Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on September 03, 2014, 10:09:PM
-
I will contact Angela tomorrow with regard to the gun residue issue and if it is likely that police dogs wouldn't smell residue after showering
Angela Shaw – GSR Expert
Angela Shaw began her career in Forensic Science in 2001 when she joined the Forensic Science Service (FSS), she rapidly became a reporting officer and then became the youngest Principal Forensic Scientist within the FSS.
Now an internationally recognised expert in the field of gunshot residue (GSR) she was formerly the FSS national scientific lead for the discipline. An active participant in the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) Firearms/GSR Expert Working Group, the largest in the ENFSI community, she was a pivotal member of the Steering Committee. Her portfolio of casework and the presentation of original scientific papers soon established her as one of Europe’s leading practitioners.
As FSS Principal Scientist, Angela provided leadership in dealing with quality, developmental and technical issues. She has worked on numerous cases involving the interpretation of complex GSR findings; she is pre-eminent in her field in the consideration of contamination questions and the significance of the presence of GSR particles. She has worked on numerous sensitive, high-profile investigations and has provided expert testimony in cases ranging from possession of firearms through to homicide and terrorist cases.
She has received numerous commendations for her professionalism and ability to carry out complex in-depth investigations and reviews. She is highly experienced in undertaking cold-case reviews.
As principal scientist at the FSS, she set technical standards and competencies to maintain the quality of casework. She revised all quality documentation and wrote formal reporting guidelines which the first such guidelines written by a forensic provider and are now used by other forensic laboratories in the UK and Europe. This achievement was recognised by the Home Office when it awarded the Forensic Firearms Consultancy (FFC) Ltd, a company of which she is a Director, www.forensicfirearmsconsultancy.com, the tender to write the Forensic Science Regulator’s Codes of Practice and Conduct appendix for GSR.
She is expert in maintaining accreditation to the ISO 17025 standard for gunshot residue and is a trained auditor: she has audited European Forensic Laboratories as part of an EU-commissioned project to help laboratories obtain external quality accreditation and has provided expert opinion.
She was asked by the The Royal Society of Chemistry to write a GSR chapter for the textbook, ‘Crime Scene to Court: The Essentials of Forensic Science’,(ISBN: 978-1-84755-882-4), a recommended textbook for students, lawyers and police officers.
Angela has created, managed and delivered bespoke training courses for trainee forensic scientists and investigators and was responsible for assessing overall performance and readiness to practise as an expert witness. She has forged collaborations with academic institutions such as King’s College London, giving MSc students the chance to complete their final year projects at the FSS.
She has worked with police forensic and firearms units together with government bodies advising on best practice regarding cross-contamination at crime scenes and during the arrest and apprehension of suspects. Uniquely within her field in the UK Angela has researched and developed a national police firearms ammunition database, the only such database available to assist case interpretation. She continues to advise the Home Office Forensic Science Regulators Office on matters concerning GSR.
Angela can be contacted at:
[email protected]
-
i would of thought they still might i mean just having a shower isnt really enough to get rid of all forensic there would be tiny traces weather they would be enough for a dog to pick up i dont know.
-
Also post where it is stated the dogs checked Bamber for gun powder residue. Oh, wait..
-
hang on were there police dogs there.
-
hang on were there police dogs there.
Never heard of any, but I just don´t know.
-
if there wernt i cant see the relevance,
-
There was definitely a police do there
-
There was definitely a police do there
What type of dog? Drugs dog? cadaver dog? Blood dog? GSR dog?
-
Pc Mercer took his dog Zeus to WHF . . . Mr Bamber said, "That's a nice looking dog." We talked on the subject of dogs and Mr Bamber said how he would like a German Shepherd.
-
Pc Mercer took his dog Zeus to WHF . . . Mr Bamber said, "That's a nice looking dog." We talked on the subject of dogs and Mr Bamber said how he would like a German Shepherd.
I remember that now - so I had heard of a dog there...
-
Pc Mercer took his dog Zeus to WHF . . . Mr Bamber said, "That's a nice looking dog." We talked on the subject of dogs and Mr Bamber said how he would like a German Shepherd.
so the dog would of been pretty close to were jeremy was standing.
-
I remember that now - so I had heard of a dog there...
Is this statement not in my archive thread? ???
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5036.msg215596.html#msg215596 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5036.msg215596.html#msg215596)
-
Is this statement not in my archive thread? ???
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5036.msg215596.html#msg215596 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5036.msg215596.html#msg215596)
No it isn't, Caroline can sort that one out though. :)
-
No it isn't, Caroline can sort that one out though. :)
Done!
-
Done!
Ta :)
-
Why even bother? Jeremy was never subjected to a search by the dog let alone is there any evidence l the dog was trained to detect GSR.
But the answer to your question is that if someone washes all GSR off their body and is searched by a dog trained to detect GSR the dog is not going to alert.
The same way a drug dealer who washes all traces of drugs off their body and clothing will not result in a drug dog alerting.
-
Pc Mercer took his dog Zeus to WHF . . . Mr Bamber said, "That's a nice looking dog." We talked on the subject of dogs and Mr Bamber said how he would like a German Shepherd.
Yes and Zeus was an attack dog. His role if necessary woudl have been to go in the house first to try to bring the gunman down so that the police could then safely enter without fear of being shot. While that is rather cold to make a dog get shot he did have a body armor vest which protects the main body cavity to an extent.
-
Why even bother? Jeremy was never subjected to a search by the dog let alone is there any evidence l the dog was trained to detect GSR.
But the answer to your question is that if someone washes all GSR off their body and is searched by a dog trained to detect GSR the dog is not going to alert.
The same way a drug dealer who washes all traces of drugs off their body and clothing will not result in a drug dog alerting.
Those dogs are trained as efficiently as cadaver dogs,so the least trace where people might think that gun residue has washed off would be in for a shock.They can detect spores left behind somewhere and will sit by their quarry and wait for orders. Police even manipulate a sniffer dog with a certain order to make it seem like they've detected something-TRUE-if someone is suspected of drug taking or indeed shooting someone,in order to get a foothold on the case.
The car would have been a prime place to have used the dog,so why wasn't that done ??
-
Why even bother? Jeremy was never subjected to a search by the dog let alone is there any evidence l the dog was trained to detect GSR.
But the answer to your question is that if someone washes all GSR off their body and is searched by a dog trained to detect GSR the dog is not going to alert.
