Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Patti on August 30, 2014, 12:50:AM
-
Obviously there are a lot of people who think Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but equally there are people who think he is innocent. Why is this?
In my opinion its not a case as to whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or not its a case of whether or not the case was handled correctly from the onset or was it that gross misconduct was/is a key factor in securing Jeremy Bamber's fate.
I would like for everyone to answer my following questions with a yes or no please.
1. The crime scene was made secure. True or false?
2. A full forensic examination was done. True or false?
3. The pathologist was called on site to determine the time of deaths?
4. Exhibit labels were they changed?
Thank you. :)
-
well 1 is defanatly false 2 im guessing is false 3 and 4 i dont know.
-
Obviously there are a lot of people who think Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but equally there are people who think he is innocent. Why is this?
In my opinion its not a case as to whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or not its a case of whether or not the case was handled correctly from the onset or was it that gross misconduct was/is a key factor in securing Jeremy Bamber's fate.
I would like for everyone to answer my following questions with a yes or no please.
1. The crime scene was made secure. True or false?
2. A full forensic examination was done. True or false?
3. The pathologist was called on site to determine the time of deaths?
4. Exhibit labels were they changed?
Thank you. :)
1. The question doesn't make sense. Made secure when?
2. Again that question doesn't make sense, what is your definition of 'full'? Clearly an amount of forensic examination did take place.
3. No he most certainly was not.
4. Yes certain references were changed, quite rightly for valid reasons.
-
1.
Secure. Before they went in? Yes it was. After that? No I think it was trampled on.
2.
A full? For 1986, yes I'd say so.
3.
Nope.
4.
Yup. but that isn't bad. Scipio posted a detailed account of this brilliantly.
-
1. The question doesn't make sense. Made secure when?
2. Again that question doesn't make sense, what is your definition of 'full'? Clearly an amount of forensic examination did take place.
3. No he most certainly was not.
4. Yes certain references were changed, quite rightly for valid reasons.
Hartley you know the crime scene was not made secure at the onset. To say my question does not make sense is not fair to me..:(
Regarding the 2nd question, no major forensic examination was done at the onset...
1. The crime scene was made secure? It certainly was not.
2. A full forensic examination was done? It certainly was not.
3. The pathologist was called on site to determine the time of deaths? He certainly was not called.
4. Exhibit labels were they changed? The labels were certainly changed.
When you evaluate the 4 questions it becomes apparent that there were flaws at the onset and more flaws as the case progressed. :-\
-
well that might explian them not being able to work out the time of death.
-
1.
Secure. Before they went in? Yes it was. After that? No I think it was trampled on.
2.
A full? For 1986, yes I'd say so.
3.
Nope.
4.
Yup. but that isn't bad. Scipio posted a detailed account of this brilliantly.
Mat if we can discuss my first question please.
Can you confirm to me that the crime scene in your opinion was not sealed off and that the inside of the farm house was trampled on by as many as 20 to 30 people during the first day?
I'm not getting at you or your plunger...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
:)
Yeah, I think many people entered and because of what they'd been told outside by Bamber they didn't treat the scene in the way they should.
-
Hartley you know the crime scene was not made secure at the onset. To say my question does not make sense is not fair to me..:(
Regarding the 2nd question, no major forensic examination was done at the onset...
1. The crime scene was made secure? It certainly was not.
2. A full forensic examination was done? It certainly was not.
3. The pathologist was called on site to determine the time of deaths? He certainly was not called.
4. Exhibit labels were they changed? The labels were certainly changed.
When you evaluate the 4 questions it becomes apparent that there were flaws at the onset and more flaws as the case progressed. :-\
I think the mistake you are making Patti, is that your questions were obviously intended to be rhetoric.
The police are certainly not above being criticised, but many of the mistakes they made are quite understandable, especially given the fact that there was an attempt made to deceive the investigators.
-
:)
Yeah, I think many people entered and because of what they'd been told outside by Bamber they didn't treat the scene in the way they should.
