Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on September 08, 2014, 08:54:PM
-
Feel free to discuss the reason behind your vote.
-
No.
The evidence clearly shows what it is, and that isn't a call from Neville. It even states where the information came from, Nevilles son Jeremy.
-
It was done while Jeremy was trying to ring his father back. Jeremy couldn't get through because his dads' phone was engaged,which was Neville calling the police soon after he'd phoned his son.
-
well that would stand to reason but wouldn't explain why theirs no record of it.
-
Those dial phones seemed to take an age when you were in a hurry.No push button immediate action then,it was a slow process of dialling 7 numbers and waiting each time for the dial to go back to nought before you could ring the next number. I'd imagine Jeremy would have tried a couple of times before he realised he wasn't going to get through.
-
well that would stand to reason but wouldn't explain why theirs no record of it.
Are you the one who voted undecided?
-
It was done while Jeremy was trying to ring his father back. Jeremy couldn't get through because his dads' phone was engaged,which was Neville calling the police soon after he'd phoned his son.
What document/evidence/statement is this based on?
-
It was done while Jeremy was trying to ring his father back. Jeremy couldn't get through because his dads' phone was engaged,which was Neville calling the police soon after he'd phoned his son.
But what makes you say there was a call at all?
The phone was found off the hook when police entered. That alone explains why Jeremy and police would get a busy signal if trying to call.
-
What document/evidence/statement is this based on?
It isn't. It's my own way of thinking because we had such phones in the house at the time,and to just press either one button,or a few today,is a doddle to what it used to be.It was time consuming too if you got a number wrong because you had to start all over again. They certainly weren't the quickest of communicators,the old dial-up phones.
-
But what makes you say there was a call at all?
The phone was found off the hook when police entered. That alone explains why Jeremy and police would get a busy signal if trying to call.
Because I knew those old phones,we had them ourselves.So the phone was off the hook ? None of us know why at that juncture,but I don't look upon it as being suspicious.
-
Because I knew those old phones,we had them ourselves.So the phone was off the hook ? None of us know why at that juncture,but I don't look upon it as being suspicious.
You used Jeremy getting a busy signal to suggest Nevill was on the phone with police as Jeremy tried to call. But he could have gotten the busy signal simply because the phone was left off the hook, it doesn't mean a call was being made.
Why do you believe a call was made by Nevill to police?
-
It isn't. It's my own way of thinking because we had such phones in the house at the time,and to just press either one button,or a few today,is a doddle to what it used to be.It was time consuming too if you got a number wrong because you had to start all over again. They certainly weren't the quickest of communicators,the old dial-up phones.
And yet Neville is supposed to have used it to call Jeremy and then later to call police but using the 999 number which would have been quicker. Your reason seems to support Neville NOT having used it rather than having used it.
-
No.
Nothing suggests there was a call. It is nonsense.
The bonkers claim was originally that Nevill spoke to Bonnett and Jeremy spoke to West. It was only after people realised that the number 1990 recorded on the log was actually West's PC number that more people realised the devious attempt to mislead. The log was even published in a newspaper claiming Bonnett's log to be from a conversation with Nevill.
Now, that has finally been realised, we now have the member known as 'Reader' attempting to convince people that it was actually West that spoke to both Nevill and Jeremy and he used the single log to record and merge both conversations. :o
It's all very desperate and I can't even begin to explain why people are sucked in by any of this. :-\
Each to their own though. :)
-
No.
Nothing suggests there was a call. It is nonsense.
The bonkers claim was originally that Nevill spoke to Bonnett and Jeremy spoke to West. It was only after people realised that the number 1990 recorded on the log was actually West's PC number that more people realised the devious attempt to mislead. The log was even published in a newspaper claiming Bonnett's log to be from a conversation with Nevill.
Now, that has finally been realised, we now have the member known as 'Reader' attempting to convince people that it was actually West that spoke to both Nevill and Jeremy and he used the single log to record and merge both conversations. :o
It's all very desperate and I can't even begin to explain why people are sucked in by any of this. :-\
Each to their own though. :)
The fact that it even goes against what the OS says is quite odd. The whole event has been rewritten to try and make it fit - and it 'still' doesn't fit!
-
You used Jeremy getting a busy signal to suggest Nevill was on the phone with police as Jeremy tried to call. But he could have gotten the busy signal simply because the phone was left off the hook, it doesn't mean a call was being made.
Why do you believe a call was made by Nevill to police?
I believe Neville called the police when Jeremy tried ringing back his father and found the phone engaged. Which meant someone at WHF was using the phone,and it wasn't Jeremy !
-
The fact that it even goes against what the OS says is quite odd. The whole event has been rewritten to try and make it fit - and it 'still' doesn't fit!
But there seems to be an extraordinary amount of effort in trying to make it fit, that is what I can't understand. Why so desperate? ???
-
And yet Neville is supposed to have used it to call Jeremy and then later to call police but using the 999 number which would have been quicker. Your reason seems to support Neville NOT having used it rather than having used it.
Aye ? Not at all. Neville did ring the police. This is why Jeremy was getting an engaged tone at his house when he tried to ring his father back.
-
Call it nonsense,call it what you like,but I really don't see the difficulty in understanding ?
-
Call it nonsense,call it what you like,but I really don't see the difficulty in understanding ?
Haha, well clearly you do!!!! ;D
-
But there seems to be an extraordinary amount of effort in trying to make it fit, that is what I can't understand. Why so desperate? ???
No effort at all.It's as simple as ABC. When you know how.
-
But there seems to be an extraordinary amount of effort in trying to make it fit, that is what I can't understand. Why so desperate? ???
-
I believe Neville called the police when Jeremy tried ringing back his father and found the phone engaged. Which meant someone at WHF was using the phone,and it wasn't Jeremy !
The logs state time of 03:26 and 03:36, Jeremy said he called his father back shortly after he called him which he said was at 03:10. So what happened to the time in between?
-
But there seems to be an extraordinary amount of effort in trying to make it fit, that is what I can't understand. Why so desperate? ???
Jeremy supporters have no evidence of his innocence and nothing at all to back up his claim of receiving a call from Nevill. Nevill phoning police to say Sheila was running around with a gun crazy is about the only chance they have of suggesting his innocence. Why are they so desperate for him to be innocent? Who knows...
-
Haha, well clearly you do!!!! ;D
No difficulty.I'm quite laid-back about it because it seems feasible that's what took place. :D
-
Jeremy supporters have no evidence of his innocence and nothing at all to back up his claim of receiving a call from Nevill. Nevill phoning police to say Sheila was running around with a gun crazy is about the only chance they have of suggesting his innocence. Why are they so desperate for him to be innocent? Who knows...
I often wonder. And the only thing I can come up with is to "win".
No difficulty.I'm quite laid-back about it because it seems feasible that's what took place. :D
Feasible to you. But with your logic, Neville could just as much been on the phone with the chinese take-away!! Because you're saying you believe he was on the phone (hence the engaged tone Jeremy recieved) but still that doesn't mean it was to the police, there is no evidence of that.
-
Jeremy supporters have no evidence of his innocence and nothing at all to back up his claim of receiving a call from Nevill. Nevill phoning police to say Sheila was running around with a gun crazy is about the only chance they have of suggesting his innocence. Why are they so desperate for him to be innocent? Who knows...
Certainly not me, that's for sure. ???
-
Call it nonsense,call it what you like,but I really don't see the difficulty in understanding ?
Neither do I, which is why I'm surprised that people still buy into Neville's call - it couldn't be clearer - it couldn't have happened. ;D ;D ;D
-
I often wonder. And the only thing I can come up with is to "win".
Feasible to you. But with your logic, Neville could just as much been on the phone with the chinese take-away!! Because you're saying you believe he was on the phone (hence the engaged tone Jeremy recieved) but still that doesn't mean it was to the police, there is no evidence of that.
Who else would Neville have rang in a pending killer situation other than the police,then ?
-
Who else would Neville have rang in a pending killer situation other than the police,then ?
In a pending killer situation? 999.
-
In a pending killer situation? 999.
So that's what Neville would have rang and did. It would have been more to the point had EP made separate logs of these calls instead of tagging them on to " Mr Bamber ",to which there were two Mr Bambers who'd phoned.
-
The logs state time of 03:26 and 03:36, Jeremy said he called his father back shortly after he called him which he said was at 03:10. So what happened to the time in between?
This is the line the supporters often try to use:
Nevill phones Jeremy at 3:10 call last maybe a minute after Jeremy answered so it is 3:11-3:12 at the latest when it ends
3:11-3:12 Upon hanging up Nevill phones police and speaks to police for a least 5 minutes
3:11-3:12 Jeremy phones Nevill but the line is busy because he is speaking to police
3:13-3:25 Jeremy looks up the phone number of the Witham police station and dials but gets no answer so then looks up the Chelmsford station.
3:26 Jeremy phones Chelmsford.
What this scenario ignores is that this would require the call to Julie to be well after all the roomates say the call came- they said no later than 3:30 and most said much earlier than that.
Also, it is bad enough for Jeremy to take the time to look up Witham instead of dialing 999. After that failed why would he look up another station that might be unattended? Why not dial 999 at that point? In the meantime Witham was not unattended. His excuse for not dialing 999 made no sense. He said he didn't think it police repsonse would be any faster but if he waste over 10 minutes looking up phone numbers instead of dialing 999 then clearly that clearly impacts police response time.
If he didn't phone police until 3:36 then clearly that messes up things far more because the gap between when Nevill allegedly hung up the phone and Jeremy called police would be significantly greater. But 9 minutes from then would mean Jeremy did not get off the phone with police until 3:45 and that he sped his ass off only to slow down like as snail the last mile. 3:36 is probably when the call ended and Jeremy supporters are much better off with making that argument than Jeremy calling at 3:36.
None of this helps suggest a call from Nevill though. Jeremy claimin ghe got a busy signal doesn't even prove he actually tried to call WHF. His conviction included him leaving the phone off the hook before he left so he would not even need to call to know the phone would get a busy signal. But if he did call naturally he would get a busy signal. The phone off the hook explains such so arguing that because Jeremy claims he got a busy signal that means the busy signal was because Nevill phoned police is fallacy.
The most important questions to ask those who think Nevill phoned police are:
1) why would West and Bonnett have not dispatched a car in response to Nevill's call? The police were clearly called to respond on the basis of Jeremy's call not a call from anyone else.
2) Why would West ask Jeremy for information he already would have gotten from Nevill? West clearly asked Jeremy for Sheila's name, age, the address and phone number of WHF, who was at WHF and other questions that Nevill alreayd would have answered. Why would West ask such instead of telling Jeremy he already knew about the situation because he already spoke to Nevill?
Those who suggest Nevill called have to answer these questions and if they have no plausible answer then they have no reasonable way to suggest their position is plausible.