The same way a drug dealer who washes all traces of drugs off their body and clothing will not result in a drug dog alerting.
A dog who's trained in looking for drugs could smell right through someone who'd showered in bleach-----FACT.
You don't know much,do you ? I suggest you read up about sniffer dogs and their ability to catch criminals.
-
A dog who's trained in looking for drugs could smell right through someone who'd showered in bleach-----FACT.
You don't know much,do you ? I suggest you read up about sniffer dogs and their ability to catch criminals.
It was an attack dog, it wasn't trained to sniff or identify anything.
-
A dog who's trained in looking for drugs could smell right through someone who'd showered in bleach-----FACT.
You don't know much,do you ? I suggest you read up about sniffer dogs and their ability to catch criminals.
It wasn't a sniffer dog, why would they send a sniffer dog to a siege situation?
-
It was an attack dog, it wasn't trained to sniff or identify anything.
Except maybe a big juicy bone. :D
-
It wasn't a sniffer dog, why would they send a sniffer dog to a siege situation?
Just another myth, another lie, surely people are getting fed up with being misled by now. Lookout? ???
-
It was an attack dog, it wasn't trained to sniff or identify anything.
I'd read it was trained to sniff out gunpowder,Harters.
This is the damn trouble with this case-------far too many misrepresentations.It's not good at all.
I've just read about how the extended family testified in court that June would never either use foster parents,nor even mention them ? So is this true,or isn't it ? It does really tend to leave you wondering.
-
Just another myth, another lie, surely people are getting fed up with being misled by now. Lookout? ???
Harters,I'm NOT lying,,but sure as Hell EVERY link/information from wherever is ! Talk about the case being muliti-faceted.
When I post something,it's more often than not a quote from off the internet somewhere,and NOT what I've just cobbled up.
I'd still have got exactly the same reactions to MY posts if I'd said Jeremy had been guilty !! That's the way I see myself------------a target for bullies !
-
Harters,I'm NOT lying,,but sure as Hell EVERY link/information from wherever is ! Talk about the case being muliti-faceted.
When I post something,it's more often than not a quote from off the internet somewhere,and NOT what I've just cobbled up.
I'd still have got exactly the same reactions to MY posts if I'd said Jeremy had been guilty !! That's the way I see myself------------a target for bullies !
You misunderstand.
I was asking if you were getting fed up with being constantly lied to yet?
-
By EVERYONE--------------YES ! I have my own thoughts on the subject but the last place I'd be expressing them would be here. I just make up the numbers,if you like. ;D
-
Just another myth, another lie, surely people are getting fed up with being misled by now. Lookout? ???
There are myths and lies on both sides. I welcome an overhaul to get rid of them all.
Those myths are repeated over and over until they are accepted as fact, thus rendering the overall picture of the case misty.
The right thing for everyone to do is to read all possible documents on the case, books excluded. I have to admit that it can be hard for me - especially the hand written ones. They are in English and sometimes hard to impossible to dechipher. I think it is easier to "guess" words if English is your first language.
-
Lookout hello, I read that too and of course believed it I remember Adam making a joke about the dog being more interested in the farm yard smells than Jeremy Bamber but now I am very selective in what I believe.
-
There are myths and lies on both sides. I welcome an overhaul to get rid of them all.
Those myths are repeated over and over until they are accepted as fact, thus rendering the overall picture of the case misty.
The right thing for everyone to do is to read all possible documents on the case, books excluded. I have to admit that it can be hard for me - especially the hand written ones. They are in English and sometimes hard to impossible to dechipher. I think it is easier to "guess" words if English is your first language.
Alias, it often seems to me that there is as much that is UNknown about this case, as there is that is indisputably KNOWN. We have no clear cut proof of what went on inside WHF, either in action, conversation or timings so it's only natural that we'll make up stories to fit with what we believe. Those stories, which are in fact, MYTHS, take on lives of their own and become accepted as FACTS.
I would like nothing more than to see ALL myth removed but you can rest assured that facts which don't meet with the approval of either side are likely to be labeled myths. In fact, WHATever is said by WHOMever in their witness statements, is very likely to be refuted by someone else.........................and that's BEFORE it reaches the forum where we've probably ALL been guilty of a little "bending and stretching" at some point, without necessarily knowing it.
-
April yesterday you said you believed Jeremy to be guilty but if you take one aspect of the case for instance
Jeremy got a call from his father
He than rang his girfriend and said there is something wrong at the farm
That fits perfectly with what Jeremy said
Followed by Julie telling him to go back to bed
Julies version of that call just does not fit anyway you look at it but she admits Jeremy said there was something wrong at the farm
What Julie said in her statement does not make sense
That is a fact
You are accepting what JM says although you know it does not make sense
-
Jackie, Jeremy didn't need to have had a call from Neville to alert Julie, albeit, cryptically, that a deed in which I believe she had a great part, was done.
NOTHING that Julie relates about that conversation makes any sense to me. I thin k she has deliberately left out that/any part which incriminates her. Well, she would, wouldn't she?
I guess I don't need to say that I don't accept what Julie says.
-
I obviously know that but what Jeremy says makes sense i.e. somethings wrong at the farm
It obviously does not make sense what Julie says
Why did she accept part of what Jeremy said
Somethings wrong at the farm
then she adds on everything is going well??? its wrong whichever way you look at it
If Jeremy said somethings wrong at the farm its a very important point
-
I obviously know that but what Jeremy says makes sense i.e. somethings wrong at the farm
It obviously does not make sense what Julie says
Why did she accept part of what Jeremy said
Somethings wrong at the farm
then she adds on everything is going well??? its wrong whichever way you look at it
If Jeremy said somethings wrong at the farm its a very important point
I find it very hard to accept that he wakes her up at that hour of the morning and SHE doesn't say "What the hell are you playing at? What do you want" and he, according to her says no more than "Something's wrong at the farm." He, again, according to her, gives no further details and makes no mention of his father's call do him, NOR does he wonder what he should do but again, according to her, he DOES tell her that "Everything is going well." I'm afraid it suggests to me that she KNEW what had happened but which ever way we choose to see it, I think she's lying by omission.
-
The thing is though,we don't know if she said/he said these things as Julie spun some whoppers.
I doubt very much that Jeremy was looking forward to the harvesting as he'd have had to have pulled his tripe out,so if that was how this odd conversation went,it would have been about the dread of having to have worked extra hard that day.