OK. So what you are saying then, is that everyone who entered the house had a briefing on what Bamber had said outside of the farm house. Is there any evidence of that Mat? Bare with me. ;)
-
OK. So what you are saying then, is that everyone who entered the house had a briefing on what Bamber had said outside of the farm house. Is there any evidence of that Mat? Bare with me. ;)
No, that's not what he's saying at all.
Those in charge were acting on the information available and ordered personnel to carry out certain tasks based on the intelligence that they had gathered.
Unfortunately the intelligence that they gathered turned out to be inaccurate due to manipulation from Jeremy.
-
I think the mistake you are making Patti, is that your questions were obviously intended to be rhetoric.
The police are certainly not above being criticised, but many of the mistakes they made are quite understandable, especially given the fact that there was an attempt made to deceive the investigators.
If my life was at stake Hartley I would not like to think that the police had make mistakes.
One major mistake was not following procedure of calling the pathologist out to determine the time of deaths.
Its not relevant what Bamber has said outside is it to a hand full of people? Its about why procedures were not followed by EP. :-\
-
No, that's not what he's saying at all.
Those in charge were acting on the information available and ordered personnel to carry out certain tasks based on the intelligence that they had gathered.
Unfortunately the intelligence that they gathered turned out to be inaccurate due to manipulation from Jeremy.
What you are saying then Hartley is that they had already assessed the situation outside before anyone entered the house and decided that it was unnecessary to cordon off a crime scene base on what Bamber had told a handful of people.....And, that it was not necessary to bring in the pathologist or do a through forensic examination of the property.....Was Bamber in charge here or the police?
Sorry I am being hard.....its time for a snooze. Night all. :) :) :)
-
If my life was at stake Hartley I would not like to think that the police had make mistakes.
One major mistake was not following procedure of calling the pathologist out to determine the time of deaths.
Its not relevant what Bamber has said outside is it to a hand full of people? Its about why procedures were not followed by EP. :-\
The information provided by Jeremy is extremely relevant, in fact it is the most relevant part of this entire case.
The procedures that existed in that era were largely followed. The pathologist wrote a report giving advice to a future pathologist that they should attend the scene, clearly it was not something which was always done.
Rather than trying to lead people down an alley by asking them to answer seemingly innocuous questions, why not not just be upfront from the onset, just say what you are trying to say.
-
What you are saying then Hartley is that they had already assessed the situation outside before anyone entered the house and decided that it was unnecessary to cordon off a crime scene base on what Bamber had told a handful of people.....And, that it was not necessary to bring in the pathologist or do a through forensic examination of the property.....Was Bamber in charge here or the police?
Sorry I am being hard.....its time for a snooze. Night all. :) :) :)
No, wrong again. This is becoming a habit dear.
They used the Intel they had, entered the house, secured it and carried out evidence gathering to the level the felt appropriate based on the intelligence they had gained.
Had they not have been fed false information, perhaps they would have acted differently, perhaps Myall and Bews would have kicked the door down and not even bothered calling a specialist firearms team.
-
The information provided by Jeremy is extremely relevant, in fact it is the most relevant part of this entire case.
The procedures that existed in that era were largely followed. The pathologist wrote a report giving advice to a future pathologist that they should attend the scene, clearly it was not something which was always done.
Rather than trying to lead people down an alley by asking them to answer seemingly innocuous questions, why not not just be upfront from the onset, just say what you are trying to say.
I can sort of meet you half way on that, I guess.
But my argument is, was it relevant at 7:30am that morning? One can look back in hindsight Hartley after reading all the facts and think exactly what you are saying, but was that the case at the time? All based on what Bamber had said. Was that evidenced drafted up? Did anyone say that they did not call the pathologist because of what Bamber had said? Did anyone say that there was no need for a full forensic examination because of what Bamber had said?:
But, at the time it was the police that assessed the situation inside of the farm house not Jeremy Bamber. The police witnessed what was inside and made the assumption not to cordon off the crime scene, not to call the pathologist and not request a full forensic examination of the crime scene. Bamber alone was not in charge of that was he. :-\
-
I can sort of meet you half way on that, I guess.
