all comport with such.
7) Her Haldol injection would wear off after 6 weeks
8) He felt she would need help since she was leaving sooner than he wanted BUT he did not view her as a treat to herself of anyone else.
So let's see:
A) she responded well to medication and was on her medication so had no reason to relapse a tthe time
B) Both before treatment and even when she stopped her medication and relasped she was not seen as a threat to harm her family or self and she had no done so during those periods
C) the doctor saw no reaosn to believe she would hurt her family or commit suicide
D) at the time of the murders she was being over sedated so in less of a position to become agitated or successfully carry out the murders
Only someone as delusional as Sheila when she was off her meds would think that this bodes well for claiming she was likely to have committed the murders just from looking at the mental issues.
When this is added to all the other evidence then it just becomes more clear that she did nothing and that Jeremy killed everyone.
-
Do you have evidence she didn't visit her parents for Christmas or is that an assummption based on Ann Eaton's claim that she didn't see her Easter of 1984?
Ferguson was told she killed her family. When all his statements and testimony are combined it greatly harms your efforts so of course you don't want to discuss in total what he assessed.
He assessed:
1) she would not be likely to hurt her family or to commit suicide
2) she responded well to treatment and once on medication she was a totally different person
3) that taking illicit drugs aggravated her conditions as did stopping her medication
4) that Freddie was a bad influence on her
5) if Sheila were over medicated she would appear vacant, difficult to communicate with, sleep very soundly and deeply. Over sedation would result in slow deliberate movements, lack of coordination slowness in speech and involuntary movements. Her physical performance would be reduced.
6) That based on the descripion he received of her last weeks alive (based on all those who interacted with her) she was being over medicated and too sedated. Indeed all the things descibed by Freddie, Colin, Pam and others about her being vacant, slow speaking, tired and going to bed early all comport with such.
7) Her Haldol injection would wear off after 6 weeks
8) He felt she would need help since she was leaving sooner than he wanted BUT he did not view her as a treat to herself of anyone else.
So let's see:
A) she responded well to medication and was on her medication so had no reason to relapse a tthe time
B) Both before treatment and even when she stopped her medication and relasped she was not seen as a threat to harm her family or self and she had no done so during those periods
C) the doctor saw no reaosn to believe she would hurt her family or commit suicide
D) at the time of the murders she was being over sedated so in less of a position to become agitated or successfully carry out the murders
Only someone as delusional as Sheila when she was off her meds would think that this bodes well for claiming she was likely to have committed the murders just from looking at the mental issues.
When this is added to all the other evidence then it just becomes more clear that she did nothing and that Jeremy killed everyone.
If I'd been previously aware that Ann Eaton had claimed not to have seen Sheila at Easter 1984, I've forgotten.
I see you've revised your belief that her Haloperidol injection WOULD wear off.
I think what Ferguson says is ambiguous. He's covering all bases.
Would you as a prosecutor hand anything to the defence you didn't have to?
-
If I'd been previously aware that Ann Eaton had claimed not to have seen Sheila at Easter 1984, I've forgotten.
Easter 1985 according to her statements.
I see you've revised your belief that her Haloperidol injection WOULD wear off.
I have not revised anything. I noted prviously that her monthly injections were given BEFORE the last injection would have worn off thus she was never in a position of being unmedicated. How does pointing out the exact provision that formed the basis of my position change anything?
This refutes the claims of those who say she was not medicated at the time of the murders and that her medication had already worn off because she got her last injection almost a month earlier.
I think what Ferguson says is ambiguous. He's covering all bases.
Would you as a prosecutor hand anything to the defence you didn't have to?
There is nothing ambiguous in saying he never viewed her as a threat to herself or anyone else. There is nothing ambiguous in saying he never felt she could harm her family. There is nothing ambiguous about saying when she wa son her medicaiton she was a different person and was fine. There is nothing ambiguous in saying that she had the signs of being over medicated and that such would have made her even less capable of physically carrying out the murders.
All the things I pointed out seriously undermine the claim that she would have been capable of the murders and definitely carried out the murders. I didn't even mention how he undermined the alleged motive because he said Sheila would have welcomed part time foster care as she did in the past.
As I said before mental issues can't overcome the lack of physical evidence that she killed anyone and evidence that she could not have killed herself. But on the mental issues alone the defense even loses.
When do schizophrenics attack others or commit suicide as a result of their ailment? 1) When they stop their medication 2) BEFORE they undergo successful treatment or 3) when under the influence of narcotics/alcohol. Do all schizophrenics physically attack others or commit suicide when they are having delusions? NO! A small percentage do and thatere are signs when someone is at risk of doing so. Sheila was assessed as not being at risk for such and there is ZERO evidence of her trying to attack anyone or trying to commit suicide while having delusions. Did she physically assault Freddie? No he was scared she would do so but she didn't. In the meantime she had delusions of him being the devil and that was because she stopped her medication and was doing narcotics.
Since Ferguson saw her as no threat to her faily and this is very damaging to the claims of Jeremy supporters they go through his statements looking for things to twist and say well in 1983 she admitted that prior to her treatment had delusions about her kids and admitted to having suicidal thoughts at time. Ignored is that he assessed she was not viewed as being at risk of acting upon such thoughts. No doubt part of the reaosn why is because even though she had such thoughts she had not acted upon them though she had not been undergoing any treatment to deal with her problem. But also the fact she stopped having such thought after treatment played in as well. After being treated she stopped having delusions about her family. Even when she stopped taking her medication and relapsed
she didn't have any delusions about her family. She was out of control according to Freddie but as soon as Nevill appeared and talked to her she became coherent.
Her dcotor said she responded well to her treatment, that treatment was via injection so no chance of her missing her medication anymore and after being placed on such medication the best any supporter could come up with as an example of her having issues was to say she flipped out at encountering a stranger in the house. Most women scream if they suddenly encounter a stranger in their house trying to blame that on her illness demonstrates how little Jeremy supporters really have that such has to be stressed.