You'll only find connotations if you're looking for them,as did the prosecution all along. Their aim was to add a twist to every spoken word and movement of Jeremy from the word go,which I find pretty pathetic really.
And Jones,the drinker----------well,I wouldn't have believed anything that came out of his mouth. Imagine a cop nowadays found to have a flask of whisky on his person !!
-
The thing is though,we don't know if she said/he said these things as Julie spun some whoppers.
I doubt very much that Jeremy was looking forward to the harvesting as he'd have had to have pulled his tripe out,so if that was how this odd conversation went,it would have been about the dread of having to have worked extra hard that day.
You'll only find connotations if you're looking for them,as did the prosecution all along. Their aim was to add a twist to every spoken word and movement of Jeremy from the word go,which I find pretty pathetic really.
And Jones,the drinker----------well,I wouldn't have believed anything that came out of his mouth. Imagine a cop nowadays found to have a flask of whisky on his person !!
At 3am (ish) Lookout? He'd already called her around 10pm, why couldn't he have told her then. I agree that Julie probably lied, but in the time she had from the second phone call until the police picked her up, I doubt she had the time -or brain- to construct a whole conversation from which she could extract most of the callers "lines" in order to make him look guilty and exonerate herself. It leads me to think that it MAY have been a call she'd, at the very least, anticipated.
-
It must be remembered though that in her first ever statement,JM said that Jeremy sounded worried when he had phoned her to tell her there was 'something wrong at the farm'. She had told him 'not to worry and to go back to bed' The 'everything's going well and bye honey' in a sing song voice crap came after her many hours of coaching with Stan Jones. Whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent,JM is a proven liar and that's a FACT!
-
Hello tyler I agree with you on this although I think he is guilty I think she is a stranger to the truth.
-
From the archives
Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.
PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.
The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.
'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'
Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously, the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
Report to moderator Logged
Grahame
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2011, 01:07:PM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.
PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.
The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.
'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'
Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously, the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
But surely if Jeremy had fired several shots earlier the dog would have detected the residue from those shots?
Report to moderator Logged
chochokeira
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2011, 01:20:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 01:07:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.
PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.
The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.
'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'
Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously, the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
But surely if Jeremy had fired several shots earlier the dog would have detected the residue from those shots?
Yes. As I understand it, Jeremy didn't fire any shots at rabbits earlier because the rabbits had gone by the time he went out to shoot them. So the dog test indicated that Jeremy had not discharged a firearm during the relevent period.
Report to moderator Logged
andrea
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2011, 03:36:PM »
Quote
he didnt have to load the gun to shoot the rabbits either did he, did he say the gun was already loaded?
Report to moderator Logged
chochokeira
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2011, 03:42:PM »
Quote
Quote from: andrea on October 08, 2011, 03:36:PM
he didnt have to load the gun to shoot the rabbits either did he, did he say the gun was already loaded?
That's a good point, I can't remember.
Report to moderator Logged
Grahame
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 04:05:PM by Grahame »
Report to moderator Logged
ngb1066
Administrator
Veteran Member
Posts: 3714
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
This was a serious breach of the duty of the procution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence. This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury. Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.
Report to moderator Logged
smiffy
Senior Member
Posts: 2000
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2011, 01:13:AM »
Quote
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
This was a serious breach of the duty of the procution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence. This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury. Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.
Fully agree.
Report to moderator Logged
chochokeira
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2011, 02:00:AM »
Quote
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
This was a serious breach of the duty of the prosecution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence. This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury. Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.
What might the combined effect of knowledge of the sniffer dog's failure to find any firearms residue on Jeremy and photographs of Sheila's hand stained by firearms residue, have been? A 'not guilty' verdict is my guess.
Report to moderator Logged
ngb1066
Administrator
Veteran Member
Posts: 3714
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2011, 09:00:AM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 09, 2011, 02:00:AM
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
This was a serious breach of the duty of the prosecution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence. This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury. Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.
What might the combined effect of knowledge of the sniffer dog's failure to find any firearms residue on Jeremy and photographs of Sheila's hand stained by firearms residue, have been? A 'not guilty' verdict is my guess.
I think that is very likely, particularly as the verdict was by the minimum permitted majority, 10:2.
Report to moderator Logged
-
From the archives
Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.
PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.
The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.
'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'
Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously, the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
Report to moderator Logged
Grahame
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2011, 01:07:PM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.
PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.
The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.
'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'
Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously, the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
But surely if Jeremy had fired several shots earlier the dog would have detected the residue from those shots?
Report to moderator Logged
chochokeira
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2011, 01:20:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 01:07:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.
PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.
The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.
'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'
Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously, the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
But surely if Jeremy had fired several shots earlier the dog would have detected the residue from those shots?
Yes. As I understand it, Jeremy didn't fire any shots at rabbits earlier because the rabbits had gone by the time he went out to shoot them. So the dog test indicated that Jeremy had not discharged a firearm during the relevent period.
Report to moderator Logged
andrea
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2011, 03:36:PM »
Quote
he didnt have to load the gun to shoot the rabbits either did he, did he say the gun was already loaded?
Report to moderator Logged
chochokeira
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2011, 03:42:PM »
Quote
Quote from: andrea on October 08, 2011, 03:36:PM
he didnt have to load the gun to shoot the rabbits either did he, did he say the gun was already loaded?
That's a good point, I can't remember.
Report to moderator Logged
Grahame
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 04:05:PM by Grahame »
Report to moderator Logged
ngb1066
Administrator
Veteran Member
Posts: 3714
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
This was a serious breach of the duty of the procution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence. This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury. Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.
Report to moderator Logged
smiffy
Senior Member
Posts: 2000
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2011, 01:13:AM »
Quote
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
This was a serious breach of the duty of the procution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence. This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury. Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.
Fully agree.
Report to moderator Logged
chochokeira
Guest
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2011, 02:00:AM »
Quote
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
This was a serious breach of the duty of the prosecution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence. This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury. Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.
What might the combined effect of knowledge of the sniffer dog's failure to find any firearms residue on Jeremy and photographs of Sheila's hand stained by firearms residue, have been? A 'not guilty' verdict is my guess.
Report to moderator Logged
ngb1066
Administrator
Veteran Member
Posts: 3714
Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2011, 09:00:AM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 09, 2011, 02:00:AM
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?
Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
This was a serious breach of the duty of the prosecution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence. This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury. Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.