But my argument is, was it relevant at 7:30am that morning? One can look back in hindsight Hartley after reading all the facts and think exactly what you are saying, but was that the case at the time? All based on what Bamber had said. Was that evidenced drafted up? Did anyone say that they did not call the pathologist because of what Bamber had said? Did anyone say that there was no need for a full forensic examination because of what Bamber had said?:
But, at the time it was the police that assessed the situation inside of the farm house not Jeremy Bamber. The police witnessed what was inside and made the assumption not to cordon off the crime scene, not to call the pathologist and not request a full forensic examination of the crime scene. Bamber alone was not in charge of that was he. :-\
I thought you were going to bed.
Read my previous couple of posts, they are the same answers to the same questions.
-
Obviously there are a lot of people who think Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but equally there are people who think he is innocent. Why is this?
In my opinion its not a case as to whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or not its a case of whether or not the case was handled correctly from the onset or was it that gross misconduct was/is a key factor in securing Jeremy Bamber's fate.
I would like for everyone to answer my following questions with a yes or no please.
1. The crime scene was made secure. True or false?
2. A full forensic examination was done. True or false?
3. The pathologist was called on site to determine the time of deaths?
4. Exhibit labels were they changed?
Thank you. :)
Hi Patti good question, sorry not going to answer it the way you asked for? I think everyone knows it was a poor investigation and the reasons why? The thing that always sticks out to me, the man leading the investigation thought Jeremy innocent and all Jeremy's supporters praise him with quotes good old fashioned copper, Taff knew Jeremy was innocent ect. So all these questions you have asked are at a time when Jeremy was thought innocent if that makes sense?
-
Hello Justice
good post my sentiments exactly Taff Jones thought Jeremy was innocent so the crime scene was not preserved then Stan Jones had different ideas and knew him to be guilty and we know the rest.
-
Bare with me. ;)
I hope not. Perhaps you meant "Bear with me."
-
I hope not. Perhaps you meant "Bear with me."
I really don't think it's necessary to continually correct people's spelling and grammar.
-
I find it quite incredible that because Jeremy told them his sister suffered from a mental illness (true)
had suicidal thoughts ( true)
there were guns in the house not locked away ( true)
She possibly knew how to uses a gun ( true , if you read the Dickinson report it says one of the witnesses admitted this)
that this is the reason the police did not carry out a proper investigation. So Jeremy even gets the blame for that?
I can not believe that you are saying that the police in general believe everything that every tom,dick,or harry tell them about ANY crime. Surely they have to use their years of experience and judgement.
If Jeremy is innocent then this was still Murder ( initially although obviously her illness would have been taken into account) so there still should have been a proper investigation.
Plus until they checked all exits from the house even Jeremy ( at the time they arrived) did not know that someone could have had a gun to Nevilles head making him phone Jeremy and therefore there could have been someone else in the house .
-
Excellent post jansus.
-
I'm beginning to think that if there had been an intruder and Sheila had charge of a gun,that the intruder would too have been shot/injured, as she would have been intent on protecting the children if nobody else.
The blood on the sill, prints of an unknown male on the rifle butt,a figure seen walking away from the farmhouse.These things were logged but never followed up.
I don't suppose local hospitals had been checked for anyone having received any type of injury.
Anyway,I'll get back to Pattis' questions.
-
to make it clear I do not think that there was another person involved .
However I do think that to blame Jeremy for how the police treated what was in any circumstance was a crime scene is pretty ridiculous. It makes them sound like right numpties.
Also as Adam is so often pointing out they were only country police force and in his words not used to family massacres- so in those circumstances you think they would step back , take stock , check with the highest people possible and be even more careful about how they proceeded.