-
I'm not reading that,I'm going to bed---------I'd end up cross-eyed.
One car WAS sent,minutes before the other !! Two cars---Two phone-calls.
-
I didn´t vote.
There probably was no call, but why use time on this, it proves nothing one way or the other. Guess it is Jeremy grabbing on to what he can, who wouldn´t.
-
I didn´t vote.
There probably was no call, but why use time on this, it proves nothing one way or the other. Guess it is Jeremy grabbing on to what he can, who wouldn´t.
If guilty he knows there was no call, if innocent he should make sure that the claims aren't misleading and they are.
-
No push button immediate action then, it was a slow process of dialling 7 numbers and waiting each time for the dial to go back to nought before you could ring the next number.
Jeremy had a telephone with buttons. He needed to dial either 5 digits for a number on the same exchange or about 10 digits for a number on another exchange (or slightly fewer for a nearby exchange). If he needed to dial the same number again, he could push just one button to retry the last number tried.
-
Oh god. I can't believe there is a poll on Jeremy's claim (decades later) that Neville rang the police.
It was desperate claim by Jeremy. One of several he did around the same time. Such as claiming there were conversations inside WHF, taking a lie detector test & contacting Hunter & Woffinden. All discussed.
-
The evidence clearly shows what it is, and that isn't a call from Neville. It even states where the information came from, Nevill's son Jeremy.
No, it doesn't. It says that a message was passed by the son of Mr. Bamber. It doesn't explicitly state that this message gave the information that Pc West had called HQIR about at 03:26.
If you still disagree about that, post the full conversation that you think could have occurred between Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett. I don't mean a description of the conversation. I mean a plausible complete script for it.
I'll start it for you.
Bonnett: Information Room
Pc West: This is Pc 1990 at Chelmsford police station...
-
No, it doesn't. It says that a message was passed by the son of Mr. Bamber. It doesn't explicitly state that this message gave the information that Pc West had called HQIR about at 03:26.
If you still disagree about that, post the full conversation that you think could have occurred between Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett. I don't mean a description of the conversation. I mean a plausible complete script for it.
I'll start it for you.
Bonnett: Information Room
Pc West: This is Pc 1990 at Chelmsford police station...
What do you make of Jeremy's conflicting claims about when he phoned Julie.
1. He phoned Julie after speaking to the police because he was p****d off with police.
2. He phoned Julie before the police, but couldn't speak for long because he needed to call the police.
-
In September 1985, Jeremy said many times that he called Julie first, so version (2) is consistent with that and unremarkable. Nevertheless, he was badgered into agreeing with the reverse order if that was what his first statement said (but it wasn't). The solicitor present then put a stop to that line of questioning by advising Jeremy to stop answering.
Version (1) was in reply to the question "Why would you have phoned her up?" rather than a question about the order of the calls. Jeremy said "At the time I probably felt pissed off by my reaction from the police and needed a friendly ear."
After reading the entire interview, one realizes that Jeremy was somewhat wound up by the earlier badgering and that caused him to invent an answer off-the-cuff as he couldn't actually remember his reason. He could just as easily have said "At the time I was probably unsure what to do about dad's call and needed a friendly ear."
-
In September 1985, Jeremy said many times that he called Julie first, so version (2) is consistent with that and unremarkable. Nevertheless, he was badgered into agreeing with the reverse order if that was what his first statement said (but it wasn't). The solicitor present then put a stop to that line of questioning by advising Jeremy to stop answering.
Version (1) was in reply to the question "Why would you have phoned her up?" rather than a question about the order of the calls. Jeremy said "At the time I probably felt pissed off by my reaction from the police and needed a friendly ear."
After reading the entire interview, one realizes that Jeremy was somewhat wound up by the earlier badgering and that caused him to invent an answer off-the-cuff as he couldn't actually remember his reason. He could just as easily have said "At the time I was probably unsure what to do about dad's call and needed a friendly ear."
You mean he hadn't really thought of one! In his first statement, he doesn't even mention calling Julie. Who do you think he called first? You would think by now he'd have t least that story straight!
-
The police showed him his first statement, in which he said he called Julie at about 3:25am.
I think he called Julie before calling the police.
-
You mean he hadn't really thought of one! In his first statement, he doesn't even mention calling Julie. Who do you think he called first? You would think by now he'd have t least that story straight!
if he planned it for a year I think he would have got his sequence of calls well planned and there would have been no deviation - even when the police tried to get him going round in circles.
If he went to the trouble of faking a call - he would have got his story straight 100%
-
if he planned it for a year I think he would have got his sequence of calls well planned and there would have been no deviation - even when the police tried to get him going round in circles.
If he went to the trouble of faking a call - he would have got his story straight 100%
I don't think he did plan it a year in advance. I think he talked about killing his parents but I don't think there was much planning involved because of all the mistakes he made.
By the way, who do you think he called first?
-
if he planned it for a year I think he would have got his sequence of calls well planned and there would have been no deviation - even when the police tried to get him going round in circles.
If he went to the trouble of faking a call - he would have got his story straight 100%
Obviously, people with a vested interest try to make it look like Jeremy had planned the murders for a year but it just doesnt fit with the sequence of events hence Mugfords stories not a single piece of actual evidence linking Jeremy to the crime
-
I don't think he did plan it a year in advance. I think he talked about killing his parents but I don't think there was much planning involved because of all the mistakes he made.
By the way, who do you think he called first?
No, there wasn't and couldn't have been a year of planning, I think that's just what some people like to say.
"Oh no, it wasn't Jeremy, if he planned it for a year then there wouldn't have been any mistakes" ::)
However much planning there was, the most obvious mistake is that he underestimated the killing power of the .22 rifle.
He called Julie about 3am 'ish' and the police at about 3:20am 'ish'.
-
The poll results seem fairly conclusive. :-\
-
No, there wasn't and couldn't have been a year of planning, I think that's just what some people like to say.
"Oh no, it wasn't Jeremy, if he planned it for a year then there wouldn't have been any mistakes" ::)
However much planning there was, the most obvious mistake is that he underestimated the killing power of the .22 rifle.
He called Julie about 3am 'ish' and the police at about 3:20am 'ish'.
in your opinion
-
The poll results seem fairly conclusive. :-\
Yep - I would say so!!
-
The poll results seem fairly conclusive. :-\
Doesn't mean a thing,Harters. :)
-
Doesn't mean a thing,Harters. :)
It means the majority of current posters don't believe Neville called the police.
-
It means the majority of current posters don't believe Neville called the police.
Oh okay,sure, foregone conclusion really------------but it's not over 'till the fat lady sings. ;D
-
Oh okay,sure, foregone conclusion really------------but it's not over 'till the fat lady sings. ;D
Is that an Aria I hear? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
How many regular posters use this forum 12, 20 ?
That's thousands of people think he is guilty ???
-
Is that an Aria I hear? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes,if you like. The refrain from spitting. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
How many regular posters use this forum 12, 20 ?
That's thousands of people think he is guilty ???
The 'thousands' that I referred to aren't interested in him so they would have no need to post here or anywhere else. They are comfortable in the knowledge that he's locked up. There are around 64 million people living in this country, most won't even know who Jeremy Bamber is, of those who do, the majority will believe he's guilty or there would be far more interest in this forum. There may be thousands of people who think he could be innocent but there will be a whole lot more who think he's where he should be.
-
I don't think he did plan it a year in advance. I think he talked about killing his parents but I don't think there was much planning involved because of all the mistakes he made.
By the way, who do you think he called first?
Based on what he told Julie his planning for most of the time was just in the initial stages. It doesn't look like he put tremendous effort into the fire plan. He never got to the finer details so far as we know and he abandoned that plan when he tried to get to the finer details.
He took what in he eyes of the law are known as steps in furtherance of his plan. Buying the gun was an example. But even after the gun was purchased that doesn't mean he had thought of everything he could with respect to the finer details. But he told the farmhands there is no way he would share things with his sister so it shows he early on decided to kill everyone. The main details he thought up were to shoot everyone and blame it on Sheila.
Obviously that means everyone had to be staying at WHF at the time so it would take a while before the sitatuation was in place for him to implement his plan. That meant he had plenty of time to think about things in the broad sense but didn't have to think about the finer details until close to the event.
Many of the things that screwed him are things he thought up and planned. We have no way to know when he thought up the idea of pretending Nevill phoned him or calling Julie to buttress his acocunt he received a call from Nevill. We only know when he told Julie he planned to do such. Which shows he wasn't just telling Julie he wanted to kill them he actually told her plans so she should have had a clue he was really contemplating it. We don't know when he came up with the idea of pretending he left the rifle and bullets out and decided he would stage the bullets. We don't know whether he planned in advance to take the moderator off or he he just took it off after he realized it would be too long for Sheila to kill herself with it. Putting it away suggest to me he planned it all along because otherwise he could have left it next to her. He didn't want police to know it was used at all because a crazy person planning to kill everyone and committ suicide would not care if anyone wakes up.
Other details were how he would travel there, how to dispose of the clothes he used and things of that sort. How early did he decide to use a bike? We just know when he told Julie he decided to use a bike. When did he decide to use the windows to enter and exit? We can't be sure. So we have no way to know for how long he planned various aspects before telling Julie.
Planning for a long time doesn't mean something is a good idea though. Clearly the call to Julie wasn't a great idea because he had no valid reason for making such call. He didn't plan out the call from Nevill well enough to have a way to prove a call was placed from WHF to Goldhanger. He assumed people would just believe it happened based on him saying so and calling Julie after he claimed he received it.
Thinking a long time about something doesn't mean you will think of everything important or plan correctly. He clearly did not think about things like Sheial should have had backspatter on her clothing, drawback, GSR and he is in good company because it is rare that criminals think about such beyond getting rid of their clothing containing such though they don't even always get a chance to do that or do it even when they have the time. In the Amityville murder case, the son went to work in the same pants he wore during the murders, and stayed in them when he claimed to find the bodies and police were summoned, he only changed his shirt. His pants were dark so he didn't notice the high velocity spatter on them. There are tons of examples of things like that.
What planning did he implement in advance?
1) The overall plan to kill them at night with the house locked up entering and exiting through the windows so it would seem that it had to be someone inside the house that comitted the crimes
2) To use a semiautomatic gun and thus had his father buy one
3) To attribute it to Sheila's mentall illness thus make it look like a murder suicide
4) To kill everyone including his nephews so that he would get the full inheritance
5) To use a bike a took his mother's bike to his place shortly before the murders
6) To use gloves so he would not leave any prints
7) To wash up and change his clothing after
8) To call police and say he received a call from Nevill that Sheila had gone crazy and had the murder weapon in her hands
9) To use the mdoerator so no one in other rooms would wake up and make his life more difficult.