What might the combined effect of knowledge of the sniffer dog's failure to find any firearms residue on Jeremy and photographs of Sheila's hand stained by firearms residue, have been? A 'not guilty' verdict is my guess.
I think that is very likely, particularly as the verdict was by the minimum permitted majority, 10:2.
Report to moderator Logged
Why would he be?
-
Hello Caroline
exactly why would he be subjected to a sniffer dog :'(
-
I find it very hard to accept that he wakes her up at that hour of the morning and SHE doesn't say "What the hell are you playing at? What do you want" and he, according to her says no more than "Something's wrong at the farm." He, again, according to her, gives no further details and makes no mention of his father's call do him, NOR does he wonder what he should do but again, according to her, he DOES tell her that "Everything is going well." I'm afraid it suggests to me that she KNEW what had happened but which ever way we choose to see it, I think she's lying by omission.
Let's get a few things out of the way. Obviously she was not intimating the full acocunt verbatim in any of her statements of testimony. I have a great memory and can recount in detail the substance of conversations I had yesterday over the phone with people but not the conversations verbatim.
She also admitted she was still half asleep so could have missed things he said. So right off the bat we are stuck with only the content that she could recall at later dates.
There is no question though that her initial account makes no sense and that she left out things. She makes clear later that she remembered some things pretty damning that she left out in order to protect Jeremy. She left out the fact he said he had not yet gone to sleep and that his plan (that around 10PM that he was putting into effect that night) was going well.
This call to her was meant to help substantiate his alibi. Instead it ended up harming him because the simple fact he called her makes no sense.
A good example of why is looking at what happened with my maternal grandmother. My grandmother was in the emergency room for like 16 hours. I was there the entire time as was my mother. It was after 2AM when they made it seem like she could die. So I notified my uncle because he was far away and I figured he should know in case he wanted to try to visit before she died. I didn't wait until later in the morning because time was of the essence. They thought she might not last more than a day. He would need to make plans if he did want to come and would need to act rapidly. He ended up flying up here the earliest flight he could get. It turned out she survived and battled through surgery, chemo and radiation for over a year. But we did not know this would be the case at the time. I didn't wake the remainder of the family to notify them until the morning because they lived close enough to visit during the day at their leisure. I notified them after we got her situated in a hospital room that she could be visited in. They would not have been able to see her in the ER anyway. I had not notified them she wa sin the ER because we didn't know what was wrong and there was no point in telling them anything until we found out what was the problem.
I received a call at 3:37AM from Hospice that my grandmother passed away. I didn't wake the rest of the family up at that time because why would you disturb people just to deliver bad news? Waiting until they are awake already to let them know is superior.
The principle I am explaining is pretty simple. You call people to notify them of trouble for a reason. You call them to notify them of someone being hurt or sick so they can visit if they want. You notify them when you know what is wrong not that there might be a problem but you are not certain. What is the use of worrying them for nothing? Naturally you notify those who would be concerned about such not just anybody. You only wake people up if time is of the essence otherwise you wait to tell them at a normal hour.
Jeremy had no valid reason for calling Julie at that hour which makes it contrived. He wasn't sure if anything was actually wrong (something he made clear in his trial testimony as he was explaining why he didn't call 999) and worse Julie would not particularly care about his family. He didn't call her to tell her she should go there because something could be wrong. Indeed his parents siblings would be the ones to call about such to ask if they wanted to go. The call was supposed to bolster his alibi by saying Nevill really called me because look I expressed such to my girlfriend. he would have been better served calling the extended family with news there could be trouble it is more plausible they would be concerned and might even have met him there. I actually think that he picked Julie because he didn't want them around and he was excited about having killed them and wanted someone to gloat to. He wasn't thinking about the best thing to do to make his call seem genuine.
The only plausible reason any Jeremy defenders have suggested for the call is because he was upset after talking to police and wanted to complain about it to her. Some say he intimated such as his motivation but I have not seen his full testimony. I will say that his testimony at trial that he intiially didn't think it was an emergency situation and wasn't sure anything was actually wrong is harmful because he clearly made the call to Julie before he phoned police.
He realized it would look bad to say he called her before police so he stated he looked up the police numbers and called police then Julie. He slipped up during his questioning though and admitted the truth that he called her first but upon police seizing on it he claimed he could not remember who he called first then went back to claiming he called police first and simply mispoke.
Even if he phoned police at 3:24 this is later than the roomates say the call to Julie was made. He was on the phone with police for 9 minutes or more. So the call to police ended after 3:30. Jeremy supporters keep suggesting his call was at 3:36 and ended even later which would put the call to police ending even later making the call to Julie be even later if it were after phoning police.
The 2 roomates who said they looked at their clocks insist the call came at 3AM. The other roomate said 3:15 though said it could have been as late as 3:30. There is no way Jeremy got off the phone with police until after 3:30 making a call at 3:30 impossible. The more you look at it the more it is clear the call had to have been made before he phoned police thus destorying the claim he was upset after speaking to police so called her for comfort.
Worse yet, he testified to the jury that he did not appreciate at first that there was any emergency or urgency in Nevill's words. So why would he call Julie if he was not even worried to call police at that point in time?
So the call is a mess for various reasons. It wound up being a huge liability instead of supporting his alibi as the call was intended to accomplish.
Further evidence that this call was aimed at supporting his alibi is that around 6AM he phoned Julie to tell her not to go to work because she would need to come tell police about how he had called her earlier to say there was trouble at the farm because Nevill phoned. He didn't wait till the bodies were found to call her and tell her that they would need her testimony he called her before because he wanted to make sure she didn't go to work. This makes clear how significant he viewed her testimony to confirm his alibi.
As a lawyer it is hard to find a way to make this call or the second look natural and innocent. It is one of those things that you wish your client did not reveal.
-
Jackie, Jeremy didn't need to have had a call from Neville to alert Julie, albeit, cryptically, that a deed in which I believe she had a great part, was done.
NOTHING that Julie relates about that conversation makes any sense to me. I thin k she has deliberately left out that/any part which incriminates her. Well, she would, wouldn't she?
I guess I don't need to say that I don't accept what Julie says.
I think the call was in part to gloat about his misdeeds. He told her he was going to do it and then called to say it was done. But he also wanted to use the call to support his alibi so it had multiple purposes.
Both calls very well could mean that Julie was more involved in things than she indicated. She even could have been supportive of the murders because she thought it would result in marriage. People always minimize their own involvement when spilling about misdeeds. Only Jeremy could expose her if there were more. But that would require him to admit his own guilt and we would have to wonder how much of his story were true.