So why did they not do that?
-
I agree excellent Jansus
We have still seen NOTHING in Jeremy's behaviour that should make Miss Marple Anne Eaton suspicious that the suicide was in fact Murder
When Jeremy told Anne Eaton all his family were gone (dead ). She told him he still had her family
Overnight when Miss Marple realised the financial implications she set about looking for something to make Jeremy look like he was responsible for the murders
As for miss Marple and the silencer she suffers a memory block on the details around the discovery and handling
As we have established on this forum from independent witnesses
Jeremy did not Hate farming
He did not hate his family
He did not hate Sheila
As for the stupid comments on this forum about Jeremy could have been taken out of the will
There is NO evidence of this
June could not have children I should think June probably adored this handsome charming son she had raised
I would think he could have asked June for anything and got if
I bet he had her wrapped around his little finger
The main two photos show June with her arms around Sheila and Jeremy looking so proud
And the other great family photo looking like any other family on a special day
Greed and Money the root of a evil
-
Obviously there are a lot of people who think Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but equally there are people who think he is innocent. Why is this?
In my opinion its not a case as to whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or not its a case of whether or not the case was handled correctly from the onset or was it that gross misconduct was/is a key factor in securing Jeremy Bamber's fate.
I would like for everyone to answer my following questions with a yes or no please.
1. The crime scene was made secure. True or false?
2. A full forensic examination was done. True or false?
3. The pathologist was called on site to determine the time of deaths?
4. Exhibit labels were they changed?
Thank you. :)
1) The crime scene WASN'T secure,not cordoned off to stop other than professionals to enter.
2 )Areas of investigation,forensic or otherwise were NOT done.
3) NO times of death were ever recorded.A vital examination in any death/murder investigation.-
4) Exhibit labels were ALTERED.Different ones being shown at the trial.
-
Happy
-
Happy and I am sure there was a lot of love in that house whatever people say to the contrary
-
Good posts Jackie and Jansus. Very much appreciated.
-
Do any of us know for sure what was going on inside the farmhouse while Jeremy was sitting in the police car outside ? The answer in NO,we don't ??
-
well its pretty certan he wouldent of done.
-
No,he certainly wouldn't,nugs.
-
I agree excellent Jansus
We have still seen NOTHING in Jeremy's behaviour that should make Miss Marple Anne Eaton suspicious that the suicide was in fact Murder
When Jeremy told Anne Eaton all his family were gone (dead ). She told him he still had her family
Overnight when Miss Marple realised the financial implications she set about looking for something to make Jeremy look like he was responsible for the murders
As for miss Marple and the silencer she suffers a memory block on the details around the discovery and handling
As we have established on this forum from independent witnesses
Jeremy did not Hate farming
He did not hate his family
He did not hate Sheila
As for the stupid comments on this forum about Jeremy could have been taken out of the will
There is NO evidence of this
June could not have children I should think June probably adored this handsome charming son she had raised
I would think he could have asked June for anything and got if
I bet he had her wrapped around his little finger
The main two photos show June with her arms around Sheila and Jeremy looking so proud
And the other great family photo looking like any other family on a special day
Greed and Money the root of a evil
Tell me Jackie do you still find him adorable?
-
why does everyone have to get so personal?
-
why does everyone have to get so personal?
Because certain posters make it personnel and for your information in the 4 years i have been on this forum it is the first time i have took it on to make it personnel. If you or anyone cannot see the tone and personnel attacks she makes its god help the forum.
-
Because certain posters make it personnel and for your information in the 4 years i have been on this forum it is the first time i have took it on to make it personnel. If you or anyone cannot see the tone and personnel attacks she makes its god help the forum.
I was not just referring to you . It is pretty obvious what is going on .
-
It only happens when the guilters kick off !
Patti,who is " half and half " at least brings a calm to the board because she's that kind of a person,and I thought her post this morning was a fair one with no bias.