The only thing that people who knew her noticed after she came out of treatment was that she had found God and bonded with June over religion and that she was hard to communicate with because she talked very slowly, was often vacant and unusually tired so had been going to bed early. These are all signs or being over sedated and make it less likely not more liekly for her to have been capable of the murders.
Last after supposedly being told about the boys being placed in part time foster care she had little reaction and that is according to Jeremy. Her aunt spoke to her afterwards and she was calm and quiet again rather vacant and went to bed because she was tired. If she didn't react strongly when it was raised then why would she wake up people to kill them? Why would she be threatened by part time foster help anyway? Her doctor said she would not be threated by this because she would not view it as her children being taken away. Being overmedicated she would be unlikely to wake up on her own anyway let alone wake up and want to hurt anyone.
At the end of the day there is zilch for the defense to use to establish Sheila would have been likely to harm her family and commit suicide. Worse there is no evidence she did the unlikely. Not ashred of physical evidence to suggest she shot everyone else and beat Nevill. In particular beating Nevill would have resulted in physical evidence being on her including being injured during the struggle. Last the evidence proves she can't have killed herself.
This is not a close case. That is why in our debates you can't come up with anything except frustration.
-
anyone remember the name of the case where the" experts "released a man from care saying he posed no danger ,then a couple of days later he murdered by stabbing ? I think he had a foreign name ? perhaps polish?
-
There was a Martin Davies who'd stabbed a pensioner to death.
There's actually been a few killings by those who've been released too early,,simply because not enough is known about mental illness,,which is totally unacceptable this century where they profess to be more advanced in mental illnesses.
-
There was a Martin Davies who'd stabbed a pensioner to death.
There's actually been a few killings by those who've been released too early,,simply because not enough is known about mental illness,,which is totally unacceptable this century where they profess to be more advanced in mental illnesses.
That's a very poor example.
Davies attempted suicide in the past and, "was known to hear voices commanding he harm himself and others". He abused drugs and alcohol. He was dumped at ahomeless shelter without any regard to making sure he stayed sober, took medicaiton to control his delusions and continued with any kind of outpatient treatment. That he ended up attacking someone was not in the least bit surprising.
-
And Sheila was said to have made suicide attempts,she also heard voices for example "all people are evil and should be killed",she abused drugs and was allowed to live alone,unsupervised, without psychiatric nurses visiting daily (as was recommended by her doctor)!
-
And Sheila was said to have made suicide attempts,she also heard voices for example "all people are evil and should be killed",she abused drugs and was allowed to live alone,unsupervised, without psychiatric nurses visiting daily (as was recommended by her doctor)!
False, when did Sheila make a suicide attempt and what source can you point to for such claim?
The only thing at all the defense could point to regarding suicide was Ferguson saying that Sheila told her she thought about suicide prior to commencing her treatment in 1983 but that she never claimed ot have thought about suicide after commencing treatment.
Your claim she heard voices saying all peopel should be killed is just as bogus as the claim she attempted suicide. But go ahead and try to post a source.
She was not high or on alcohol at the time of the murders (unlike Davies) and was on her medication- in fact she was oversedated according to her doctor.
Also she clearly did not murder anyone or kill herself.
-
I think that after killing the family he went looking for ready cash, something he'd be able to get his hands on with immediate affect and the wallet was his first and obvious port of call. He was furious when he found it was missing a few days later and he let slip (Fraudulently) how much was in it. When I asked him about it he wasn't just evasive, he 'avoided answering'. People who lie do that, they either answer a question with another question or answer it in a way that never actually gives an answer - politicians and it seems Jeremy, use the second method. Remember the phrase "You must tell the truth where possible'? When I asked him about the wallet his response was "I know you asked me a 'specific' question but I can't remember what it was but I think the answer was no or I didn't. So, he remembered it was a 'specific' question and he remembered the answer but not the question? Also, why didn't he simply refer to the letter? I think he lied Martin. But that's NOT the only reason, I don't believe the phone call happened, it's convenient that the phone was off the hook, it looks staged, the messing with the gun, it looks staged and too many independent witnesses testified that he mentioned hating his family. Once doubt enters your mind, you start to look at things differently.
"I think that after killing the family he went looking for ready cash, something he'd be able to get his hands on with immediate affect and the wallet was his first and obvious port of call.
He was furious when he found it was missing a few days later and he let slip (Fraudulently) how much was in it."
Note the underlined phrases in the above passages. The feeling conveyed by them helps create an “atmosphere” of an evil man and of his wilfulness and deceit. What Caroline is doing there is called demonization. It’s a technique to communicate the feeling of guilt. Steve_uk uses it a lot. It looks like they both went to the same propaganda school.
"Remember the phrase "You must tell the truth where possible'?"
"too many independent witnesses testified that he mentioned hating his family"
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel!
Alright, I won't say anymore.
-
According to BW and Jean Boutell,a couple of days before the murders Sheila had told them "all people are evil and should be killed". If it is "bogus" as you put it,then take it up with AE as it is contained in one of her statements. And Sheila was not over sedated at the time of the murders. She was due another injection after having only had half her required dose weeks before.
-
According to BW and Jean Boutell,a couple of days before the murders Sheila had told them "all people are evil and should be killed". If it is "bogus" as you put it,then take it up with AE as it is contained in one of her statements. And Sheila was not over sedated at the time of the murders. She was due another injection after having only had half her required dose weeks before.
Today we know that 100MG is the maximum safe dosage for Haldol. Her inital 200MG was way too high. The reduction to 100MG was still considered too high per Ferguson. He said that the things she experienced were a sign of being over sedated meaning the dosage was too high. She was not taking any countering agent to the Haldol, among other things the counter is to counter the sedative properties. Also per Ferguson the injection woudl last 6 weeks so it was not wearing off.
This statement contains these assessments:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html
-
Easter 1985 according to her statements.
I have not revised anything. I noted prviously that her monthly injections were given BEFORE the last injection would have worn off thus she was never in a position of being unmedicated. How does pointing out the exact provision that formed the basis of my position change anything?
This refutes the claims of those who say she was not medicated at the time of the murders and that her medication had already worn off because she got her last injection almost a month earlier.