If she truly told him not to talk to her about killing them anymore then it makes little sense to keep telling her about it. There are people who you tell to shut up who don't and keep tlaking about something you don't want to hear but the normal thing to do anytime they do such is to remind them you don't want to hear about it. So in that sense one has to strongly wonder if she truly was as strong as she claimed about telling him she didn't want to hear about it. I am a cynic and naturally think that she was more supportive of his suggestions than she let on because she would have every reaosn not to admit she was supportive of it.
Sure she came clean about the robbery, the drugs and the bank fraud but that is different than admitting she was supportive of his murder plans which at best would make her look horrible to the World and at worst could result in her being charged with conspiracy to commit murder. There is a much stronger motvation to hide this than her petty crimes.
-
Let's get a few things out of the way. Obviously she was not intimating the full acocunt verbatim in any of her statements of testimony. I have a great memory and can recount in detail the substance of conversations I had yesterday over the phone with people but not the conversations verbatim.
She also admitted she was still half asleep so could have missed things he said. So right off the bat we are stuck with only the content that she could recall at later dates.
There is no question though that her initial account makes no sense and that she left out things. She makes clear later that she remembered some things pretty damning that she left out in order to protect Jeremy. She left out the fact he said he had not yet gone to sleep and that his plan (that around 10PM that he was putting into effect that night) was going well.
This call to her was meant to help substantiate his alibi. Instead it ended up harming him because the simple fact he called her makes no sense.
A good example of why is looking at what happened with my maternal grandmother. My grandmother was in the emergency room for like 16 hours. I was there the entire time as was my mother. It was after 2AM when they made it seem like she could die. So I notified my uncle because he was far away and I figured he should know in case he wanted to try to visit before she died. I didn't wait until later in the morning because time was of the essence. They thought she might not last more than a day. He would need to make plans if he did want to come and would need to act rapidly. He ended up flying up here the earliest flight he could get. It turned out she survived and battled through surgery, chemo and radiation for over a year. But we did not know this would be the case at the time. I didn't wake the remainder of the family to notify them until the morning because they lived close enough to visit during the day at their leisure. I notified them after we got her situated in a hospital room that she could be visited in. They would not have been able to see her in the ER anyway. I had not notified them she wa sin the ER because we didn't know what was wrong and there was no point in telling them anything until we found out what was the problem.
I received a call at 3:37AM from Hospice that my grandmother passed away. I didn't wake the rest of the family up at that time because why would you disturb people just to deliver bad news? Waiting until they are awake already to let them know is superior.
The principle I am explaining is pretty simple. You call people to notify them of trouble for a reason. You call them to notify them of someone being hurt or sick so they can visit if they want. You notify them when you know what is wrong not that there might be a problem but you are not certain. What is the use of worrying them for nothing? Naturally you notify those who would be concerned about such not just anybody. You only wake people up if time is of the essence otherwise you wait to tell them at a normal hour.
Jeremy had no valid reason for calling Julie at that hour which makes it contrived. He wasn't sure if anything was actually wrong (something he made clear in his trial testimony as he was explaining why he didn't call 999) and worse Julie would not particularly care about his family. He didn't call her to tell her she should go there because something could be wrong. Indeed his parents siblings would be the ones to call about such to ask if they wanted to go. The call was supposed to bolster his alibi by saying Nevill really called me because look I expressed such to my girlfriend. he would have been better served calling the extended family with news there could be trouble it is more plausible they would be concerned and might even have met him there. I actually think that he picked Julie because he didn't want them around and he was excited about having killed them and wanted someone to gloat to. He wasn't thinking about the best thing to do to make his call seem genuine.
The only plausible reason any Jeremy defenders have suggested for the call is because he was upset after talking to police and wanted to complain about it to her. Some say he intimated such as his motivation but I have not seen his full testimony. I will say that his testimony at trial that he intiially didn't think it was an emergency situation and wasn't sure anything was actually wrong is harmful because he clearly made the call to Julie before he phoned police.
He realized it would look bad to say he called her before police so he stated he looked up the police numbers and called police then Julie. He slipped up during his questioning though and admitted the truth that he called her first but upon police seizing on it he claimed he could not remember who he called first then went back to claiming he called police first and simply mispoke.
Even if he phoned police at 3:24 this is later than the roomates say the call to Julie was made. He was on the phone with police for 9 minutes or more. So the call to police ended after 3:30. Jeremy supporters keep suggesting his call was at 3:36 and ended even later which would put the call to police ending even later making the call to Julie be even later if it were after phoning police.
The 2 roomates who said they looked at their clocks insist the call came at 3AM. The other roomate said 3:15 though said it could have been as late as 3:30. There is no way Jeremy got off the phone with police until after 3:30 making a call at 3:30 impossible. The more you look at it the more it is clear the call had to have been made before he phoned police thus destorying the claim he was upset after speaking to police so called her for comfort.
Worse yet, he testified to the jury that he did not appreciate at first that there was any emergency or urgency in Nevill's words. So why would he call Julie if he was not even worried to call police at that point in time?
So the call is a mess for various reasons. It wound up being a huge liability instead of supporting his alibi as the call was intended to accomplish.
Further evidence that this call was aimed at supporting his alibi is that around 6AM he phoned Julie to tell her not to go to work because she would need to come tell police about how he had called her earlier to say there was trouble at the farm because Nevill phoned. He didn't wait till the bodies were found to call her and tell her that they would need her testimony he called her before because he wanted to make sure she didn't go to work. This makes clear how significant he viewed her testimony to confirm his alibi.
As a lawyer it is hard to find a way to make this call or the second look natural and innocent. It is one of those things that you wish your client did not reveal.
Scipio, distasteful as I find what you say, "it has a ring of truth about it".
-
I think the call was in part to gloat about his misdeeds. He told her he was going to do it and then called to say it was done. But he also wanted to use the call to support his alibi so it had multiple purposes.
Both calls very well could mean that Julie was more involved in things than she indicated. She even could have been supportive of the murders because she thought it would result in marriage. People always minimize their own involvement when spilling about misdeeds. Only Jeremy could expose her if there were more. But that would require him to admit his own guilt and we would have to wonder how much of his story were true.