-
I was not just referring to you . It is pretty obvious what is going on .
Also it is not personnel it is a previous post from Jackie about understanding why women find Bamber adorable? I decided to not post all of it because i find it sickening how women can find a convicted child killer adorable?
-
Also it is not personnel it is a previous post from Jackie about understanding why women find Bamber adorable? I decided to not post all of it because i find it sickening how women can find a convicted child killer adorable?
fair enough.
-
It only happens when the guilters kick off !
Patti,who is " half and half " at least brings a calm to the board because she's that kind of a person,and I thought her post this morning was a fair one with no bias.
It was a good post untill it gets smashed with photo's and personnel attacks on the family?
-
I find it quite incredible that because Jeremy told them his sister suffered from a mental illness (true)
had suicidal thoughts ( true)
there were guns in the house not locked away ( true)
She possibly knew how to uses a gun ( true , if you read the Dickinson report it says one of the witnesses admitted this)
that this is the reason the police did not carry out a proper investigation. So Jeremy even gets the blame for that?
I can not believe that you are saying that the police in general believe everything that every tom,dick,or harry tell them about ANY crime. Surely they have to use their years of experience and judgement.
If Jeremy is innocent then this was still Murder ( initially although obviously her illness would have been taken into account) so there still should have been a proper investigation.
Plus until they checked all exits from the house even Jeremy ( at the time they arrived) did not know that someone could have had a gun to Nevilles head making him phone Jeremy and therefore there could have been someone else in the house .
they basically claimed they blindly believed what one person told them.
-
It was a good post untill it gets smashed with photo's and personnel attacks on the family?
agreed - it was .
-
Also it is not personnel it is a previous post from Jackie about understanding why women find Bamber adorable? I decided to not post all of it because i find it sickening how women can find a convicted child killer adorable?
I certainly don't,and if you've read any of my posts I'm the only one here who believes in capital punishment for them. This is why police officers have got to be thorough in their work of investigating murders and the like,as it's THEIR faults that the wrong people were hanged,as well as THEIR faults for us not upholding the death penalty,because of THEIR mistakes.
IF,by any chance,Jeremy is found to have been guilty,then the same applies to him too. That's how strong my feelings are for those who murder,,,children particularly. I'd like to see the streets cleared of them,simple as that. I make no apology for how I feel for those who inflict harm to the innocent.
If anyone ever harmed my g/grandchildren,they'd breathe their last breath.
I'm here to see fair play whoever it might have been,and for what I've read about this case fair play has NOT been the operative word.
-
Also it is not personnel it is a previous post from Jackie about understanding why women find Bamber adorable? I decided to not post all of it because i find it sickening how women can find a convicted child killer adorable?
i supose it depends on weather you think he did it or not i think its a bit strange to find some you think is guilty of that atractive.
but if they think hes innocent then thats a diffrent matter.
-
Not sure how showing a photo of June, Jeremy AND Sheila is supposed to make it less likely Jeremy is guilty because it shows him with a happy family.......that also include Sheila. :-\
That's Jackie logic right there.
-
Probably Mat a boringly normal photo of a family enjoying a special day
-
Yeah, a family photo that you are using for your own personal vendetta. I don't see how it makes Jeremy anymore innocent/guilty than it does Sheila since they are both in the photographs. Just a case of seeing what you want to see and ignoring everything else.
-
ive seen that photo many times in many newspapers blogs and documentarys whats the big deal about it being posted here.
-
Yeah, a family photo that you are using for your own personal vendetta. I don't see how it makes Jeremy anymore innocent/guilty than it does Sheila since they are both in the photographs. Just a case of seeing what you want to see and ignoring everything else.
There has to be a motive to commit a murder
There was not in this case
That's a fact that cannot be disputed
-
There has to be a motive to commit a murder
There was not in this case
That's a fact that cannot be disputed
Wrong. A clear motive has been firmly established.