There is nothing ambiguous in saying he never viewed her as a threat to herself or anyone else. There is nothing ambiguous in saying he never felt she could harm her family. There is nothing ambiguous about saying when she wa son her medicaiton she was a different person and was fine. There is nothing ambiguous in saying that she had the signs of being over medicated and that such would have made her even less capable of physically carrying out the murders.
All the things I pointed out seriously undermine the claim that she would have been capable of the murders and definitely carried out the murders. I didn't even mention how he undermined the alleged motive because he said Sheila would have welcomed part time foster care as she did in the past.
As I said before mental issues can't overcome the lack of physical evidence that she killed anyone and evidence that she could not have killed herself. But on the mental issues alone the defense even loses.
When do schizophrenics attack others or commit suicide as a result of their ailment? 1) When they stop their medication 2) BEFORE they undergo successful treatment or 3) when under the influence of narcotics/alcohol. Do all schizophrenics physically attack others or commit suicide when they are having delusions? NO! A small percentage do and thatere are signs when someone is at risk of doing so. Sheila was assessed as not being at risk for such and there is ZERO evidence of her trying to attack anyone or trying to commit suicide while having delusions. Did she physically assault Freddie? No he was scared she would do so but she didn't. In the meantime she had delusions of him being the devil and that was because she stopped her medication and was doing narcotics.
Since Ferguson saw her as no threat to her faily and this is very damaging to the claims of Jeremy supporters they go through his statements looking for things to twist and say well in 1983 she admitted that prior to her treatment had delusions about her kids and admitted to having suicidal thoughts at time. Ignored is that he assessed she was not viewed as being at risk of acting upon such thoughts. No doubt part of the reaosn why is because even though she had such thoughts she had not acted upon them though she had not been undergoing any treatment to deal with her problem. But also the fact she stopped having such thought after treatment played in as well. After being treated she stopped having delusions about her family. Even when she stopped taking her medication and relapsed
she didn't have any delusions about her family. She was out of control according to Freddie but as soon as Nevill appeared and talked to her she became coherent.
Her dcotor said she responded well to her treatment, that treatment was via injection so no chance of her missing her medication anymore and after being placed on such medication the best any supporter could come up with as an example of her having issues was to say she flipped out at encountering a stranger in the house. Most women scream if they suddenly encounter a stranger in their house trying to blame that on her illness demonstrates how little Jeremy supporters really have that such has to be stressed.
The only thing that people who knew her noticed after she came out of treatment was that she had found God and bonded with June over religion and that she was hard to communicate with because she talked very slowly, was often vacant and unusually tired so had been going to bed early. These are all signs or being over sedated and make it less likely not more liekly for her to have been capable of the murders.
Last after supposedly being told about the boys being placed in part time foster care she had little reaction and that is according to Jeremy. Her aunt spoke to her afterwards and she was calm and quiet again rather vacant and went to bed because she was tired. If she didn't react strongly when it was raised then why would she wake up people to kill them? Why would she be threatened by part time foster help anyway? Her doctor said she would not be threated by this because she would not view it as her children being taken away. Being overmedicated she would be unlikely to wake up on her own anyway let alone wake up and want to hurt anyone.
At the end of the day there is zilch for the defense to use to establish Sheila would have been likely to harm her family and commit suicide. Worse there is no evidence she did the unlikely. Not ashred of physical evidence to suggest she shot everyone else and beat Nevill. In particular beating Nevill would have resulted in physical evidence being on her including being injured during the struggle. Last the evidence proves she can't have killed herself.
This is not a close case. That is why in our debates you can't come up with anything except frustration.
And you accuse ME of only using parts of a statement which work for me!!!!! There IS no ambiguity in what YOU have posted from the statement. The ambiguity lays in what I posted of it where he reveals his concerns about what she MIGHT be capable of under certain circumstances.
-
According to BW and Jean Boutell,a couple of days before the murders Sheila had told them "all people are evil and should be killed". If it is "bogus" as you put it,then take it up with AE as it is contained in one of her statements. And Sheila was not over sedated at the time of the murders. She was due another injection after having only had half her required dose weeks before.
Today we know that 100MG is the maximum safe dosage for Haldol. Her inital 200MG was way too high. The reduction to 100MG was still considered too high per Ferguson. He said that the things she experienced were a sign of being over sedated meaning the dosage was too high. She was not taking any countering agent to the Haldol, among other things the counter is to counter the sedative properties. Also per Ferguson the injection woudl last 6 weeks so it was not wearing off.
This statement contains these assessments:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html
But you haven't addressed the point that shortly before she died, Sheila said "All people are evil and should be killed."
-
But you haven't addressed the point that shortly before she died, Sheila said "All people are evil and should be killed."
It's up there with Jeremy saying that he "could easily kill his parents" isn't it?
-
It's up there with Jeremy saying that he "could easily kill his parents" isn't it?
And both statements were witnessed by others, weren't they?
-
And both statements were witnessed by others, weren't they?
As opposed to?
-
As opposed to?
QUE?????????
-
QUE?????????
Likewise? ?????????
-
Today we know that 100MG is the maximum safe dosage for Haldol. Her inital 200MG was way too high. The reduction to 100MG was still considered too high per Ferguson. He said that the things she experienced were a sign of being over sedated meaning the dosage was too high. She was not taking any countering agent to the Haldol, among other things the counter is to counter the sedative properties. Also per Ferguson the injection woudl last 6 weeks so it was not wearing off.
This statement contains these assessments:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html
So it's normal to have delusions about your little boys wanting to seduce you ??
If I remember rightly,there was a furore about the drastic reduction in the Haldol. This was the danger,because it should have been a gradual process,only carried out if there is an improvement in the condition. There wasn't ! Sheilas' condition was chronic and had deteriorated.
None of us were there at the clinic to see her behaviour with the staff when she proved difficult to manage on her last stay in March 1985, saying that they were trying to poison her.
It was after this stay of a couple of months that religion became another part of her life,and her friends worried that it would revert back to her younger years of struggling between good and evil.
This was to become a disturbing force between herself and her mother,and the pattern was repeated.