If she truly told him not to talk to her about killing them anymore then it makes little sense to keep telling her about it. There are people who you tell to shut up who don't and keep tlaking about something you don't want to hear but the normal thing to do anytime they do such is to remind them you don't want to hear about it. So in that sense one has to strongly wonder if she truly was as strong as she claimed about telling him she didn't want to hear about it. I am a cynic and naturally think that she was more supportive of his suggestions than she let on because she would have every reaosn not to admit she was supportive of it.
Sure she came clean about the robbery, the drugs and the bank fraud but that is different than admitting she was supportive of his murder plans which at best would make her look horrible to the World and at worst could result in her being charged with conspiracy to commit murder. There is a much stronger motvation to hide this than her petty crimes.
The fact is if Jeremy was guilty everything was going very well
The family was all dead
What exactly does 'something wrong at the farm' mean if the plan was successful
In your wildest dreams could you believe that Julie would have gone back to sleep when she 'knew' what Jeremy plan
It's ridiculous
It's as ridiculous as offering to go and see 2 children with bullet holes in them when you knew it was your boyfriends work
It's even more ridiculous that JM knew all of this but no one was suspicious of her behaviour
It's even more ridiculous to think she would have dinner with Colin if she knew her boyfriend was responsible for killing his two babies
-
I think the call was in part to gloat about his misdeeds. He told her he was going to do it and then called to say it was done. But he also wanted to use the call to support his alibi so it had multiple purposes.
Both calls very well could mean that Julie was more involved in things than she indicated. She even could have been supportive of the murders because she thought it would result in marriage. People always minimize their own involvement when spilling about misdeeds. Only Jeremy could expose her if there were more. But that would require him to admit his own guilt and we would have to wonder how much of his story were true.
If she truly told him not to talk to her about killing them anymore then it makes little sense to keep telling her about it. There are people who you tell to shut up who don't and keep tlaking about something you don't want to hear but the normal thing to do anytime they do such is to remind them you don't want to hear about it. So in that sense one has to strongly wonder if she truly was as strong as she claimed about telling him she didn't want to hear about it. I am a cynic and naturally think that she was more supportive of his suggestions than she let on because she would have every reaosn not to admit she was supportive of it.
Sure she came clean about the robbery, the drugs and the bank fraud but that is different than admitting she was supportive of his murder plans which at best would make her look horrible to the World and at worst could result in her being charged with conspiracy to commit murder. There is a much stronger motvation to hide this than her petty crimes.
As you say, so much better to have the World see one as a conniving little thief, even a slut, than have the World believe one colluded in a plan to murder three generations of an entire family.
-
The fact is if Jeremy was guilty everything was going very well
The family was all dead
What exactly does 'something wrong at the farm' mean if the plan was successful
In your wildest dreams could you believe that Julie would have gone back to sleep when she 'knew' what Jeremy plan
It's ridiculous
It's as ridiculous as offering to go and see 2 children with bullet holes in them when you knew it was your boyfriends work
It's even more ridiculous that JM knew all of this but no one was suspicious of her behaviour
It's even more ridiculous to think she would have dinner with Colin if she knew her boyfriend was responsible for killing his two babies
I think we need to look at how desperate -NO, determined- was Julie to be Mrs Bamber.
I think "something is wrong at the farm" is self explanatory. He may even have been telling her something she'd been longing to hear.
I feel very certain that MOST of us wouldn't care to sleep with a boyfriend who'd committed murder but we're only talking about Julie here. She may have convinced herself that he'd done it to leave the road clear to marrying her.
It's possible that by offering to identify the boys she was, at some level, assuring herself that it was real.
Personally, I found her behaviour VERY suspicious. I wasn't the only one by a long chalk.
I thin k she would have had dinner with Colin to help bolster the idea that Jeremy was innocent. I'm not saying there weren't moments of trepidation but she had the prize in her sights.
-
April
You keep copying what Caroline says if it makes you happy
Out of interest in Mugford statements
She keeps mentioning she felt guilty
When do you think that was
When Jeremy first told her everything was going well
Or
When he said he should have been an actor
Or
When she hopped into bed with him
Or
When she had dinner with Colin
Or
when she pestered Jeremy to pay for her to go on holiday
Or
When she went to the mortuary
Or
When she was at the funeral
Or
When she signed the newspaper deal
Or
Maybe when she got her kit off for the papers
Or
When she got her £25,000 cheque
When do you think she felt guilty April?
You say what she says has a ring of truth so point it out to me when she felt guilty
It's in her statements
-
I think we need to look at how desperate -NO, determined- was Julie to be Mrs Bamber.
I think "something is wrong at the farm" is self explanatory. He may even have been telling her something she'd been longing to hear.
I feel very certain that MOST of us wouldn't care to sleep with a boyfriend who'd committed murder but we're only talking about Julie here. She may have convinced herself that he'd done it to leave the road clear to marrying her.
It's possible that by offering to identify the boys she was, at some level, assuring herself that it was real.
Personally, I found her behaviour VERY suspicious. I wasn't the only one by a long chalk.
I thin k she would have had dinner with Colin to help bolster the idea that Jeremy was innocent. I'm not saying there weren't moments of trepidation but she had the prize in her sights.
Well April I am glad I am not your friend if that's the theories you come out with because I am of the opinion she's not all bad just very very jealous and everything got out of hand and she started a chain of events that ran out of control
I don't actually believe she was that evil
-
April
You keep copying what Caroline says if it makes you happy
Out of interest in Mugford statements
She keeps mentioning she felt guilty
When do you think that was
When Jeremy first told her everything was going well
Or
When he said he should have been an actor
Or
When she hopped into bed with him
Or
When she had dinner with Colin
Or
when she pestered Jeremy to pay for her to go on holiday
Or
When she went to the mortuary
Or
When she was at the funeral
Or
When she signed the newspaper deal
Or
Maybe when she got her kit off for the papers
Or
When she got her £25,000 cheque
When do you think she felt guilty April?
You say what she says has a ring of truth so point it out to me when she felt guilty
It's in her statements
Jackie, I can't think of many situations in which most of us don't feel a gamut of differing emotions. I feel quite certain that guilt, at some point, would have formed part of what Julie felt. It MAY have been dispelled when she recalled how humiliated she felt when June called her a harlot. She MAY have thought with Jeremy's ring on her finger that it would go away.