-
Yeah, a family photo that you are using for your own personal vendetta. I don't see how it makes Jeremy anymore innocent/guilty than it does Sheila since they are both in the photographs. Just a case of seeing what you want to see and ignoring everything else.
because if Sheila did it we think she was very ill and therefore it would not have been murder with malice aforethought.
-
Wrong. A clear motive has been firmly established.
No definately not and if the jury had been given all the FACTS he would have walked
-
As I've already said,the motive lay with Sheila whose children wouldn't be under her full care. All she would have gained would have been visiting rights if Colin had overall charge of them.Because Neville was in agreeance to that arrangement,he was then seen as letting Sheila down badly. The only person who she'd thought would have backed her up,but didn't,so she must have felt that everyone was against her. Her mind must have been pure torture to have lost her children to her ex-husband and his new girlfriend,further rubbing salt into the wound.
Even Dr Ferguson had to agree that a discussion such as had gone on would have been enough to have set off a psychotic episode.
Sheila wouldn't have meant what she did as her thoughts would have been with the boys and her not wanting them to be with anyone but herself.Very very sad,but so understandable under the circumstances of a sick persons' mind.
-
There is documentary evidence supporting DNA tests,written by J.Hayward in 1985,which showed that blood inside a moderator belonged to RWB,or a mixture of June and Neville ( Totally unrelated to Sheila )
Though interestingly,RWB shared the same blood grouping as Sheila but at no time did it mention that the blood was Sheilas'.
Members of the jury weren't informed of this,so they naturally assumed that the blood belonged to Sheila.
Also,DNA found on a rifle of an un-named male could have been that of Neville,AP or RWB.DNA not necessarily meaning blood.
-
There is documentary evidence supporting DNA tests,written by J.Hayward in 1985,which showed that blood inside a moderator belonged to RWB,or a mixture of June and Neville ( Totally unrelated to Sheila )
Though interestingly,RWB shared the same blood grouping as Sheila but at no time did it mention that the blood was Sheilas'.
Members of the jury weren't informed of this,so they naturally assumed that the blood belonged to Sheila.
Also,DNA found on a rifle of an un-named male could have been that of Neville,AP or RWB.DNA not necessarily meaning blood.
If the blood just belonged to Neville & June that is also damning towards Jeremy.
It means Sheila took the silencer off and put it neatly away in the gun cupboard downstairs. Not really the actions of a crazy woman.
It also means Sheila put the silencer on the rifle before shooting. Why would she do this and would Neville let her ?
-
If Sheila had committed suicide with the silencer attached,why wasn't there more blood inside it than a tiny little flake ? Blood would have travelled along the silencer and not conveniently halted to form the elusive flake !
-
If Sheila had committed suicide with the silencer attached,why wasn't there more blood inside it than a tiny little flake ? Blood would have travelled along the silencer and not conveniently halted to form the elusive flake !
The rifle was too long for her to commit suicide with the silencer attached.
-
No it wasn't.
-
If the blood just belonged to Neville & June that is also damning towards Jeremy.
It means Sheila took the silencer off and put it neatly away in the gun cupboard downstairs. Not really the actions of a crazy woman.
It also means Sheila put the silencer on the rifle before shooting. Why would she do this and would Neville let her ?
the argument was that blood would only get inside the moderator from a contact shot - so how would there be blood in there from Neville and june ? So does that not tell you something?
have a think about it.
-
I can't believe that AP,AE and DB each rang the police to say that they'd seen marks on the back/s of Jeremys' hand/s ! These were checked but unfounded as no marks there.It was even suggested that an ultra-violet light be used ! Of course there was no need,but how desperate does one have to be to go to such lengths. If that was me,folk would be saying I had a guilty conscience or paranoia.
-
did anybody else cliam to have seen marks on his hand.
-
No,nugs,not even hawkeye Mugford who shared his bed after the murders--------not a scratch on him----no sign of a struggle or a fight with a 6ft 4 man built like Carneira !