We don't know much about how detailed beyond his he thought about it. The most important part of his plan was that everyone needed to be at WHF to pull it off so that determined when he could do it. That explains why it took so long before he could do it, not that he was waiting in order to do meticulous planning.
Truly meticulous planning would have featured thinking up how to plant GSR and blood evidence from the victims on Sheila in a way that would not reveal it had been planted. Planning for a year doesn't mean you have the foresight to think of such or skill to think of a way to do it. It is folly to think that had he thought about it long enough his plan would have been flawless, he picked some bad ideas that seemed great to him but he didn't think abou how him calling police implicates him if it came to pass that Sheila didn't do it. His attempts to frame Sheila all backfired including staging too many bullets in the kitchen and his non credible account of leaving the murder weapon out with such bullets. Smart planning requires more than just time, it requires having the requisite knowledge to think up the perfect plan and to consider all contingencies. There is a military saying, "no plan survives first contact intact". First contact is when you first come into contact with enemy forces. Something always happens differently than planned and then you have to stray from the original plan.
We have no way to know what things Jeremy did simply because things did not work out as he originally planned. That would be the more interesitng thing, to hear from him how things changed as the situation was fluid. It is morbid to say that but it is interesting nonetheless.
-
How many regular posters use this forum 12, 20 ?
That's thousands of people think he is guilty ???
1) The people that use this forum have more interest and knowledge than most so SHOULD be able to give a more informed opinion than people on the street who don't even know who Jeremy is or if they do know barely know anything about the case.
2) His advocates here who assert Nevill made a call are few and these few can't provide any evidence that suggests Nevill called police and apparently can't even provide a rational reason for believing Nevill made a call.
Not only is it asked what people believe but why and the why is what is most significant. My posts are attacked for being so long. They are long in part because I am able to articulate why I believe what I assert. No one ever has to try to guess the basis of my positions. I put the basis out there for all to see so they can understand my position and try to refute it.
The most important questions for those who assert Nevill phoned police are:
1) why would West and Bonnett have not dispatched a car in response to Nevill's call? The police were clearly called to respond on the basis of Jeremy's call not a call from anyone else.
2) Why would West ask Jeremy for information he already would have gotten from Nevill? West clearly asked Jeremy for Sheila's name, age, the address and phone number of WHF, who was at WHF and other questions that Nevill alreayd would have answered. Why would West ask such instead of telling Jeremy he already knew about the situation because he already spoke to Nevill?
Those who suggest Nevill called have to answer these questions and unless they have plausible answers then they have no reasonable way to suggest their position is plausible.
-
1) The people that use this forum have more interest and knowledge than most so SHOULD be able to give a more informed opinion than people on the street who don't even know who Jeremy is or if they do know barely know anything about the case.
2) His advocates here who assert Nevill made a call are few and these few can't provide any evidence that suggests Nevill called police and apparently can't even provide a rational reason for believing Nevill made a call.
Not only is it asked what people believe but why and the why is what is most significant. My posts are attacked for being so long. They are long in part because I am able to articulate why I believe what I assert. No one ever has to try to guess the basis of my positions. I put the basis out there for all to see so they can understand my position and try to refute it.
The most important questions for those who assert Nevill phoned police are:
1) why would West and Bonnett have not dispatched a car in response to Nevill's call? The police were clearly called to respond on the basis of Jeremy's call not a call from anyone else.
2) Why would West ask Jeremy for information he already would have gotten from Nevill? West clearly asked Jeremy for Sheila's name, age, the address and phone number of WHF, who was at WHF and other questions that Nevill alreayd would have answered. Why would West ask such instead of telling Jeremy he already knew about the situation because he already spoke to Nevill?
Those who suggest Nevill called have to answer these questions and unless they have plausible answers then they have no reasonable way to suggest their position is plausible.
The main reason why there are a number of people who are knowledgeable about the case, is due to the documents released by those trying to convince people that Jeremy is innocent.
It is somewhat ironic that such a large proportion of those who have joined this forum, have determined that Jeremy is actually guilty.
-
A car was sent out and it arrived minutes before the car after Jeremys' call.
To the idiot who used that cream phone in the kitchen,after 7.30am,it would have cancelled out any previous call which would have been Nevilles',or possibly even Sheila,we don't know. Sometimes,some officers haven't got the sense they were born with. ::)
-
The main reason why there are a number of people who are knowledgeable about the case, is due to the documents released by those trying to convince people that Jeremy is innocent.
That's true and quite ironic. The more that is released the worst it seems to get for Bamber as his claims fall further apart. I've never been in higher opinion that he is guilty than I am today and have become over the last 12 months.
-
The main reason why there are a number of people who are knowledgeable about the case, is due to the documents released by those trying to convince people that Jeremy is innocent.
It is somewhat ironic that such a large proportion of those who have joined this forum, have determined that Jeremy is actually guilty.
There are 2 things at play.
1) The evidence is squarely against Jeremy, that is why he is where he is.
2) His advocates here do a very poor job on his behalf. For the most part they pick ridiculous arguments instead of sticking with the strongest things they could credibly maintain and largely say he was not convicted on the basis of any evidence thus fail to address let alone try to refute the evidence that convicted him. Pretending Nevill phoned police himself or that someone inside the house was speaking to police are nonsense claims that just harm the credibility of those making the claims. Likewise various distortions don't help. You frame the facts in the best light possible for your side you don't distort the facts to pretend they are favorabel because when caught distorting again it reflects very poorly and harms the person you are being an advocate for. SOmetimes they are their own worst enemy and Jeremy's as well.
-
One has to get to grips with the archaic telephone system which was in place at the time. You have to put our present,modern technology behind you to appreciate how ancient the old system was. Don't even think about it when you're trying to fathom out what happened all those years ago,it was abysmal.
We've come a long way since then where there's no messing about,waiting to be connected ( via a voice ) it's all easy-peasy press-button. We know who's called,we also know who's ringing when the phone goes. Numbers are easily traced,etc etc.
It WASN'T a bit like that in the early to mid 80's.
-
A car was sent out and it arrived minutes before the car after Jeremys' call.
To the idiot who used that cream phone in the kitchen,after 7.30am,it would have cancelled out any previous call which would have been Nevilles',or possibly even Sheila,we don't know. Sometimes,some officers haven't got the sense they were born with. ::)
The car (CA07) was sent after West passed on Jeremy's message to Bonnet - the message from Jeremy, not Neville. The cream phone in the kitchen didn't store numbers, 'the idiot' didn't make any difference.
-
What is the purpose of a poll about this?
Other than a confirmation you are RIGHT? What does it mean though? Not so much.
-
Please do not get excited because the 'Yes' vote has appeared to increase by 1 vote to new total of 3 votes.
I actually meant to vote 'No'.
However, I cannot see how to retract and change my vote as cast to 'No'.
As such, the 'No' votes should currently total 10 and the 'Yes' votes should total 2.
One vote either way 10 to 2 (5 to 1) as opposed to 9 to 3 (3 to 1) is a very big difference...... it almost doubles the weighting in one direction.
How ironic 10 to 2 was the majority verdict of the jury in Jeremy's original trial.
In this regard it should be pointed out the Judge instructed the court to give the benefit of the doubt in terms the time of Jeremy's call to the police (3.26 am or 3.36 am) in the favour of the defence.
It can also be demonstrated the call log of what is now being portrayed by some as an alleged call from Nevill to the police was available and known about at the time of the original trial. (3.26 am or 3.36 am as detailed above - where else do the 3.26 or 3.36 timings come from). Additionally, there is a copy of this call log which actually has a Chelmsford Court label on it. This document was known about and available at the time of the original trial.
As such the call log which is being used as a 'proof' of an alleged call from Nevill to the police is nothing more than a further reference to Jeremy's one and only call to the police.
In any event even if the log did refer to an alleged call from Nevill to the police it is now useless in terms of Jeremy seeking an MOJ via the CCRC because the document, as it exists, cannot be used as any part of a new CCRC submission because it is not new evidence.
Apologies for any confusion regarding the vote.
-
i think this alleged call is a bit of a distraction anyway its nevile alleged call to jeremy that clinchces it ether way.
-
What is the purpose of a poll about this?
Other than a confirmation you are RIGHT? What does it mean though? Not so much.
You could ask that about any poll and who likes to be wrong?
-
What is the purpose of a poll about this?
Other than a confirmation you are RIGHT? What does it mean though? Not so much.
The poll is to try to get those who assert this on record and to try to get them to explain why they believe it. There are 3 yes votes yet no rational explanation set forth for such position. It seems people don't really feel they need a rational basis for their positions which alone is enough to say they should be disregarded.
-
The poll is to try to get those who assert this on record and to try to get them to explain why they believe it. There are 3 yes votes yet no rational explanation set forth for such position. It seems people don't really feel they need a rational basis for their positions which alone is enough to say they should be disregarded.
One was an error and should have been a No vote (see CuriousEssex's post above).
i.e. there are only 2 YES votes.
-
its a 3 way vote how do you count the undecideds.
-
One was an error and should have been a No vote (see CuriousEssex's post above).
i.e. there are only 2 YES votes.
Quite correct I was sloppy and forgot to deduct his. I should say I am a bit surprised that there are people unsure. I don't know how one can be undecided on this issue. It is rather clear cut.
-
its a 3 way vote how do you count the undecideds.
Fickle? To lazy to look at all the evidence so as to make a decision? Don't care enough about it to become informed and be able to make an informed judgment?
Unless those who voted that way tell us why they did so we don't have a basis to know what is the case.
-
It can also be demonstrated the call log of what is now being portrayed by some as an alleged call from Nevill to the police was available and known about at the time of the original trial. (3.26 am or 3.36 am as detailed above - where else do the 3.26 or 3.36 timings come from).
The time 3:36 is in Pc West's log, the time 3:26 is in Jeremy's interview, and the time 3:35 is in Pc Saxby's statement. Despite the court label on Bonnett's log, there are no specific references to the log's content until much later (2004?). It's very unlikely that Mr Rivlin had seen it, as he would have noticed that it commences without mentioning Jeremy and gives Sheila's age as 26. Curiously, Bonnett's COLP statement gives virtually no details of what Pc West said to him. There are no references to Bonnett's log in the 2002 appeal judgement.
-
One was an error and should have been a No vote (see CuriousEssex's post above).
i.e. there are only 2 YES votes.
I thought there would be thousands of voters ?
-
I thought there would be thousands of voters ?
Why would there be thousands of voters when there aren't thousands of members? ::) ::)
-
I thought there would be thousands of voters ?
Not the first time that you've been mistaken, nor the last I suspect. :P
-
wouldent there have to be thousands of members for that.
-
wouldent there have to be thousands of members that.