-
Well April I am glad I am not your friend if that's the theories you come out with because I am of the opinion she's not all bad just very very jealous and everything got out of hand and she started a chain of events that ran out of control
I don't actually believe she was that evil
Jackie, like MOST of us, she's not all bad -she appears to have led an exemplary life in Canada- but if you're saying that she let a story run away with her and got her boyfriend jailed for life out of jealousy, I think you'd be safer having me as a friend, than her.
-
April not in a million years
If you come out with stuff like that I will just ignore your posts
I have posted facts
Julie said she was guilty right through her statements
Funnily enough when she split with Jeremy hey presto she felt even guiltier especially when her best friend said she was sleeping with Jeremy
Love turned to hate very quickly
Like she stated
Fact
She wanted him dead
Next best thing a full life tariff
Job done for Julie
-
April not in a million years
If you come out with stuff like that I will just ignore your posts
I have posted facts
Julie said she was guilty right through her statements
Funnily enough when she split with Jeremy hey presto she felt even guiltier especially when her best friend said she was sleeping with Jeremy
Love turned to hate very quickly
Like she stated
Fact
She wanted him dead
Next best thing a full life tariff
Job done for Julie
Do you think Julie lied because Jeremy apparently jilted her ?
This is what Jeremy said in court.
-
Adam Julie stretched the truth with a little help from EP. I think most of what she said were words she had put in her mouth by others she saw it as a way out from prosecution for her own crimes and also big fat cheque for £25.000. Think she ended up thinking he was guilty but not to start with. He only phoned her for an alibi that he was at home at that time.
-
Yes I do as she said in her own words she was besotted with him and wanted him dead
There is not a single thing in her statement that can be proved
Nothing
The bullet wounds
The hit man
Jeremy didn't get on with his family (see BW statement)
-
Adam Julie stretched the truth with a little help from EP. I think most of what she said were words she had put in her mouth by others she saw it as a way out from prosecution for her own crimes and also big fat cheque for £25.000. Think she ended up thinking he was guilty but not to start with. He only phoned her for an alibi that he was at home at that time.
In your opinion !!!!
-
Adam Julie stretched the truth with a little help from EP. I think most of what she said were words she had put in her mouth by others she saw it as a way out from prosecution for her own crimes and also big fat cheque for £25.000. Think she ended up thinking he was guilty but not to start with. He only phoned her for an alibi that he was at home at that time.
That is totally wrong.
The police knew nothing about the caravan break in or Susan Battersby's 1984 cheque book fraud when Julie approached the police.
She also had no idea she would be offered 25k. Providing Jeremy got convicted.
-
Adam don't believe everything you read ;D ;D ;D ;D and I aint wrong ;D
-
Adam don't believe everything you read ;D ;D ;D ;D and I aint wrong ;D
Julie told the police about the caravan break in.
The police found out about the cheque book fraud after Julie had completed her WS. These things are in witness statements.
There is no evidence that Julie was a drug dealer.
-
Adam I never said Julie was a drug dealer just meddled a little in them. Adam are you telling me you believe Jeremy Bamber would confide in his girl friend (who he was tiring of anyway) about the fact he was going to murder his entire family two of them being little boys. People can say words and at any given time they can be interpreted with a different meaning it really amounts to what fits at the time he may have said things to her over time but he never confessed to her what he had done she would have run for her life in case she was next on the list. This is as I see it you are entitled to have a different view none of us really know we are all assuming .
-
Why did Jeremy tell Julie ?
Jeremy amazingly rang Julie twice before the raid team had entered WHF.
The first time almost certainly before ringing the police. According to Julie to tell her he had 'not slept all night' & 'everything was going well'. The second time to tell her not to go to work & a police car would pick her up. Which was generous of the police as Julie was not a relative.
Jeremy was in a self satisfied mood when meeting Julie. Not confident enough to say he did the massacre, but boastful enough to say he arranged it and wise enough to give a proxy who would have been no where near WHF.
There are several reasons why Jeremy told Julie.
Julie would suspect anyway. Jeremy would tell anyone who would listen how much he hated his family. Julie was the person closest to Jeremy prior to the massacre. So would have been on the receiving end of Jeremys rants & unfufilled plans to get rid of everyone.
Julie knew about the caravan break in. Committing a crime against the family, Julie would suspect that Jeremy was also prepared to go one stage further & committ a crime to his family. So even if Jeremy said he had nothing to do with the massacre, Julie would again suspect.
Jeremy trusted Julie enough to involve her in the caravan break in. So he may have trusted her enough to confess an involvement in the massacre.
Julie said herself she was under Jeremys spell. Jeremy would have known this & felt Julie would remain under his spell. If they spilt up weeks or months later, there would be no evidence, even if Julie went to the police.
Jeremy felt Julie would not have the confidence to go through with a confession & trial. She would be scared of getting implicated & they would not believe her anyway. Jeremy had boasted about being 'watertight' & it being an 'open & shut case' with no evidence against him. Julie was only 20 & caught in an unexpected situation.
Jeremy wanted to boast & prove Julie wrong. Julie had dismissed his 10am 'it's now or never' claim. She had also dismissed his previous plans. When interviewed on television she said 'Jeremy liked to say things to shock people'.
Jeremy would have been buzzing & hyped up directly after the massacre. He had lost his immediate family, although intentianally. The closest person to him was now Julie. He had to phone her, even though it was 3.00am. Just to hear her voice & reaffirm that somebody still loved him. After that 3.00am phone call, what he said & how he said it, Jeremy knew there was no point lying to her after that.
Jeremy would have enjoyed boasting to Julie. Once things had blown over even more he would have no doubt hinted to other people of his involvement. He may have even enjoyed police suspecting him, believing they would never have enough evidence to charge him or get a conviction. It has been said Jeremy enjoyed the female attention at the trial.
Jeremy had repeatedly told Julie of his hatred for his family. He may have thought Julie would understand his reasons. Espesically after some nice, expensive meals.
There is some debate on whether Jeremy did jilt Julie. However if they did split up & Julie went to police, Jeremy could claim she is doing it as a scorned woman. Which is exactly what happened, although Jeremy has never said a scorned woman is also likely to tell the truth.
Jeremy had not said to Julie he had committed the massacre. He gave himself a proxy. If the police were informed, the proxy would deny it. And Matthew Macdonald could probably prove he was no where near WHF. If there was no other evidence against Jeremy, - case closed.
-
Adam Jeremy Bamber loved Jeremy Bamber not Julie he was fed up of her outgrown her. In many ways she was quite a sad case that her mind was completely taken over.