-
No,nugs,not even hawkeye Mugford who shared his bed after the murders--------not a scratch on him----no sign of a struggle or a fight with a 6ft 4 man built like Carneira !
Do you mean Primo Carnera, the Italian boxer? I know about him because I went on holiday in his birth town, and they still have pictures of him all over the place!
-
Do you mean Primo Carnera, the Italian boxer? I know about him because I went on holiday in his birth town, and they still have pictures of him all over the place!
Indeed I do.Wasn't sure of the spelling so took a chance.My dad always spoke about him as he loved boxing.
-
My answer to the post by Patti is no on all 4, if anything crimescene rules or like were out of the window, its unfortunate for Jeremy as if we had US justice this case would have been kicked out our justice system is the laughing stock of the world at present .
-
I agree excellent Jansus
We have still seen NOTHING in Jeremy's behaviour that should make Miss Marple Anne Eaton suspicious that the suicide was in fact Murder
When Jeremy told Anne Eaton all his family were gone (dead ). She told him he still had her family
Overnight when Miss Marple realised the financial implications she set about looking for something to make Jeremy look like he was responsible for the murders
As for miss Marple and the silencer she suffers a memory block on the details around the discovery and handling
As we have established on this forum from independent witnesses
Jeremy did not Hate farming
He did not hate his family
He did not hate Sheila
As for the stupid comments on this forum about Jeremy could have been taken out of the will
There is NO evidence of this
June could not have children I should think June probably adored this handsome charming son she had raised
I would think he could have asked June for anything and got if
I bet he had her wrapped around his little finger
The main two photos show June with her arms around Sheila and Jeremy looking so proud
And the other great family photo looking like any other family on a special day
Greed and Money the root of a evil
Greed and money very much so Jackie im sure if I spent a week with the City of New York Coroner s office I could take my pick of cases, case in point Jeremy was actually quite a rich man then compared to the men elsewhere in the Country he also had a job and a place to live where is this motif I hear a lot about ?
-
Sadly,Mertol,it was Sheila who had the motive.
-
Sadly,Mertol,it was Sheila who had the motive.
And others Lookout , its clear there are missing to the case and that's not right I hope people like Mike one day finds it.
-
And others Lookout , its clear there are missing to the case and that's not right I hope people like Mike one day finds it.
Indeed. The ones who ran the investigation !
-
Indeed. The ones who ran the investigation !
Its down to a question of trust and faith Lookout think Rotherham and think it over.
-
Its down to a question of trust and faith Lookout think Rotherham and think it over.
Rotherham was horrendous.So many knew,yet did nothing. No heads will roll over that,you'll bet.
-
Rotherham was horrendous.So many knew,yet did nothing. No heads will roll over that,you'll bet.
Why were no officers made to account the the WHF shootings, employed at great taxpayers expense and carry out duties badly or is it a case back then and today of playing the Ace card the winner lessons have been learned game.
-
well policeman are very rarely held to acount for anything i mean take the phone hacking scandel i hear a lot about journalists being but nothing about the police officers who sold them the information.
-
You've only to see what damage the police are doing to the family of the sick boy whose parents took him to Spain for better treatment. The whole action of the police handling of this very sad and delicate situation is appalling. That little boy will fret without his parents.
Why does the law throw its weight about at the wrong ones all the time ? Too powerful for my liking.
-
You've only to see what damage the police are doing to the family of the sick boy whose parents took him to Spain for better treatment. The whole action of the police handling of this very sad and delicate situation is appalling. That little boy will fret without his parents.
Why does the law throw its weight about at the wrong ones all the time ? Too powerful for my liking.
Lookout, I have to say that the doctor who was interviewed made it sound as if the child would die imminently after the batteries in his feeder ran out. He made it sound as if the little boy's life was in grave danger. If, under those circumstances the child had died the police would have been at fault had done nothing.
-
Obviously there are a lot of people who think Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but equally there are people who think he is innocent. Why is this?