Sheila,nor her mother were happy about Sheila recuperating at WHF because the atmosphere at the farmhouse with both women at eat others throats.
There was great relief on both sides when Sheila returned home to Maida Vale,but sadly,Sheila took a lot of bitterness with her towards BOTH parents.
Sheila told her friend Sonja that she was very angry towards her parents because of their attitudes towards her after having been ill,and that her mother wasn't listening to Sheilas' complaints,instead,arranging to be sent here or there in order to recover then the " problem " would be solved.
Sadly,Sheila had wanted to see her friend for a talk,but Sonja at the time was busy,,then a month later,Sheila was dead.
I can read between the lines even if nobody else can !!
-
It's up there with Jeremy saying that he "could easily kill his parents" isn't it?
Alleged, by someone who despised him.
-
The more Scipio posts----the more convincing of Jeremys' innocence. It pleases me. ;D
-
Indeed Graham. RWB had an agenda and there were no witnesses,whereas BW and Jean B did not,and had each other as witnesses.
-
Nothing like having your friends as witnesses,and to add to that,the trial at Chelmsford was handy too ! ???
-
Indeed Graham. RWB had an agenda and there were no witnesses,whereas BW and Jean B did not,and had each other as witnesses.
Bamber was a very naive young man and therefore very easily taken advantage of by the wolves of the family who were from the very beginning out to get him so to speak. Those wolves and other wolf packs are still out to savage him. Not content in seeing him already behind bars they continue as some kind of verocious beasts to tear away at him. He himself has said very little compared to their violent rantings. I personally am thoroughly disgusted at the behaviour of these people who parade up and down in their ivory towers. I sometimes wonder what secrets they themselves hide behind closed doors?
-
Bamber was a very naive young man and therefore very easily taken advantage of by the wolves of the family who were from the very beginning out to get him so to speak. Those wolves and other wolf packs are still out to savage him. Not content in seeing him already behind bars they continue as some kind of verocious beasts to tear away at him. He himself has said very little compared to their violent rantings. I personally am thoroughly disgusted at the behaviour of these people who parade up and down in their ivory towers. I sometimes wonder what secrets they themselves hide behind closed doors?
I agree Grahame. There's always something behind the fact where people shout the loudest. What guilt do they hide that they feel their voices must be heard above others ?
Society now is made up of too many of these type of people,,and what pisses me off is that they seem to go on and prosper at the expense of those who are decent citizens.
Treading on peoples toes wasn't the way I was brought up,neither was Jeremy,,but it gets you nowhere being honest and forthright,you get used like a doormat by those who are scrambling in a scrum to reach the top.
It was the beginning of the dog eat dog society that we have now.Nobody seems to " do " decent anymore. The bigger the shyster you are,the better thought of,it would seem.
I'll give you an example of my disillusionment.
My g/son,who is 27,a really decent lad but not a very confident one,was confronted by his assessor at work and given marks across the board,of 2 out of 10.
Although I say it myself,he's a good-looking lad and very presentable. ( nobody likes that ! )
His co-worker never stops swearing,vanishing for a smoke and has a mouthful of rotten teeth. He gets top marks,as do a lot of others. He's a shirker and bullies my g/son for doing as he's told,calling him names.
The assessors verdict on my g/son ? He lacks confidence !! Is it any wonder ?
My daughter is going to confront this monster today. Good job I won't be !
-
I agree Grahame. There's always something behind the fact where people shout the loudest. What guilt do they hide that they feel their voices must be heard above others ?
Society now is made up of too many of these type of people,,and what pisses me off is that they seem to go on and prosper at the expense of those who are decent citizens.
Treading on peoples toes wasn't the way I was brought up,neither was Jeremy,,but it gets you nowhere being honest and forthright,you get used like a doormat by those who are scrambling in a scrum to reach the top.
It was the beginning of the dog eat dog society that we have now.Nobody seems to " do " decent anymore. The bigger the shyster you are,the better thought of,it would seem.
I'll give you an example of my disillusionment.
My g/son,who is 27,a really decent lad but not a very confident one,was confronted by his assessor at work and given marks across the board,of 2 out of 10.
Although I say it myself,he's a good-looking lad and very presentable. ( nobody likes that ! )
His co-worker never stops swearing,vanishing for a smoke and has a mouthful of rotten teeth. He gets top marks,as do a lot of others. He's a shirker and bullies my g/son for doing as he's told,calling him names.
The assessors verdict on my g/son ? He lacks confidence !! Is it any wonder ?
My daughter is going to confront this monster today. Good job I won't be !
Yes I have come across such people. I see it at work every day at the school. I'm not a person who likes the limelight and will often let others take the lead. But I can see that they are not the right people to take the lead.
-
That's a very poor example.
Davies attempted suicide in the past and, "was known to hear voices commanding he harm himself and others". He abused drugs and alcohol. He was dumped at ahomeless shelter without any regard to making sure he stayed sober, took medicaiton to control his delusions and continued with any kind of outpatient treatment. That he ended up attacking someone was not in the least bit surprising.
that was not the case I was talking about.
I guess you like google :)
-
that was not the case I was talking about.
I guess you like google :)
Didn't Sheila try and kill herself as well? Also I remember Collin remarking when told about her death (and he had seen her a couple of nights before remember. So he knew what she was capable of) "She's finally done it".
-
Didn't Sheila try and kill herself as well? Also I remember Collin remarking when told about her death (and he had seen her a couple of nights before remember. So he knew what she was capable of) "She's finally done it".
was that in the statement of the young relative cousin? Where she talked about being a white witch or something similar?
-
JUST TO PROVE THE EXPERTS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.
As we have to read your long posts Scipio I am sure you can take a few minutes to read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10358251/Truth-about-dangerous-mental-patients-let-out-to-kill.html
-
And you accuse ME of only using parts of a statement which work for me!!!!! There IS no ambiguity in what YOU have posted from the statement. The ambiguity lays in what I posted of it where he reveals his concerns about what she MIGHT be capable of under certain circumstances.
All you did was take a statement made right after the murders that he made after being told she murdered her family yet was not fed details about her last days.