Exactly Nugs! Jackie is trying to be sarcastic towards a comment I made about thousands of people thinking Jeremy guilty. However, obviously I was talking about in the population as a whole, not in respect to the forum. She didn't really think it through though and it's kind of back fired - but she's no doubt used to that! ::)
-
Exactly Nugs! Jackie is trying to be sarcastic towards a comment I made about thousands of people thinking Jeremy guilty. However, obviously I was talking about in the population as a whole, not in respect to the forum. She didn't really think it through though and it's kind of back fired - but she's no doubt used to that! ::)
For whatever reason, it does seem to be a regular occurrence. :-\
-
Exactly Nugs! Jackie is trying to be sarcastic towards a comment I made about thousands of people thinking Jeremy guilty. However, obviously I was talking about in the population as a whole, not in respect to the forum. She didn't really think it through though and it's kind of back fired - but she's no doubt used to that! ::)
i cant see the point of all this because the fact thousands of people do or do not think something doesn't make it true.
-
i cant see the point of all this because the fact thousands of people do or do not think something doesn't make it true.
It doesn't, but that's Jackie for you. ::)
-
The poll is currently indicating that about a third of those who voted are either undecided or believe that the evidence points to a call from Nevill to EP. That suggests this issue is far from being an open and shut case.
-
The poll is currently indicating that about a third of those who voted are either undecided or believe that the evidence points to a call from Nevill to EP. That suggests this issue is far from being an open and shut case.
I'd like to see what evidence they base it on, one of the people who has voted YES bases it on the fact the phone was engaged, that's not evidence it is just wishful thinking and I don't see how you can base a phone call from Neville on that.
Why do you think the legal team haven't used this phone call from Neville in the appeals?
-
The poll is currently indicating that about a third of those who voted are either undecided or believe that the evidence points to a call from Nevill to EP. That suggests this issue is far from being an open and shut case.
Actually as Curious made a mistake, the 'No' vote is 11 and the 'yes' vote is 2. In terms of the forum, it's pretty clear what the majority of 'active, regular' posters think - even if you do choose to be in denial about that also.
-
I took that into account in my calculation. I calculated 5/16, which is about 1/3.
-
how many members have actully voted and what diffrence does it make anyway.
-
how many members have actully voted and what diffrence does it make anyway.
Who is trying to make a difference or saying that this makes any difference. It's a poll asking forum opinion on a certain matter, nothing more and nothing less.
-
Hello Mat quite right it is no more than that is is not going to hinder or help Jeremy Bambers case just opinions of posters on the forum at the time.
-
The time 3:36 is in Pc West's log, the time 3:26 is in Jeremy's interview, and the time 3:35 is in Pc Saxby's statement. Despite the court label on Bonnett's log, there are no specific references to the log's content until much later (2004?). It's very unlikely that Mr Rivlin had seen it, as he would have noticed that it commences without mentioning Jeremy and gives Sheila's age as 26. Curiously, Bonnett's COLP statement gives virtually no details of what Pc West said to him. There are no references to Bonnett's log in the 2002 appeal judgement.
You are just playing more games. 3:36 came from West. 3:26 came from bonnett's log that was a trial exhibit. All you are doing is demonstrating you will distort to try to pretend you have some basis for your claims though you have none.
You can't even claim to be arguing in good faith anymore. Your suggestion that West wasted his time taking all the information he previously obtained from Nevill all over again from Jeremy in order to conceal Nevill's call from Jeremy in case in the future police wanted to pretend Nevill's call never happened is so absurd that I am still amazed you made it. Your credibility has gone to zero on this issue.
-
Caroline I am still trying to figure out Reader's calculation in my eyes the NO vote is ahead. Wonder if the same will happen in Scotland ;D
-
how many members have actully voted and what diffrence does it make anyway.
The reasoning of posters matter not the actual vote and what is clear is that there are no sound arguments at all put forth to suggest a call made by Nevill to police. The arguments and evidence put forth by those saying the call never happened is so strong that it can't be challenged competently.
The fact that some people don't care and still assert such anyway without any basis to believe it demonstrates that some are so biased they are willing to ignore evidence and reality. People being so biased doesn't really do anything so far as helping Jeremy because the only thing that could help Jeremy is competent arguments and evidence not made up nonsense.
-
Exactly Nugs! Jackie is trying to be sarcastic towards a comment I made about thousands of people thinking Jeremy guilty. However, obviously I was talking about in the population as a whole, not in respect to the forum. She didn't really think it through though and it's kind of back fired - but she's no doubt used to that! ::)
Really as you know there are not even one thousand people believe JB to be guilty
I would say that comment backfired on you
-
I am still trying to figure out Reader's calculation . . .
It's straightforward: Yes(2) + Undecided(3) = 5 out of 16 votes in total.
-
Caroline I am still trying to figure out Reader's calculation in my eyes the NO vote is ahead. Wonder if the same will happen in Scotland ;D
No vote doesn't change the status quo. The status quo is that there was no call from Nevill. To be honest a vote of yes doesn't change the status quo either, what would change the statuts quo is evidence and rational argument establishing a call. No one has been able to put forth any such evidence or argument though. Not trying to put anything forth and not being able to are 2 sides of the same coin.
Lookout seems to have changed to saying it didn't happen so that could even be another yes vote gone. My sense is that only Reader, Mike and Jackie might be the only 3 here who would keep trying to maintain this even after push comes to shove.
-
Really as you know there are not even one thousand people believe JB to be guilty
I would say that comment backfired on you
There are millions of people that think Jeremy is guilty.
Even loyal supporters on what used to be this pro Jeremy forum, have changed their minds after looking at the evidence in more detail.
-
There are millions of people that think Jeremy is guilty.
I doubt that, but even if there are, so what? There were millions who thought the Birmingham 6 were guilty, but they were all wrong.
-
I doubt that, but even if there are, so what? There were millions who thought the Birmingham 6 were guilty, but they were all wrong.
thats somes it up perfectly.
-
Really as you know there are not even one thousand people believe JB to be guilty
I would say that comment backfired on you
What? What a ridiculous statement ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D So, you're saying that within the whole population of the UK, less than a thousand people think he's guilty?
-
No vote doesn't change the status quo. The status quo is that there was no call from Nevill. To be honest a vote of yes doesn't change the status quo either, what would change the statuts quo is evidence and rational argument establishing a call. No one has been able to put forth any such evidence or argument though. Not trying to put anything forth and not being able to are 2 sides of the same coin.
Lookout seems to have changed to saying it didn't happen so that could even be another yes vote gone. My sense is that only Reader, Mike and Jackie might be the only 3 here who would keep trying to maintain this even after push comes to shove.
Excuse me,stop putting words in my mouth.Lookout remains on the YES side.
-
Excuse me,stop putting words in my mouth.Lookout remains on the YES side.
I didn't put words in your mouth. You are the one who said you didn't believe it happened and that it makes no difference that it didn't happen. You seem unable to make up your mind.
But again I don't care about opinions I care about the reaosning relied upon and yours was extremely weak. You said that because Jeremy claims he tried to phone the house and the line was busy that means Nevill was on the phone with police. There is no evidence Jeremy actually called as claimed but the phone was off the hook so if he had that explains why he would get a busy signal. Getting a busy signal doesn't prove a call from Nevill to police.
You, yourself said why would Nevill phone police as well as Jeremy.
SO hearing what made you change your mind yet again should be interesting...
-
I didn't put words in your mouth. You are the one who said you didn't believe it happened and that it makes no difference that it didn't happen. You seem unable to make up your mind.
But again I don't care about opinions I care about the reaosning relied upon and yours was extremely weak. You said that because Jeremy claims he tried to phone the house and the line was busy that means Nevill was on the phone with police. There is no evidence Jeremy actually called as claimed but the phone was off the hook so if he had that explains why he would get a busy signal. Getting a busy signal doesn't prove a call from Nevill to police.
You, yourself said why would Nevill phone police as well as Jeremy.
SO hearing what made you change your mind yet again should be interesting...
I'd said whether the call was made or not,what's the big deal ? I'll err on the side of caution anyway.
-
I'd said whether the call was made or not,what's the big deal ? I'll err on the side of caution anyway.
Erring on the side of cation is that there was no call from Nevill. Thie claim was simply made up by a Jeremy supporter out of thin air with no evidence to support it.
-
Maybe 'thousands' of people (those who have ever heard of Bamber) ASSUME he is guilty because of where he is. I would imagine many wouldn't care enough either way,and others wouldn't think to question our so called justice system. Whether innocent or guilty,that he was imo convicted on corrupt evidence,makes him very a MOJ as far as I'm concerned.
-
Erring on the side of cation is that there was no call from Nevill. Thie claim was simply made up by a Jeremy supporter out of thin air with no evidence to support it.
Not necessarily-------------cautiously optimistic.
-
Maybe 'thousands' of people (those who have ever heard of Bamber) ASSUME he is guilty because of where he is. I would imagine many wouldn't care enough either way,and others wouldn't think to question our so called justice system. Whether innocent or guilty,that he was imo convicted on corrupt evidence,makes him very a MOJ as far as I'm concerned.
The problem is that you an other supporters keep saying it is your opinion that the evidence was corrupt but are unable to demonstrate that to be the case and more oftne than not when we try to figure out the rationale upon which these opinions rest is it myths. The goal of this threat is to try to get rid of one of those mysths to try to get supporters to explain their basis for their opinions of his innocent on something else.
-
The dodgy evidence has been dished out many a time but you're that full of your own importance to notice what others post.
There's none so blind-----------------------------
-
The dodgy evidence has been dished out many a time but you're that full of your own importance to notice what others post.
There's none so blind-----------------------------
Your positions on this case all stem from myths. You have nothing at all to suggest the evidence that convicted Jeremy to be dodgy you rely on myths for that. When all those myths are shed you have a very simplistic position- that Jeremy woul dnot have murdered his family and you refuse to face he did. That is all you have at the end of the day informing your opinion.
-
Is that so? Most of the guilters convince themselves of Jeremy's guilt from hearsay,incomplete logs and statements and statements from those that had a vested interested in Jeremy being convicted.
-
Is that so? Most of the guilters convince themselves of Jeremy's guilt from hearsay,incomplete logs and statements and statements from those that had a vested interested in Jeremy being convicted.
What hearsay? What evidence are the logs supposed to present?
I have laide out the evidence used to convict him many times. No defenders have presented any evidence to refute such and instead just spout myths and how Jeremy was a great guy who would never do a such a thing. At the end of the day there is no contest at all and that seems to explain why Jeremy is sitting where he is.