In my opinion its not a case as to whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or not its a case of whether or not the case was handled correctly from the onset or was it that gross misconduct was/is a key factor in securing Jeremy Bamber's fate.
I would like for everyone to answer my following questions with a yes or no please.
1. The crime scene was made secure. True or false?
True. The scene was fully secured from the outset. Who was allowed to enter was controlled. After the raid team left they only allowed those in who they decided needed to see thus members of the raid team who were securing the perimeter did not enter, nor did the unarmed police, nor did even Jeremy.
The raid team kept track of their actions including anything they distrubed. That is why the prosecution was able to detial to the satisfaciton of the Appeal Court what damage was attributable to the raid team and Jeremy's counsel were unable to convice the Court that the raid team did th edamage attributed at trial to the struggle with Nevill.
Police locked the house when they collected evidence and allowed only the 4 crime scene officers in at that time.
Before moving anything they took photos. That is how we know that they moved things before the bodies were removed. They took photos before moving things and then took photos after. The moving was to enable photos of things that were blocked such as the blood stain on the nightgown under the arm and blood hidden by the bible for instance.
They also kept control of the scene for severla days until they finally turned the keys over to the family.
Their main failing had to do with no recognizing they should have collected all gun related materials since the murders were committed by a gun(s) that belonged to the house. One would expect all ammunition and gun related accessories to be taken just in case. This had nothing to do with the securing of the scene but rather their choice in relation to all the firearms related materials.
2. A full forensic examination was done. True or false?
True they examined the key evidence forensically in full.
3. The pathologist was called on site to determine the time of deaths?
Obviously that is not true. But they could have had Dr. Craig take body temperatures and try to assess a time of death. Taff Jones decided for whatever reason not to have him do so. This hurt the police not Jeremy. The police potentially would have had even more fodder to use against Jeremy. Those suggesting the time of death would have been while police were outside and could not have been before police arrived are quite delusional. The window provided by taking temperatur is not precise enough to have been able to rule out them dying befor epolice arrived unless they died after 6AM because there is a 2 hour window. Thinking they were shot after 6AM and no one heard is just ridiculous. But worse other evidence makes clear they were shot by someone outside the house rendering the body temperatures moot.
4. Exhibit labels were they changed?
Thank you. :)
[/quote]
Yes the exhibit label for the moderator was changed to reflect the perosn who actually found it and changed again to his full initials because the DB prefix was already in use by the police photographer.
Those who want to believe Jeremy is innocent decide to ignore the above and to pretend that the investigation was so poorly conducted that there is no way anyone could say whether or not Jeremy is guilty. That is not the case at all though. Ther eis irrefutable proof of his guilt in spite of the mistakes police made which resulted in them initially thinking Sheila did it.
In fact it is such a clear cut case of guilt that police superiors were disturbed that the initial police theory of Jeremy being innocent was so wrong and ordered an investigation to make sure that in the future such mistakes would not be repeated.
-
The case is far from being " clear-cut ". Nothing could be further from the truth.
I DON'T see Jeremy in this scenario at all,no matter how much is written/posted by yourself.You're wasting your time !
-
The case is far from being " clear-cut ". Nothing could be further from the truth.
I DON'T see Jeremy in this scenario at all,no matter how much is written/posted by yourself.You're wasting your time !
I think Scipio is well aware that nothing will convince you of Bambers guilt, so I don't think he is trying to do so - his posts aren't directed at YOU so he isn't wasting his time.
-
The case is far from being " clear-cut ". Nothing could be further from the truth.
I DON'T see Jeremy in this scenario at all,no matter how much is written/posted by yourself.You're wasting your time !
You also keep lying about there being bloody fingerprints and making all sorts of other bogus claims. You opinion regarding his innocence is based on lies and rubbish not fact and has no rational basis. You just seem to want to believe Jeremy is great and innocent end of story who gives a damn about the truth and facts.