He assumed she did it as they claimed to her and responded, "sheila is likely to have been in a disturbed psychotic state at the time of the tragedy, although in my experience with her there has never been any issue of threats or violence towards her family"
In effect he assessed that if she committed the murders then she was likely in a disturbed psychotic state at the time.
But after he found out what other people had experienced interacting with her after her discharge and was told she might not have done it and he was to assess whether she likely he it then he assessed it unlikely for a variety of reasons including not viewing the alleged temporary daytime foster care help as losing her children..
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html
What did I twist from it? What did he says she was capable of?
He assessed that he didn't see her as one likely to use violence or to commit suicide. Towards the end he assesses:
"I can say neither women were disturbed in their behavior and there was no aggression in their illness. I find it difficult to believe either women would use violence"
You are the one twisting not me.
-
But you haven't addressed the point that shortly before she died, Sheila said "All people are evil and should be killed."
I have not been shown any reliable evidence she said such to anyone. Niether of the alleged peopel she told it to includ such in their statements and I have found no hearsay where ANn Eaton claims thy told her that she said such to them.
99% of what Jeremy supporters claim turn out to be either lies or erroneous so before I am going to address any specious claims I want to see reliable evidence.
I used to give the benefit of the doubt and each time I did so it ended up biting me in the ass as the claims turned out to be wrong so no more.
-
JUST TO PROVE THE EXPERTS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.
As we have to read your long posts Scipio I am sure you can take a few minutes to read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10358251/Truth-about-dangerous-mental-patients-let-out-to-kill.html
This is just more examples akin to Davies. The criticism is that they dumped people they new had violent and suicidal tendencies on the street without any effort to try to make sure they kept up treatment and medicaiton to keep their problems at bay.
You need to find an example where there was no history of violence or suicide attempts, the person was diagnosed as not being at risk of hurting anyone or committing suicide, responded well to treatment so was released and was currently taking their medication yet still had a psychotice episode anyway that resulted in a severe attack on others or suicide.
That is wht you need to find to be able to suggest that there is a case that is like what you are allegeging happened to Sheila.
Good luck because an exhaustive search has turned up nothing. I tried to see if I can find any rare cases to demonstrate how rare these circumstances are but I can't find any.
The common theme among those who do kill and commit suicide is that they demonstrate violent tendencies before, they stop taking their medication or never were in treatment in the first place, they often abuse narcotics/alcohol and often are drunk or high at the time and their mental health gets progressively worse in the days leading up to the actions as they have delusions more and more frequently.
There is no evidence of any of this with Sheila.
1) she was on her medicaiton
2) no history of vilence or suicide attempts
3) was not high or drunk at the time of the murders
4) no evidence of delusions or deteriorating mentla condition leading up to the murders but rather evidence she was being over sedated
Worse though and most importantly there is solid evidence to establish that the examples I refer to actually did murder or commit suicide. There was physical and witness evidence to estbalish their guilt. In contrast here there is no physical evidence at all to establish Sheila did squat, she would indeed be unlikely to have the ability to carry out the murders and worst of all she can't have killed herself.
I started a thread challenging people to produce evidence pointing to her guilt and no supporter could come up with anything beyond the simplistic notion she had mental problems so she did it.
-
JUST TO PROVE THE EXPERTS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.
As we have to read your long posts Scipio I am sure you can take a few minutes to read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10358251/Truth-about-dangerous-mental-patients-let-out-to-kill.html
I think the "experts" are more wrong than right personally and I don't say that lightly either. Simply because treating mental illness is not an exact science. Different people react differently to the same drugs. If any expert stated that Sheila was ok on that night is really sticking his neck out too far. Usually you find medical "experts" to be far more cagey about the stability of their paients.
-
Didn't Sheila try and kill herself as well? Also I remember Collin remarking when told about her death (and he had seen her a couple of nights before remember. So he knew what she was capable of) "She's finally done it".
No one who knew her claims she attemped suicide. Jeremy supporters claim such but have no evidence to support the claim. It was made up so you are just repeating a grapvine claim.
In the meantime after being told she killed them he didn't say anything about thinking she was capable of murder nor did he even say he believed she did it. In his statement the following month he stated hs initial impression was that he believed she could have done it as a result of mental illness but changed his mind. He has made clear over the years that the more he learned the more he realized she didn't do it. He operated under the simplistic notion early on that ill peopel can kill for no reason but after thinking baout it and hearing more fromt he dcotors and more of the evidence in the case itself he realized Jeremy did it.
-
No one who knew her claims she attemped suicide. Jeremy supporters claim such but have no evidence to support the claim. It was made up so you are just repeating a grapvine claim.
In the meantime after being told she killed them he didn't say anything about thinking she was capable of murder nor did he even say he believed she did it. In his statement the following month he stated hs initial impression was that he believed she could have done it as a result of mental illness but changed his mind. He has made clear over the years that the more he learned the more he realized she didn't do it. He operated under the simplistic notion early on that ill peopel can kill for no reason but after thinking baout it and hearing more fromt he dcotors and more of the evidence in the case itself he realized Jeremy did it.
He operated not on the notion that ill people kill themselves. But on what he knew about Sheila. "She FINALLY done it". There is no evidence that he thought that every mentally ill person could kill themselves. I can't change what he said. I didn't say it, he did.
-
I'm not sure what you mean here? I think that this must represent some poor attempt by yourself to try and belittle me and my views. I know ngb's views concerning the case very well. And my using his opinion to support my argument is not some kind of "worship of him" as you said. But because he is a well respected man and a knowledgeable one. His opinions beinf a criminal barrister carry weight. But of course it is evident from what "scipio the unknown" self appointed oracle of all knowledge does not respect. NGB for your information believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice. He was introduced to this forum and to Bamber by Jackie Preece and the reason he is here is because he believes him to be innocent. That is also the reason Mike made him administrator. Jackie Preece also introduced McKay to Jeremy and he also was convinced that he is innocent and that is the reason he also represents Bamber and not for publicity as one cynic said.
1) Even if he does believe Jeremy is innocent that alone means nothing at all so far as constituting evidence that he is innocent.