Had Sheila loaded the gun she would have had elevated lead on her hands. Had she fired the gun she would have had GSR on her hands and on her clothing. Many of the shots were close enough that the killer would have had high velocity impact spatter on his/her clothing and medium velocity spatter from beating Nevill. The killer also would have scratched/cut his/her hand when the rifle stock broke unless the killer was wearing gloves. The killer also would have been stepping on broken glass and crockery hence injured his/her feet if barefoot. Sheila had none of these things. Nor did she have any reason to wear gloves, wash and change her clothes though she would not have been able to get rid of her bloody clothing anyway it would have to have been at WHF still or to heal her injuries. So it is quite apparent she had not committed the murders. Nor could she have shot herself without getting any GSR on her gown and worse yet after she was dead she could not have removed the moderator and put it away, walked back upstairs lied down and put the gun on her body. So it is apparent she can't have killed herself.
Since she didn't do it that means the alleged phone call from Nevill to Jeremy was made up. Further evidence it was made up and just an effort to frame Sheila is:
1) Nevill making such a call makes no sense
2) The time Jeremy attributes to Nevill's call is after the roomates say he called Julie
3) His other bogus efforts to frame Sheila including the tale about leaving the gun and bullets in the kitchen and proof the bullets were staged because there were too many left for that to have been the supply used to commit the murders
4) Jeremy's actions not being in accordance with someone who received the call he claims to have received from Nevill
5) Testimony from Julie that he told her in advance that he would be pretending he got a call from Nevill
That leads to Julie's overall testimony that Jeremy was planning this for a long time and admission he was behind it.
Sheila clearly didn't do it so who did? Since Sheila didn't do it and there was no call from Nevill as claimed how coudl Jeremy known about the murders and notify police? He only way is if he was the killer and the only reason he would frame Sheila was if he was the killer.
That is the evidence upon which Jeremy was convicted. naturally there are other detials like Jeremy hiding the kitchen phone and replacing it with the bedroom phone but the main thrust is the above.
-
Your positions on this case all stem from myths. You have nothing at all to suggest the evidence that convicted Jeremy to be dodgy you rely on myths for that. When all those myths are shed you have a very simplistic position- that Jeremy woul dnot have murdered his family and you refuse to face he did. That is all you have at the end of the day informing your opinion.
How would you like it if I said that ALL your posts were myths ? They're as much myths as mine because we WEREN'T there when it happened.
You are so carried away with the whole thing,I find it unbelieveable. Does it matter so much to you ?
-
How would you like it if I said that ALL your posts were myths ? They're as much myths as mine because we WEREN'T there when it happened.
You are so carried away with the whole thing,I find it unbelieveable. Does it matter so much to you ?
I am just being honest. You can't establish my positions as myths because they aren't. If it can be established I posted myths then I have no problem with it being stated and would even acknowledge it and change my position. A big myth I was fooled into believing was that there was that the telephone company had evidence of a call from WHF to Goldhanger. When people here demonstrated that was not true I stopped repeating such myth and acknowledged it was false. What is myth in the recounting of evidence I provided above? Is it a myth there were 30 bullets found in the kitchen? Is it a myth Jeremy claim he left a box of full or near full ammo where such bullets were found? Is it a myth 25 shots were fired Is it a myth...
The positions you usually set forth such as Sheila's body being moved from the kitchen, Nevill phoning police, police being in contact with Sheila and so forth are all myths. You have posted many more. Instead of paying attention to the debates over evidence here you seem to only pay attention to Mike's crazy claims and other wild allegations and to accept all of them blindly. You yourself spoke out against Nevill calling and said it made no sense but backtracked just because such claim would help Jeremy and you will believe anything that helps Jeremy regardless of a lack of support for the claims.
What should I do not call them myths and pretend they are fact simply because you don't want to be known as advancing myths?
All you have to do is to stop advancing such myths if you don't want to be associated with myths.
-
Ditto.!
-
how many members have actully voted and what diffrence does it make anyway.
That is a good question about any poll. I only voted now, and my vote was not from the heart! I lied.
-
What hearsay? What evidence are the logs supposed to present?
I have laide out the evidence used to convict him many times. No defenders have presented any evidence to refute such and instead just spout myths and how Jeremy was a great guy who would never do a such a thing. At the end of the day there is no contest at all and that seems to explain why Jeremy is sitting where he is.
Had Sheila loaded the gun she would have had elevated lead on her hands. Had she fired the gun she would have had GSR on her hands and on her clothing. Many of the shots were close enough that the killer would have had high velocity impact spatter on his/her clothing and medium velocity spatter from beating Nevill. The killer also would have scratched/cut his/her hand when the rifle stock broke unless the killer was wearing gloves. The killer also would have been stepping on broken glass and crockery hence injured his/her feet if barefoot. Sheila had none of these things. Nor did she have any reason to wear gloves, wash and change her clothes though she would not have been able to get rid of her bloody clothing anyway it would have to have been at WHF still or to heal her injuries. So it is quite apparent she had not committed the murders. Nor could she have shot herself without getting any GSR on her gown and worse yet after she was dead she could not have removed the moderator and put it away, walked back upstairs lied down and put the gun on her body. So it is apparent she can't have killed herself.
Since she didn't do it that means the alleged phone call from Nevill to Jeremy was made up. Further evidence it was made up and just an effort to frame Sheila is:
1) Nevill making such a call makes no sense
2) The time Jeremy attributes to Nevill's call is after the roomates say he called Julie
3) His other bogus efforts to frame Sheila including the tale about leaving the gun and bullets in the kitchen and proof the bullets were staged because there were too many left for that to have been the supply used to commit the murders
4) Jeremy's actions not being in accordance with someone who received the call he claims to have received from Nevill
5) Testimony from Julie that he told her in advance that he would be pretending he got a call from Nevill
That leads to Julie's overall testimony that Jeremy was planning this for a long time and admission he was behind it.
Sheila clearly didn't do it so who did? Since Sheila didn't do it and there was no call from Nevill as claimed how coudl Jeremy known about the murders and notify police? He only way is if he was the killer and the only reason he would frame Sheila was if he was the killer.
That is the evidence upon which Jeremy was convicted. naturally there are other detials like Jeremy hiding the kitchen phone and replacing it with the bedroom phone but the main thrust is the above.
My two problems: where was Sheila at while everyone else was being killed, and the blood trails on her arm. Those two things have not been explained to me yet. It does look as if those blood streams happened at different times - right? And how did those blood streams (different in colour) appear on Sheila´s arm?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4526;image)
-
I am expecting to be called an idiot and lowlife any minute now!
-
My two problems: where was Sheila at while everyone else was being killed, and the blood trails on her arm. Those two things have not been explained to me yet. It does look as if those blood streams happened at different times - right? And how did those blood streams (different in colour) appear on Sheila´s arm?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4526;image)
There have already been lots of threads on what Sheila could have been doing.
When Jeremy was creeping upstairs, shooting an asleep June, leaving Nicholas and Daniel to remain asleep, and shooting a partially awake Neville by the bed. All with a silencer on. Before a brief fight in another part of WHF.
She was probably also sleeping as there is no reason she should wake. Then lead or carried to the main bedroom.
Although there is a chance she woke, went into her parents bedroom and then retreated into the far corner when seeing a gun man in the dark.
-
My two problems: where was Sheila at while everyone else was being killed, and the blood trails on her arm. Those two things have not been explained to me yet. It does look as if those blood streams happened at different times - right? And how did those blood streams (different in colour) appear on Sheila´s arm?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4526;image)
If you look closely enough and pay attention to detail, you must surely realise that not all the blood on Sheila's arm is smudged, some of it is merely drip evidence - now how could dripped blood have got onto her arm without smudging, if she was laid down when allegedly shot?
There is also clear evidence upon her nightdress (not shown) in the form of spattered blood evidence that she was or must have been stood upright when she was originally shot, all the blood experts have to do is identify microscopically the pattern of expiated blood on the nightdress to establish the direction the blood fell onto the nightdress, to confirm the FACT that Sheila was upright at the time this type of blood contaminated her nightdress, and compare this with the direction that secondary bloodstaining ran horizontally away from the fatal chin shot, and it becomes possible to establish that Sheila was upright at the time of the original shot, but laid out flat with her head turned to one side at the time she was killed...
-
Mike
can you have a quick look at the thread what exhibits were destroyed in 1996
I thought you posted a list on here recently ?
also there are some questions about the pyjama jacket ?
-
Was there any blood on Sheilas' left arm ? I forget,but don't remember seeing any.
-
Was there any blood on Sheilas' left arm ? I forget,but don't remember seeing any.
No
-
No
Thanks Caroline. Would you know if Sheila was right or left-handed ? Not sure if this has been asked before.
-
Feel free to discuss the reason behind your vote.
If there were no call then Jeremy lied on the night on the night the tragedies took place.
The trouble with this is that is cannot be proved one way or another.
Surely it was up to the police to prove this and seen as they could not then one has to take a step back and consider the fact that it was entirely possible that a call was made and not assume that it was not possible...If that makes sense.
-
If there were no call then Jeremy lied on the night on the night the tragedies took place.
Hi Patti. The poll is asking for your vote, regarding a call between Neville and EP. Jeremy didn't mention this call until a year or so ago.
-
Hi Patti. The poll is asking for your vote, regarding a call between Neville and EP. Jeremy didn't mention this call until a year or so ago.
Because he'd probably have assumed that they already knew about the call and he was just reiterrating.
-
Hi Patti. The poll is asking for your vote, regarding a call between Neville and EP. Jeremy didn't mention this call until a year or so ago.
Hi Mat
I see you have a new plunger? ;)
It wont allow me vote :(
I thought this phone call from NB to Essex police was found in 2007?
No I don't believe this is true Mat. There are many things I don't believe about this case....equally there are many things that have me completely stumped and because of that I have always seeked the truth.
If Jeremy is innocent then this must be the worst case of MOJ I have come across. In my opinion its not squeaky....therefore I can't sway on him being guilty.
Apart from opinion and hearsay what evidence is there? ;)
-
If there were no call then Jeremy lied on the night on the night the tragedies took place.
The trouble with this is that is cannot be proved one way or another.
Surely it was up to the police to prove this and seen as they could not then one has to take a step back and consider the fact that it was entirely possible that a call was made and not assume that it was not possible...If that makes sense.
The police had to prove nothing. Jeremy only claimed Neville called the police decades later.
He made several other desperate claims around the same time.
-
The police had to prove nothing. Jeremy only claimed Neville called the police decades later.
He made several other desperate claims around the same time.
The police have everything to prove Adam they could not prove Jeremy lied about the phone call. :-\
-
The police had to prove nothing. Jeremy only claimed Neville called the police decades later.
He made several other desperate claims around the same time.
that's because the complete log only became available later .
I am not saying that call existed - but if it did unless the police told him how would he know?
-
It's preposterous to claim Neville called the police.