-
It is not conclusive weather Jeremy jilted Julie. This has already been discussed.
However jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.
-
Those dogs are trained as efficiently as cadaver dogs,so the least trace where people might think that gun residue has washed off would be in for a shock.They can detect spores left behind somewhere and will sit by their quarry and wait for orders. Police even manipulate a sniffer dog with a certain order to make it seem like they've detected something-TRUE-if someone is suspected of drug taking or indeed shooting someone,in order to get a foothold on the case.
The car would have been a prime place to have used the dog,so why wasn't that done ??
Has anyone got a source that there were police dogs at WHF on the night ? I have never read this.
Why would dogs be brought to a siege situation ? The raid team had guns and all required equipment.
Dogs or no dogs, Jeremy was not a suspect so the dogs would not go near him.
-
Has anyone got a source that there were police dogs at WHF on the night ? I have never read this.
Why would dogs be brought to a siege situation ? The raid team had guns and all required equipment.
Dogs or no dogs, Jeremy was not a suspect so the dogs would not go near him.
If Jeremy had stunk of gun-powder,the dog would surely have indicated. As it happened,there was nothing on Jeremy that interested the dog.
Why don't you google things to find out what it is you're looking for.It's easy enough to do and saves a lot of disbelief and suspicion.
The dog was used to search the surrounding area in case either Sheila was hiding somewhere,or someone else was.
-
If Jeremy had stunk of gun-powder,the dog would surely have indicated. As it happened,there was nothing on Jeremy that interested the dog.
Why don't you google things to find out what it is you're looking for.It's easy enough to do and saves a lot of disbelief and suspicion.
The dog was used to search the surrounding area in case either Sheila was hiding somewhere,or someone else was.
Have you got a source saying a dog was present ?
There is no mention of a dog being present. Jones & Miller did not bring dogs. The raid team did not bring a dog.
-
Have you got a source saying a dog was present ?
There is no mention of a dog being present. Jones & Miller did not bring dogs. The raid team did not bring a dog.
I've told you,google it ! Besides it having been mentioned in Scott Lomax's book !
I didn't say it was the raid team who brought the dog.I think it was either Jeapes,or her husband who did. You know--------the officer who'd sighted the rifle in the window ?
-
I've told you,google it ! Besides it having been mentioned in Scott Lomax's book !
I didn't say it was the raid team who brought the dog.I think it was either Jeapes,or her husband who did. You know--------the officer who'd sighted the rifle in the window ?
I have googled it. It has never mentioned a dog.
A dog would not go near Jeremy as he was not a suspect.
-
Adam how would the dog know who was a suspect :'(
-
Adam how would the dog know who was a suspect :'(
The police would direct the dog to do certain things. Not sure what the dogs role would be in this sort of situation.
-
If Jeremy had stunk of gun-powder,the dog would surely have indicated. As it happened,there was nothing on Jeremy that interested the dog.
Why don't you google things to find out what it is you're looking for.It's easy enough to do and saves a lot of disbelief and suspicion.
The dog was used to search the surrounding area in case either Sheila was hiding somewhere,or someone else was.
The dog was an attack dog not a sniffer dog. Why would they bring a sniffer dog to a purported standoff with a gunman? A sniffer dog is to screen people.
They never subjected Jeremy to any dog screening or screening of any other kind on the day of the murders. Police did not inspect his body or clothing.
Aside from being wrong about the dog being asniffer dog, you are wrong that a dog would just go alert on its own. A dog only searches and alerts after it is given the order to conduct a search.
If they had decided to subject Jeremy to a sniffer dog it would not have mattered because he washed up and changed his clothes. But had they been suspicious like that they would have asked if he would let them test his hands and clothing for GSR not bothered to have a sniffer dog sent.
-
The police would direct the dog to do certain things. Not sure what the dogs role would be in this sort of situation.
In a posible hostage situation, a dog's life is more expendable than a humans.
-
It was PC Mercer who was the dog handler. The Alsation was trained in explosives,etc,it went up to Jeremy and walked away-----------------which is odd after Jeremy allegedly fired 25 rounds only hours before.
-
Why would he be?
He wasn't subjected to any dog search this is just another bogus claim from some Jeremy defenders.
Here is Mercer's statement:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5036.msg215596.html#msg215596
Far from being a sniffer dog Zeus was a standard attack K9 dog. He was summoned to the scene in case they needed him to go inside to bring the gunman down so that police can then safely swoop in without being in danger.
Jeremy changed his clothes and washed up before he called police so there is no reason a sniffer dog would be able to detect anything anyway or that they would have found anything on his hands or clothes had he agreed to be tested for GSR.
It is another desperation ploy from Team Jeremy merely.
-
How did the police know that there were guns at WHF before Jeremy had told them ?
-
How did the police know that there were guns at WHF before Jeremy had told them ?
They didn't. But Jeremy told them straight away.
-
They didn't. But Jeremy told them straight away.
Oh yes they did know before Jeremy told them. Because they then asked Jeremy about the guns in the house and what were they. It WASN'T Jeremy who first told them.
-
It was Nevilles' call to the police which alerted them to guns in the farmhouse.Jeremy HADN'T mentioned guns at all !
-
Oh yes they did know before Jeremy told them. Because they then asked Jeremy about the guns in the house and what were they. It WASN'T Jeremy who first told them.
Lookout, I can't see how he couldn't have if he'd previously told them what Neville allegedly said to him -that Sheila had gone mad and had one of his guns. The obvious question would be to ask about any further guns in the house.
-
Adam Jeremy Bamber loved Jeremy Bamber not Julie he was fed up of her outgrown her. In many ways she was quite a sad case that her mind was completely taken over.
In your opinion
Make sure you write this when stating something as FACT
-
Adam Jeremy Bamber loved Jeremy Bamber not Julie he was fed up of her outgrown her. In many ways she was quite a sad case that her mind was completely taken over.
For your information Jeremy has NEVER said a bad word to me about Julie EVER
Made excuses for why she lied
Maybe you would like to voice your opinion on that Susan
-
Jackie I have never said he did in fact it is quite remarkable how loyal he was to her.
-
You stated Jeremy only loved Jeremy
I believe Jeremy loved Julie
I believe Jeremy loved Anji
I believe Jeremy loved Suzi
-
How did the police know that there were guns at WHF before Jeremy had told them ?
it was a farm its a pretty reasonable assumption that there was going to be guns there and its best to ausume the presence of guns than assume there and get shot.