2) Even if he does believe Jeremy is innocent that doesn't mena he supports every crackpot claim that is made by Jeremy supporters.
3) All that matters is the evidentiary basis and rationale of his beliefs but you have not pointed to where he has posted such.
One of my favorite examples of an authority who was dead wrong was Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman. He wrote an op-ed that various papers published where he asserted the military Commissions Act authorized trying American citizens by military commission instead of courts. Various liberals ran wild with his claim asserting our liberty was in danger and cited his opinion as proof.
I read the actual law and he was dead wrong. In a debate I quoted heavily from the law and demonstrated he was wrong. I'm hardly the only one who did so even some of the most liberal leaning publications and individuals admitted he was wrong. Instead of just accepting his unsupported opinion they actually looked at the text of the law themselves to make sure and found out he was wrong.
Those who just accepted his unsupported opinion as gospel were left with egg on their face. Unsupported opinion is not evidence of anything EXCEPT that such is a particular person's opinion. It is not evidence that the opinion is true.
In the meantime you are declaring what someone else's opinion is without posting where the person stated such is his opinion so I don't even know it to be his opinion.
-
1) Even if he does believe Jeremy is innocent that alone means nothing at all so far as constituting evidence that he is innocent.
2) Even if he does believe Jeremy is innocent that doesn't mena he supports every crackpot claim that is made by Jeremy supporters.
3) All that matters is the evidentiary basis and rationale of his beliefs but you have not pointed to where he has posted such.
One of my favorite examples of an authority who was dead wrong was Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman. He wrote an op-ed that various papers published where he asserted the military Commissions Act authorized trying American citizens by military commission instead of courts. Various liberals ran wild with his claim asserting our liberty was in danger and cited his opinion as proof.
I read the actual law and he was dead wrong. In a debate I quoted heavily from the law and demonstrated he was wrong. I'm hardly the only one who did so even some of the most liberal leaning publications and individuals admitted he was wrong. Instead of just accepting his unsupported opinion they actually looked at the text of the law themselves to make sure and found out he was wrong.
Those who just accepted his unsupported opinion as gospel were left with egg on their face. Unsupported opinion is not evidence of anything EXCEPT that such is a particular person's opinion. It is not evidence that the opinion is true.
In the meantime you are declaring what someone else's opinion is without posting where the person stated such is his opinion so I don't even know it to be his opinion.
Private conversations with him. He doesn't post everything as he is in possession of some very sensitive information as you will appreciate. Obviously some things he hasn't told me either. But I have represented his views fairly and truthfully.
-
Someone from the Campaign has e-mailed Panorama to get them to bring Jeremys' case to everyones' attention. It was posted on the 4th of this month. I quote :
" Please,when are you going to do a piece on the longest UK MOJ of all time ? The Jeremy Bamber trial and guilty verdict.
Below is the link to my testimony,which along with others,is posted on Jeremys' campaign team website, where if someone your end could spare half a day reading and digesting the information the information on the site,then it will be clear,that not only is Jeremy innocent,but that the police know it, Jeremys' relatives know it,the girlfriend,Julie Mugford ( now Smerchanski and living in Winnipeg ) knows it.
And--------you will read how together,for their individual purposes,they colluded and succeeded in framing Jeremy for the murder of his whole family.
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/poppy-ann-miller
In October,Jeremy will have been in prison for 28 years--over half his lifetime.The media has vast influence,please help ensure that 2014 is the year Jeremy gains his freedom and steps are taken to bring the truly guilty to trial. unquote "
" That makes me so sad--------because that's another 14 years---of my life---that I've been made to look for the truth---but it was already there ".
Jenni Hicks----Hillsborough.
Very Sincerely.
-
No one who knew her claims she attemped suicide. Jeremy supporters claim such but have no evidence to support the claim. It was made up so you are just repeating a grapvine claim.
In the meantime after being told she killed them he didn't say anything about thinking she was capable of murder nor did he even say he believed she did it. In his statement the following month he stated hs initial impression was that he believed she could have done it as a result of mental illness but changed his mind. He has made clear over the years that the more he learned the more he realized she didn't do it. He operated under the simplistic notion early on that ill peopel can kill for no reason but after thinking baout it and hearing more fromt he dcotors and more of the evidence in the case itself he realized Jeremy did it.
Evidence from a relative that she had suicidal thoughts
-
Ooops.
-
I can't read it all I see is a blotchy mess as if it is a mass of jelly on my end, who is it from?
In an event your claim it shows she had suicidal thoughts fails to establish she attempted to commit suicide which was the claim.
-
I can't read it all I see is a blotchy mess as if it is a mass of jelly on my end, who is it from?
In an event your claim it shows she had suicidal thoughts fails to establish she attempted to commit suicide which was the claim.
I KNOW THAT - !
I Am not stupid - but this is one statement from HELEN GRIMSTER - its in the archives I will try again.
The first implication about her having attemped suicide was in a court statement by one of the police who were with Jeremy - under questioning he admitted that Jeremy probably had not said that he had probably said the same that she had contemplated suicide.
-
got it
-
got it
You posted a page from ann instead
-
You posted a page from ann instead
-
Just about everyone thought the poor woman was " strange " towards the end of her life.
Well---------nearly everyone. Some appear yet to be blinkered. Or in denial.
-
Just about everyone thought the poor woman was " strange " towards the end of her life.
Well---------nearly everyone. Some appear yet to be blinkered. Or in denial.
I wonder why none of these witnesses were called? One person said she scared him out his wits as she ran past him in the woods once with bare feet.
-
I wonder why none of these witnesses were called? One person said she scared him out his wits as she ran past him in the woods once with bare feet.
I'd have been scared too had I not known about mental illnesses. It's a frightening experience for anyone to witness.
Then again,episodes such as this one weren't mentioned.The fact that Sheila also used to bang her head on the wall too. Half the time it was probably frustration,but even that's not normal behaviour.
-
Thanks I actually ead the full statement yesterday. It is contained in Hartley's handy index.
All it notes is she told Grimster that in th epast she had contemplated suicide but we already know that since she told the dcotro that. This doesn't say when in the past she had contemplated such. SInce this was supposed 30 March it was prior to her second course of treatment that she was referring to having contemplated it.