They would have told Jeremy and certainly not have suspected him.
Waste of thread.
-
there is one remote possibility why they would not.
on the morning of the raid and discovering the bodies the police did make some kind of massive cock up .
the first move would be to decide what to release and what not to whilst they decided how to proceed.So in that case they would not tell Jeremy . I am not saying that is true - but it is the only explanation I can think of. After all in theory if it did happen there were very few people who knew about it . And I am sure they were too busy on the night to mention it.
One thing I could never understand is why JM only saw one shot on Sheila when she did the ID ? Did someone cover the other one ? after all it would be pretty obvious.
-
If Nevill hadn't call EP, what exactly could Pc West have said to Malcolm Bonnett?
If only Jeremy called Pc West, what did Pc West do after that call finished?
Nobody has given plausible answers to those questions.
-
Well there was something odd happening as a car was sent to WHF at 03.35 before a call was made at 03.36 ??
The judge had put this down to " the wrong times on the log " !! Yeah. ::)
-
Because of the cock-up between the officers and the TWO calls,EP would then have you believe that only one call was made. A cunning way to get out of that one,followed by the same thing throughout the investigation. Much like a magician performing his tricks where the quickness of the hand deceives the eye.
-
Hi Mat
I see you have a new plunger? ;)
It wont allow me vote :(
I thought this phone call from NB to Essex police was found in 2007?
No I don't believe this is true Mat. There are many things I don't believe about this case....equally there are many things that have me completely stumped and because of that I have always seeked the truth.
If Jeremy is innocent then this must be the worst case of MOJ I have come across. In my opinion its not squeaky....therefore I can't sway on him being guilty.
Apart from opinion and hearsay what evidence is there? ;)
The pole was only for 5 days but I have extended it for anther 5 days so you can vote if you wish.
-
If Nevill hadn't call EP, what exactly could Pc West have said to Malcolm Bonnett?
If only Jeremy called Pc West, what did Pc West do after that call finished?
Nobody has given plausible answers to those questions.
He passed on what Jeremy had told him.
He wrote the time on the log.
-
Writing the time doesn't take long. What else did he do? There's a lot of time to account for prior to the line check at 3:42am. Also, A/Ps Smith wouldn't have been relying on minor inaccuracies when he said the control room clock was often inaccurate, so why did he give that misleading information?
-
If Nevill hadn't call EP, what exactly could Pc West have said to Malcolm Bonnett?
If only Jeremy called Pc West, what did Pc West do after that call finished?
Nobody has given plausible answers to those questions.
PC West told Bonnett what Jeremy told him. This has been stated again and again so your claim no plausible answer has been set forth is mind boggling.
You are the one unable to come up with anything plausible as to why West would ask Jeremy from the same exact information he would have already have obtained from Nevill and why he would nto dispatch any police in response to Nevill's call.
You suggestion that he did so in case they would later want to pretend the call from Nevill never occurred to frame Jermey is not plausible it is absurd.
-
Writing the time doesn't take long. What else did he do? There's a lot of time to account for prior to the line check at 3:42am. Also, A/Ps Smith wouldn't have been relying on minor inaccuracies when he said the control room clock was often inaccurate, so why did he give that misleading information?
He took further information about guns on the premises and then had the line checked - nothing weird there. I have no idea why Smith said the clock was often inaccurate but not because Neville called.
-
He took further information about guns on the premises and then had the line checked - nothing weird there. I have no idea why Smith said the clock was often inaccurate but not because Neville called.
The simple fact the WHF line was checked is proof that Jeremy alone called. If Nevill had phoned police after phoning Jeremy that would mean that Neville used the phone after phoning Jeremy and the poilice would be aware of that. There would be no need to check the line to see if Jeremy was correct about the line being busy.
Note that while 6 people voted yes not one has put forth a reasonable basis for their position. It appears that only those who are Jeremy zealots assert Nevill phoned police and only do so because they are Jeremy zealots.
-
The simple fact the WHF line was checked is proof that Jeremy alone called. If Nevill had phoned police after phoning Jeremy that would mean that Neville used the phone after phoning Jeremy and the poilice would be aware of that. There would be no need to check the line to see if Jeremy was correct about the line being busy.
Note that while 6 people voted yes not one has put forth a reasonable basis for their position. It appears that only those who are Jeremy zealots assert Nevill phoned police and only do so because they are Jeremy zealots.
It's common sense to me - none of it adds up. Some people seem to have a personal agenda which I don't understand, it's like they don't care about the 'truth'. It's more than clear that Neville didn't call the police.
-
It's common sense to me - none of it adds up. Some people seem to have a personal agenda which I don't understand, it's like they don't care about the 'truth'. It's more than clear that Neville didn't call the police.
Some seem to have an agenda against the police and want to use this as part of a larger cause and/or to be part of a cause and thus have a vested interest in Jeremy being innocent and will use anything to make such appear to be the case.
Others it is more difficult to figure out what is driving them.
-
Some seem to have an agenda against the police and want to use this as part of a larger cause and/or to be part of a cause and thus have a vested interest in Jeremy being innocent and will use anything to make such appear to be the case.
Others it is more difficult to figure out what is driving them.
Who are some?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion like you are entitled to yours. Which opinion is correct depends upon how they project their reasons behind their opinion. This is what a forum is for to debate the issues surrounding the points of interest that remain unclear. No one is perfect and not all use the evidence correctly to argue their point and in stead use comments from books that sell to make a profit which is unsafe when discussing points of interest. IMO :) :)
-
Some seem to have an agenda against the police and want to use this as part of a larger cause and/or to be part of a cause and thus have a vested interest in Jeremy being innocent and will use anything to make such appear to be the case.
Others it is more difficult to figure out what is driving them.
You particularly
-
Some seem to have an agenda against the police and want to use this as part of a larger cause and/or to be part of a cause and thus have a vested interest in Jeremy being innocent and will use anything to make such appear to be the case.
Others it is more difficult to figure out what is driving them.
theres plenty of cases to choose from if you have agenda agiasnt the police this one isnt that important
-
Speaking of vested interests--------------------------------------
-
if you want to take hundreds of case i can find so proving jeremy innocent is not really necasry to take a pop at the police.
-
Who are some?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion like you are entitled to yours. Which opinion is correct depends upon how they project their reasons behind their opinion. This is what a forum is for to debate the issues surrounding the points of interest that remain unclear. No one is perfect and not all use the evidence correctly to argue their point and in stead use comments from books that sell to make a profit which is unsafe when discussing points of interest. IMO :) :)
I don't think naming names is necessary.
You are quite correct that the reasoning behind an opinion is key in determining whether it is accurate. That was my point, that none of the 6 who voted to say Nevill made a phone call have been able to present any sound reasoning behind their opinion. They want to believe Jeremy is innocent so believe a call from Nevill was made because such call would support their desired belief in his innocence. There is nothing more than that behind their assertion.
Lookout even said she didn't believe there was a call because it made no sense but upon understanding it helps Jeremy so much she changed her mind. That says volumes.
-
Don't talk such bilge.You act like a spoiled brat ! You don't know what my thoughts are,unless you've studied that as well.
-
Don't talk such bilge.You act like a spoiled brat ! You don't know what my thoughts are,unless you've studied that as well.
I can only go by what you write.
You said that it made no sense to call both Jeremy and police it only would make sense to phone one or the other for help. You suggested he on'y called Jeremy and said what is the big deal if he never called Nevill.
After the significance of Nevill calling was explained you said that you believe Nevill called both depsite your earlier claim such made no sense.
It is up to you to reconcile your posts. I am not a mindreader.
-
From the Jeremy Bamber Website:
"Jeremy has always claimed that his father called him before calling the police, and then he, in turn, also called the police"
This claim is clearly bogus. Jeremy never claimed prior to or even during the trial his father called police. The defense maintianed that Nevill was a private man and that is why he called Jeremy instead of police.
Why do they start the issue out with such a bogus claim that alone harms the crediblity of the claims.
Next there is this:
"Nevill Bamber did indeed call the police during the early hours of 7 August 1985 – view the police transcript of Nevill's call here and the transcript of Jeremy's call here. As you can see, there are two phone logs showing clearly that two separate phone calls were made. Yet, at the trial in 1986, the members of the jury were led to believe that only one call was made . . . by Jeremy."
At trial they were not led to believe that both logs reflected the same call. Bonnett's log was indicating West's call while West's log details Jeremy's call. The logs do indeed reflect 2 different calls and were always represented as doing so. The Campaign team is misrepresented that Bonnett's log reflects a call from Nevill to Bonnett when in fact it represents a call from West to Bonnett.
Here is another fairytale invention demonstrating the campaign tema is simply being dishonest:
"In the log relating to Nevill’s call, the sentence which confuses people is ‘message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead, Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410’s’.
This statement has misled some into believing (a) that this log refers to the call made by Jeremy, not Nevill, and also (b) that Jeremy mentioned ‘shotguns and .410s’ during the call. However, in the call made by Jeremy, there was no word in the log of him mentioning which firearms were at White House Farm.
The sentence ‘message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410’s’ was added to the log later on after the officer in car CA07 contacted headquarters by radio to explain that Nevill’s son had given PC Steve Myall a list of firearms[2] after officers met him outside the farmhouse."
West didn't writed own on his log about the shotguns but in his notes and testimony he noted he asked about the weapons in the house and which people were in the house. There is nothign at all to support the claim that such was added later as a result of Myall calling in and the claim West never obtained such inforation is false.
This kind of dishonesty is what makes rational people doubt anything on the website. Once people demonstrate a willingness to lie you don't trust them and worse people reaosn that if he was actually innocent there would be no reason to lie. So instead of helping Jeremy this kind of thing hurts.
-
PC West told Bonnett what Jeremy told him. This has been stated again and again . . .
That's irrelevant, as I'm asking for a plausible actual conversation (or at least Pc West's side of it) that can be read through and timed, not just a description of the conversation. There's very little in Bonnett's notes, so you don't know whether Pc West mentioned everything, and Bonnett wouldn't have needed long to write down the notes that he made during Pc West's call. Take into account that Pc West was confident that he had spoken to Jeremy for less than a minute before contacting HQIR.
You are the one unable to come up with anything plausible as to why West would ask Jeremy from the same exact information he would have already have obtained from Nevill and why he would not dispatch any police in response to Nevill's call.
He didn't know in advance how similar Jeremy's call would be to Nevill's. He probably let Bonnett do the dispatching.
The simple fact the WHF line was checked is proof that Jeremy alone called. If Nevill had phoned police after phoning Jeremy that would mean that Nevill used the phone after phoning Jeremy and the police would be aware of that.
Pc West was aware of both calls he took, but that didn't mean that he shouldn't try to contact Nevill. He did so and got the engaged tone, so he asked the operator to check the line. PC West didn't mention doing anything else after Jeremy's call ended and before trying the WHF line, so how come the line check occurred at 3:42am?