The claim was that she attempted suicide but obviously that claim is not supportable by there or any other evidence that has been presented.
So again what we have is her claiming she contemplated suicide (something many people do at some point in their life I know people who have stated they contemplated it so by no means do simply peopel with mental problems think about it) and yet not acting on the thought even thought when under the influence of narcotics and not on Haldol.
If she didn't act upon it then at her worst hour one would not expect her to do so when successfully being treated on Haldol and thus her delusions were at bay.
Her doctor would be in the best posiiton to assess what risk she presented and he saw her as no threat to actually follow through and kill herself or harm others.
People want to second guess him without any bsais just basically saying well she contemplated suicide so that means she killed herself. To second guess him requires proof she did kill herself not jsut saying well she contemplated suicide so she killed herself.
Worse nothing fits the claim she was a danger to others. It was claimed that she stated people are evil and must all die but that seems to have been another exaggeration.
People who commit suicide who kill dependents do so because they are responsible for the care of the dependents and with the dependents dead they no longer have an excuse to not kill themselves. They can no longer rationalize well I have to be alive to care for my dependents. So in a way it is a step to give them nothing to live for. Most of the time women who do this only kill their kids, but on occasion others they are responsible for like parents who are invalids. Men have a tendency to take their souses as well either thinking the spouse can't make it without them and is a helpless dependent as well or to make sure the spouse never has a chance to meet someone else.
Sheila's parents were certianly not dependents. She had no reaosn to decide to kill her parents as well as her kids. If she had decided just ordinary suicide then she would have taken her kids and then own life not have involved her parents. She had the kids ever other day and could have stabbed them or killed them in some manner other than a gun. Even at WHF with a gun she could have simply killed them and then herself no need to involve her parents though.
Since killing her parents too does not fit the paradigm that is why the idea of her having delusions about them was floated as a way to try to acocunt for her killing them. But that would not acocunt for her killing herself and her kids. Basically we are treated to 2 different paradigms. She planned to kill herself an dher kids but before that she had delusions about her parents and killed them.
You don't even see that kind of thing in untreated peopel usually let alone someone on Haldol which there is no evidence at all was not controlling her delusions and which ther eis no reaosn at all would have suddenly stopped working.
If you want to say the unlikely happened then you need some strong proof to prove it happened. But there is no physical evidence at all to establish the unlikely happened. Instead we are told something even more unlikely happened. Not only did 2 different paradims result in Sheila killing everyone and herself worse she managed to kill everyone without getting any evidence of having fired a wepaon on her body and vdclothing and no blood evidence of any kind an dno wounds to herself of any kind despite the killer engaging in a struggle with Nevill so severe it broke the stick of the rifle exactly where a hand would have been holding the stock. Worse yet Sheila did the impossible and after killing herself while seated propped up against something:
Her nerves enabled her dead body to:
1) remove the moderator and go put it away
2) to lie down flat on the floor causing a pool of blood to form
3) to put the bible in such pool and then to open and close it while the blood was still wet
The Court of Appeals did not consider this a close case by any measure nor does anyone who is objective and reasonable.
The only thing less likely than the chance of Jeremy supporters providing evidence that establishes Jeremy is innocent and that Sheila did it, is the chance of someone being able to provide evidence that proves the existence of Hell.
-
I'd have been scared too had I not known about mental illnesses. It's a frightening experience for anyone to witness.
Then again,episodes such as this one weren't mentioned.The fact that Sheila also used to bang her head on the wall too. Half the time it was probably frustration,but even that's not normal behaviour.
My friends son is a schizophrenic. Now this is how as I said it is very difficult to judge the right medication for this illness. My friend was just sitting in his lounge one day and his son came into the room and attacked him for no reason. When he calmed down he didn't even know what he's done. It is one of the most difficult of mental illnesses to control and treat.
-
My friends son is a schizophrenic. Now this is how as I said it is very difficult to judge the right medication for this illness. My friend was just sitting in his lounge one day and his son came into the room and attacked him for no reason. When he calmed down he didn't even know what he's done. It is one of the most difficult of mental illnesses to control and treat.
Of course it's a difficult illness to treat and there's " no one size fits all " when it comes to medication as I've said before. It's trial and error in finding a medication which suits and works at the same time,as some can have the complete opposite effect to what it's meant for and therefore leaving the patient and everyone around in danger.
As an example,,I was given a medication to treat high blood-pressure,,which was actually making it worse,and if I hadn't have realised it,Lord knows what would have happened,so now I tell the GP what's suitable and what isn't and also the dosage too. Poor Sheila wasn't in any position to argue the toss over her medication.
-
My friends son is a schizophrenic. Now this is how as I said it is very difficult to judge the right medication for this illness. My friend was just sitting in his lounge one day and his son came into the room and attacked him for no reason. When he calmed down he didn't even know what he's done. It is one of the most difficult of mental illnesses to control and treat.
WHat did doctors do as a result? DO they know if he had been skipping meds? DO they assess him as a damnger to hurt anyone as a result?
Sheila had not attached anyone during any episodes. The worst episode anyone can come up with is Freddie's account where she never actually attacked him or anyone else and instantly calmed down upon seeing Nevill.
In the meatime that episode was a result of her not taking her medication and she had delusions about Freddie who her doctor said was a bad influence on her. Since she admitted to taking drugs to the doctor and he wa ssupplying them that has to be part of the basis for his assessment of why he was a bad influence one who have to assume since the rationale was not disclosed.
The simple reality is that virtually all murders or even attempted murders by schizophrenics occur while having delusions where:
1) they have never been diagnosed and thus not undergoing treatment
2) they are acting under the influence of narcotics or alcohol
3) they stopped taking their medication regularly when you stop medication it is like when yo umiss the birth control pill sometimes, missing it throws off the effectiveness.
Another reality is that they didn't just suddenly resort to murder. They had a history of violence and built up to it as they got progressively worse over time.
They had episodes of violence like your friend might have endured from his son that occurred with more frequency over time without any sucessful treatment intervening.