-
That's irrelevant, as I'm asking for a plausible actual conversation (or at least Pc West's side of it) that can be read through and timed, not just a description of the conversation. There's very little in Bonnett's notes, so you don't know whether Pc West mentioned everything, and Bonnett wouldn't have needed long to write down the notes that he made during Pc West's call. Take into account that Pc West was confident that he had spoken to Jeremy for less than a minute before contacting HQIR.
Why is it necessary to time how long it would take for West to read off everything to Bonnett? You still seem under the delusion that the amount of time it takes somehow would impact your claim that Nevill phoned West after phoning Jeremy but it doesn't. In the meantime you should have enough of a brain yourself to put together a conversation where West relays the information contained on Bonnett's sheet. It should not take spoonfeeding.
He didn't know in advance how similar Jeremy's call would be to Nevill's. He probably let Bonnett do the dispatching.
Pc West was aware of both calls he took, but that didn't mean that he shouldn't try to contact Nevill. He did so and got the engaged tone, so he asked the operator to check the line. PC West didn't mention doing anything else after Jeremy's call ended and before trying the WHF line, so how come the line check occurred at 3:42am?
You seem to be in a different dimension than the rest of us. Do you even realize how stupid your claims look? Try to take a step back and look at this as if the following claims came from someone else instead of you:
Claims:
1) After phoning Jeremy Nevill phoned PC West.
2) PC West notified Bonnett of Nevill's call
3) Neither West nor Bonnett dispatched any police because Nevill told West he called Jeremy before calling police so they predicted Jeremy would call next and didn't know how similar Jeremy's call would be to Nevill's so instead if dispatching someone immediately they waited to hear Jeremy's account
4) Instead of West telling Jeremy that Nevill had already phoned and that he already knew everything, he pretended Nevill never called and took down all the information that he had alreayd obtained fro Nevill asking numerous questions he already knew the answers to and writing down the information a second time. West did this in case police would want to conceal that a call had been made by Nevill so they could pin anything that might have happened on Jeremy.
5) West contacted Bonnett yet again this time to report Jeremy's call and this time they dispatched police to the scene
6) Even though West knew that Nevill used the phone after calling Jeremy and thus that is the reason the phone was busy when he tried to call and even though he knew the phone was not disconnected as a result of harm coming to Nevill he decided to phone th enumber anyway just to speak to Nevill to ask him how thing are going.
If you ignore that you wrote it and look at it as an objective party can you honestly say your suggestions make sense? Suggesting they decided to wait to dispatch police until after hearing from Jeremy might even be more absurd than claiming West wanted to conceal that Nevill called from Jeremy because maybe police would want to frame him.
-
Why is it necessary to time how long it would take for West to read off everything to Bonnett? You still seem under the delusion that the amount of time it takes somehow would impact your claim that Nevill phoned West after phoning Jeremy but it doesn't. In the meantime you should have enough of a brain yourself to put together a conversation where West relays the information contained on Bonnett's sheet. It should not take spoonfeeding.
You seem to be in a different dimension than the rest of us. Do you even realize how stupid your claims look? Try to take a step back and look at this as if the following claims came from someone else instead of you:
Claims:
1) After phoning Jeremy Nevill phoned PC West.
2) PC West notified Bonnett of Nevill's call
3) Neither West nor Bonnett dispatched any police because Nevill told West he called Jeremy before calling police so they predicted Jeremy would call next and didn't know how similar Jeremy's call would be to Nevill's so instead if dispatching someone immediately they waited to hear Jeremy's account
4) Instead of West telling Jeremy that Nevill had already phoned and that he already knew everything, he pretended Nevill never called and took down all the information that he had alreayd obtained fro Nevill asking numerous questions he already knew the answers to and writing down the information a second time. West did this in case police would want to conceal that a call had been made by Nevill so they could pin anything that might have happened on Jeremy.
5) West contacted Bonnett yet again this time to report Jeremy's call and this time they dispatched police to the scene
6) Even though West knew that Nevill used the phone after calling Jeremy and thus that is the reason the phone was busy when he tried to call and even though he knew the phone was not disconnected as a result of harm coming to Nevill he decided to phone th enumber anyway just to speak to Nevill to ask him how thing are going.
If you ignore that you wrote it and look at it as an objective party can you honestly say your suggestions make sense? Suggesting they decided to wait to dispatch police until after hearing from Jeremy might even be more absurd than claiming West wanted to conceal that Nevill called from Jeremy because maybe police would want to frame him.
Why is this neccessary - why?
-
Why is this neccessary - why?
Sorry Alias, I think Scipio has a point on this one.
Personally I think Reader is having a laugh at our expense and simply being obtuse.
It's like me trying to convince you that the moon is made of cheese, where as we know the reality.
-
Sorry Alias, I think Scipio has a point on this one.
Personally I think Reader is having a laugh at our expense and simply being obtuse.
It's like me trying to convince you that the moon is made of cheese, where as we know the reality.
OK, you like this tone.
-
OK, you like this tone.
I can't here a tone.
I do think that Reader appears to be in another dimension to the rest of us, however I think he knows exactly how stupid his claims are, but is making them regardless.
I would be with you if Scipio was calling a reader an idiot, or whatever other derogatory terms he may decide to use. On this occasion, I can't see the complaint.
-
Boundaries of what is passable get moved with each and every remark like this - we have seen that.
-
Boundaries of what is passable get moved with each and every remark like this - we have seen that.
Haha yes, I think I know that better than most. :(
-
I can't here a tone.
I do think that Reader appears to be in another dimension to the rest of us, however I think he knows exactly how stupid his claims are, but is making them regardless.
I would be with you if Scipio was calling a reader an idiot, or whatever other derogatory terms he may decide to use. On this occasion, I can't see the complaint.
I think Reader is a she.
-
Why is this neccessary - why?
I agree Alias.
Scipio why d'you have to be so rude/abusive to Reader, she has as much rght to her opinion as anyone else. Just because you have a different opinion is no excuse to be abusive.
-
Why is it necessary to time how long it would take for West to read off everything to Bonnett?
It's not necessary, just part of providing a plausible conversation, which you are avoiding doing.
3) Neither West nor Bonnett dispatched any police because Nevill told West he called Jeremy before calling police . . .
No, Nevill probably didn't mention that to Pc West. Cars were already sent by Bonnett when Jeremy's unexpected call occurred. However, it took a while before the cars notified Bonnett that they were on their way.
6) . . . he knew the phone was not disconnected as a result of harm coming to Nevill
But he didn't know Nevill was still okay over 10 minutes later, so he tried to call him.
. . . can you honestly say your suggestions make sense?
Yes, they make sense, whereas you seem unable to provide the full detail of an alternative plausible scenario.
Suggesting they decided to wait to dispatch police until after hearing from Jeremy might even be more absurd
I didn't suggest that.
. . . claiming West wanted to conceal that Nevill called from Jeremy because maybe police would want to frame him.
I didn't suggest that either.
-
It's not necessary, just part of providing a plausible conversation, which you are avoiding doing.
Yes, they make sense, whereas you seem unable to provide the full detail of an alternative plausible scenario.
It is easy to provide a plausible conversation between Bonnett and West there is no point served by doing so though so it would be a complete waste of my time to bother.
No, Nevill probably didn't mention that to Pc West. Cars were already sent by Bonnett when Jeremy's unexpected call occurred. However, it took a while before the cars notified Bonnett that they were on their way.
The time on Bonnett's log notes the time the cars were notified and the police in those cars stated the reaosn they were notified. The time of dispatch was after Jeremy called and the police all say they were told about Jeremy's call to police, none claim they were sent because Nevill had called police.
But he didn't know Nevill was still okay over 10 minutes later, so he tried to call him.
He noted the reason for callling the number was to check if it was busy like Jeremy claimed not to try speaking to Nevill himself.
I didn't suggest that.
Well what precisely did you mean by this?
"He didn't know in advance how similar Jeremy's call would be to Nevill's. He probably let Bonnett do the dispatching"
You said that in response to why wouldn't West tell Jeremy Nevill called and instead ask for all the same information again and why wouldn't police dispatch a car in response to Nevill's call.
Let's break your first claim down:
He didn't tell Jeremy about Nevill's call and asked for the same information because he didn't know in advance how similar their story would be.
This makes no sense at all.
Not only does it fail to provide any rational explanation for why he would not tell Jeremy that Nevill already called, it fails to address why he would ask Jeremy for information he already had.
At least a dozen times I have pointed out that mong other things West asked Jeremy for:
1) Nevill's address
2) Nevill's phone number
3) his sister's name
4) his sister's age
5) how many guns were in the house
6) how many people were at WHF
West already would have obtained all such information from Nevill had Nevill called. So upon West learning that Jeremy wa sjust repeating the story Nevill had told him why would he then bother asking for all the same information he already had?
Your explanation doesn't address such it is little more than a pathetic attempt at an excuse which makes no sense.
All you are doing is making up things which fail to address the challenges issued. I challenged you as to why police did not dispatch cars as a result of Nevill's call if he had actually called. The evidence demonstrates police were dispatched as a result of Jeremy's call. You answered by saying you think Bonnett did the dispatching. That was your excuse as to why West didn't dispatch someone in response to Nevill's call. But the question was why didn't West or Bonnett do so. Your answer was nonresponsive.
In this past post you came up with a new claim. You are trying tpo pretend that the cops were dispatched earlier than the logs indicate so you cna try to pretend that they were ordered to go to WHF before Jeremy called.
Your games just make you look silly.
I didn't suggest that either.
Then was does this mean?
"Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call, and doing so would have wasted time and gained nothing."
There is no valid reason at all for concealing from Jeremy that Nevill phoned earlier and contrary to your claim time would have been lossed by mentioning it- time would have been wasted by asking Jeremy for all the same informaiton he already obtained from Nevill such as Nevill's address, phone number etc.
You clearly suggested police would conceal the call from Nevill in case they later wanted to accuse him of being involved. That suggests the intention to hide it completely to frame him. What else could it mean?
-
Why is this neccessary - why?
Because the claims being made are outrageously ridiculous.
I'm not quite sure what is worse. Voting that Nevill made a call though knowing there is no rational basis to assert such and hiding when people ask those who voted that way to explain why they assert such or
to answer with tripe like Reader is doing.
Usually I give props to people for at least making an effort to try. This is one of those rare occasions where the effort is so obviously poor that I actually think hiding would be better.
Just look at reader's response to the following and tell me you see a genuine effort:
West would have told Jeremy about Nevill's call. Why would West bother asking Jeremy from the same exact information again like the address of WHF, the phone number, Sheila's name and age etc if Nevill alreayd provided it.