What warning signs were there with Sheila? None no violence displayed towards otheres ever during episodes the only violence displayed against anyone was her husband during arguments throwing things at him and that was not from the illness. In the meantime that was not recent.
The only thing worthy of note after her relase from the hostpital at the end of March is that she had all the warning signs of being over sedated.
Haldol has major tranquilizing properties which is why a countering agent is usually taken daily. The countering agents cause agitation sometimes because they are stimulants. She wasn't taking one so she was being tanquilized. Hence why her husband, mother-in-law, famaily and even friends like Freddie described her as very slow talking, vacant, tired etc. These are all signs of being tranquilized to the point where it inhibits activity. Her doctor stated he believed she was over medicated based on the descriptions of others.
This would not only make her less likely because she would be unlikely to become delusional in such state worse she would physically be less capable.
This case was a very tough one for the defense because all of the evidence was in favor of the prosecution. Rivlin often gets a bad rap but he had very little to work with. There are cases where you can say a lawyer missed evidence he could have used and used a poor strategy. He did the best he could with the crappy case he faced.
-
WHat did doctors do as a result? DO they know if he had been skipping meds? DO they assess him as a damnger to hurt anyone as a result?
Sheila had not attached anyone during any episodes. The worst episode anyone can come up with is Freddie's account where she never actually attacked him or anyone else and instantly calmed down upon seeing Nevill.
In the meatime that episode was a result of her not taking her medication and she had delusions about Freddie who her doctor said was a bad influence on her. Since she admitted to taking drugs to the doctor and he wa ssupplying them that has to be part of the basis for his assessment of why he was a bad influence one who have to assume since the rationale was not disclosed.
The simple reality is that virtually all murders or even attempted murders by schizophrenics occur while having delusions where:
1) they have never been diagnosed and thus not undergoing treatment
2) they are acting under the influence of narcotics or alcohol
3) they stopped taking their medication regularly when you stop medication it is like when yo umiss the birth control pill sometimes, missing it throws off the effectiveness.
Another reality is that they didn't just suddenly resort to murder. They had a history of violence and built up to it as they got progressively worse over time.
They had episodes of violence like your friend might have endured from his son that occurred with more frequency over time without any sucessful treatment intervening.
What warning signs were there with Sheila? None no violence displayed towards otheres ever during episodes the only violence displayed against anyone was her husband during arguments throwing things at him and that was not from the illness. In the meantime that was not recent.
The only thing worthy of note after her relase from the hostpital at the end of March is that she had all the warning signs of being over sedated.
Haldol has major tranquilizing properties which is why a countering agent is usually taken daily. The countering agents cause agitation sometimes because they are stimulants. She wasn't taking one so she was being tanquilized. Hence why her husband, mother-in-law, famaily and even friends like Freddie described her as very slow talking, vacant, tired etc. These are all signs of being tranquilized to the point where it inhibits activity. Her doctor stated he believed she was over medicated based on the descriptions of others.
This would not only make her less likely because she would be unlikely to become delusional in such state worse she would physically be less capable.
This case was a very tough one for the defense because all of the evidence was in favor of the prosecution. Rivlin often gets a bad rap but he had very little to work with. There are cases where you can say a lawyer missed evidence he could have used and used a poor strategy. He did the best he could with the crappy case he faced.
Not sure as I don't live near him. He lives down Cornwall, I'm in Essex. I think they had to re-assess his medication?
-
WHat did doctors do as a result? DO they know if he had been skipping meds? DO they assess him as a damnger to hurt anyone as a result?
Sheila had not attached anyone during any episodes. The worst episode anyone can come up with is Freddie's account where she never actually attacked him or anyone else and instantly calmed down upon seeing Nevill.
In the meatime that episode was a result of her not taking her medication and she had delusions about Freddie who her doctor said was a bad influence on her. Since she admitted to taking drugs to the doctor and he wa ssupplying them that has to be part of the basis for his assessment of why he was a bad influence one who have to assume since the rationale was not disclosed.
The simple reality is that virtually all murders or even attempted murders by schizophrenics occur while having delusions where:
1) they have never been diagnosed and thus not undergoing treatment
2) they are acting under the influence of narcotics or alcohol
3) they stopped taking their medication regularly when you stop medication it is like when yo umiss the birth control pill sometimes, missing it throws off the effectiveness.
Another reality is that they didn't just suddenly resort to murder. They had a history of violence and built up to it as they got progressively worse over time.
They had episodes of violence like your friend might have endured from his son that occurred with more frequency over time without any sucessful treatment intervening.
What warning signs were there with Sheila? None no violence displayed towards otheres ever during episodes the only violence displayed against anyone was her husband during arguments throwing things at him and that was not from the illness. In the meantime that was not recent.
The only thing worthy of note after her relase from the hostpital at the end of March is that she had all the warning signs of being over sedated.
Haldol has major tranquilizing properties which is why a countering agent is usually taken daily. The countering agents cause agitation sometimes because they are stimulants. She wasn't taking one so she was being tanquilized. Hence why her husband, mother-in-law, famaily and even friends like Freddie described her as very slow talking, vacant, tired etc. These are all signs of being tranquilized to the point where it inhibits activity. Her doctor stated he believed she was over medicated based on the descriptions of others.
This would not only make her less likely because she would be unlikely to become delusional in such state worse she would physically be less capable.
This case was a very tough one for the defense because all of the evidence was in favor of the prosecution. Rivlin often gets a bad rap but he had very little to work with. There are cases where you can say a lawyer missed evidence he could have used and used a poor strategy. He did the best he could with the crappy case he faced.
That's what I mean by unpredicatable. Neither had my friend's son been violent before. In fact he is quite a docile person.
-
Scipio------------there are NEVER any warning signs with schizophrenics,,apart from the calm before the storm,,which can't always be taken as a sign,but nevertheless does also occur.
-
Thank you Gringo I have some very exciting news which I will email Ngb tonight and he can make the decision what he thinks I should do.
It will definitely put this case in the public arena once again
Hi Jackie, great to see you back. Any idea when you might be able to share this news with us?