Reader: "Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call, and doing so would have wasted time and gained nothing."
West didn't tell him in case police wanted to later accuse him of being involved and thus wanted to keep it a secret that Nevill called that way police could say he had to be involved or he would not have known anything had happened? That really sounds ok to you?
It saved time to not tell him Nevill called and to take down all the information already obtianed form Nevill instead of saying he already called so not bothering to take it all down again?
Reader's claims are something out of a universe where everything is the opposite of here.
Either reader needs to take a step back and look at the claims he/she is making or Harters is right that this is all just a game to reader and we are being toyed with.
-
It is easy to provide a plausible conversation between Bonnett and West there is no point served by doing so though so it would be a complete waste of my time to bother.
As anyone can discover by trying it, it's not easy at all.
The time on Bonnett's log notes the time the cars were notified and the police in those cars stated the reason they were notified.
Not so. For example, the statements of the police officers in car CA07 say they were contacted well before 3:35, and that they departed at 03:35.
The time of dispatch was after Jeremy called
In Bonnett's log, cars CA05 and CA07 departed at about the same time as Jeremy's call (as timed by Pc West). They were sent earlier as a result of Nevill's call.
He noted the reason for calling the number was to check if it was busy like Jeremy claimed
No, he said the reason for the check was to determine the reason for the line being busy. He didn't say that he hadn't tried calling the number or that he tried calling it because Jeremy had been unable to call Nevill back.
. . . instead ask for all the same information again
He didn't ask for all the same information again. Jeremy's assertion that Nevill had called him was new information. Much of the information was given by Jeremy before Pc West asked him for fine detail.
West already would have obtained all such information from Nevill had Nevill called.
If Nevill didn't mention Jeremy, Pc West wouldn't already know Jeremy's name, address or telephone number. It turned out that Jeremy apparently gave a different age for Sheila. Also, Jeremy used the word "crazy" whereas Nevill had used the word "berserk". Jeremy was giving new information, not just repeating Nevill's call.
I challenged you as to why police did not dispatch cars as a result of Nevill's call if he had actually called.
They did dispatch cars as a result of Nevill's call - CA07 and CA05. It's likely that Bonnett did the despatching.
. . . the cops were dispatched earlier than the logs indicate
The statements of the officers in car CA07 confirm they were contacted at about 3:30, 6 minutes before Jeremy's call, and that they subsequently departed at about 3:35, also before Jeremy's call.
West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family.
That's true. I didn't say Pc West thought about that specific possibility. As Jeremy was calm, Pc West concentrated on responding to the call. Mentioning Nevill's call wasn't necessary.
-
Maggie do you ever ask Jackie the same question as you have asked Scipio. She is so rude to Caroline and Adam and harters is that OK with you..
-
Why were there ever 2 different phone numbers on the logs ?
And don't anyone say that Jeremy cycled to WHF and back in order to accomplish that----------because I WON'T buy it !
-
Maggie do you ever ask Jackie the same question as you have asked Scipio. She is so rude to Caroline and Adam and harters is that OK with you..
Yes, that is rather inconsistent isn't it Susan.
-
Maggie do you ever ask Jackie the same question as you have asked Scipio. She is so rude to Caroline and Adam and harters is that OK with you..
Susan as you know I am on holiday and and had acquick look on the forum late last night. I saw scipio's post and commented. It so happens I have not been on line when JP has been rude to Caroline or no doubt many bother instances of abuse from various people.. You know very well why I have not been involved in tthe forum much this year and it has nothing to do with bias. I would suggest you take your complaints to admin, ie NGB and Caroline.
-
Susan as you know I am on holiday and and had acquick look on the forum late last night. I saw scipio's post and commented. It so happens I have not been on line when JP has been rude to Caroline or no doubt many bother instances of abuse from various people.. You know very well why I have not been involved in tthe forum much this year and it has nothing to do with bias. I would suggest you take your complaints to admin, ie NGB and Caroline.
I think it was more of an observation than a complaint.
-
Maggie I am not making a complaint merely asked a question in a nice manner cannot understand why you think I am complaining. I know you have not been as active on the forum and I apologise if you have taken me up wrong it was not a complaint just a question and you have answered it. Thank you.
-
I think it was more of an observation than a complaint.
I think if you read my reply to susan you may understand that she already knew the answer so if it wasn't a complaiht, what was the point of the question?
-
I think if you read my reply to susan you may understand that she already knew the answer so if it wasn't a complaiht, what was the point of the question?
The reply which I quoted? It would appear that I did indeed read it. ???
Perhaps you have not read Susan's reply to your reply where you accused Susan of making a complaint, where she enlightened you to the fact that no complaint was being made, simply a rather courteously and politely worded question? :P
I hope you are enjoying your holiday. :)
-
Maggie I am not making a complaint merely asked a question in a nice manner cannot understand why you think I am complaining. I know you have not been as active on the forum and I apologise if you have taken me up wrong it was not a complaint just a question and you have answered it. Thank you.
Susan - asking such a question implies a critisism, as I am sure you know. Criticism of Maggie is not justified, she has always been scrupulously fair as a Global Moderator. As far as attacks on Caroline are concerned, she has dealt with these very effectively as they have occurred. In addition as you know I warned Jackie about attacking the admins/mods, in particular April and Caroline, and then imposed a temporary ban.
-
Morning ngb I can assure you no criticism was meant and I have apologised if my question was taken the wrong way.
-
Susan - asking such a question implies a critisism, as I am sure you know. Criticism of Maggie is not justified, she has always been scrupulously fair as a Global Moderator. As far as attacks on Caroline are concerned, she has dealt with these very effectively as they have occurred. In addition as you know I warned Jackie about attacking the admins/mods, in particular April and Caroline, and then imposed a temporary ban.
I think that is rather unfair NGB.
You have indeed 'dealt' with Jackie in the past, recently in fact, however you surely cannot deny that she is given a certain amount of leeway for her behaviour. It is likely that it has simply been acknowledged that she is unable to help herself.
That leeway is also clearly extended to Scipio in abundance and I certainly do not endorse his remarks of a personal or insulting manner.
That being said, Maggie did openly criticise what was a rather mild and perhaps even justified comment from Scipio. Susan observed the comment and asked if Maggie had openly criticised Jackie for her (at the very least) equally abrasive posts in the past, even since her last ban.
I do not mean this as a criticism towards the admins/mods, or as a complaint, I feel rather apathetic towards the whole situation. Although I do not think that Susan should be chastised in such a manner for making her observation, but I am sure she will get over it.
-
As an example, I have been busily providing links to all of the available statements so that members of the forum can find them easily and to allow for further discussion.
Most people have said thank you, although Jackie instead declared me as being desperate. ??? :o
Whilst it makes, no difference to me whatsoever, it's water of a ducks back so to speak, I have 'observed' that Maggie (nor any other mod, admin or poster) took it upon themselves to criticise her.
Of course leaving her comment in place may well be another 'decision', as it certainly reflects badly on Jackie.
I do fully understand that is just the way things are, but again, I think criticising Susan for making the same observation is a little off.
Anyway, that's my 2p, I shall say no more. :-X
-
I think that is rather unfair NGB.
You have indeed 'dealt' with Jackie in the past, recently in fact, however you surely cannot deny that she is given a certain amount of leeway for her behaviour. It is likely that it has simply been acknowledged that she is unable to help herself.
That leeway is also clearly extended to Scipio in abundance and I certainly do not endorse his remarks of a personal or insulting manner.
That being said, Maggie did openly criticise what was a rather mild and perhaps even justified comment from Scipio. Susan observed the comment and asked if Maggie had openly criticised Jackie for her (at the very least) equally abrasive posts in the past, even since her last ban.
I do not mean this as a criticism towards the admins/mods, or as a complaint, I feel rather apathetic towards the whole situation. Although I do not think that Susan should be chastised in such a manner for making her observation, but I am sure she will get over it.
OK I take your point. I have a different perspective, but I suppose in reality it is not that important. I just wish all the personal attacks could stop. The odd flare up is inevitable and understandable, but the style of a few posters is aggressive and antagonistic and it does cause offence.
It is a thankless task being an administrator or moderator here. Both action and inaction in a specific situation can arouse anger and criticism and it is hard if not impossible to please everyone.
-
OK I take your point. I have a different perspective, but I suppose in reality it is not that important. I just wish all the personal attacks could stop. The odd flare up is inevitable and understandable, but the style of a few posters is aggressive and antagonistic and it does cause offence.
It is a thankless task being an administrator or moderator here. Both action and inaction in a specific situation can arouse anger and criticism and it is hard if not impossible to please everyone.
Amen to that!
-
OK I take your point. I have a different perspective, but I suppose in reality it is not that important. I just wish all the personal attacks could stop. The odd flare up is inevitable and understandable, but the style of a few posters is aggressive and antagonistic and it does cause offence.
It is a thankless task being an administrator or moderator here. Both action and inaction in a specific situation can arouse anger and criticism and it is hard if not impossible to please everyone.
Yes that would be good and I agree.
The phrase 'between a rock and a hard place' springs to mind. :-\
-
He took further information about guns on the premises and then had the line checked - nothing weird there.
No, he couldn't have taken any further information after Jeremy's call ended (which is the period of time I asked about). He apparently got the information about the guns present at WHF before telephoning Bonnett, as the information is in Bonnett's log. Pc West might have added some notes to his log after Jeremy's call ended, but that wouldn't have taken long.
I have no idea why Smith said the clock was often inaccurate but not because Neville called.
You can't consistently have no idea and simultaneously rule out one possibility.
-
What document/evidence/statement is this based on?
No document/evidence or statement----------just common sense.
-
But what makes you say there was a call at all?
The phone was found off the hook when police entered. That alone explains why Jeremy and police would get a busy signal if trying to call.
Do you know how long the phone was off the hook ??
-
No, he couldn't have taken any further information after Jeremy's call ended (which is the period of time I asked about). He apparently got the information about the guns present at WHF before telephoning Bonnett, as the information is in Bonnett's log. Pc West might have added some notes to his log after Jeremy's call ended, but that wouldn't have taken long.
You can't consistently have no idea and simultaneously rule out one possibility.
You're asking questions that no one can possibly give you an answer to because it's not documented. You're hiding behind undocumented speculation simply to hammer home a notion of a conspiracy. However, the documented evidence along with the OS willingness to completely change the call time of Jeremy's original claim of 03:10 to 03:36 completely makes a mockery out of the idea that Neville called at all.
Consistently? All of your questions have been answered that relate to the evidence but I can't and won't speculate on something I can have no knowledge of you, but by the same token, you don't know either :-\
-
As anyone can discover by trying it, it's not easy at all.
It is breathtakingly simple but again a complete waste of time because doing so serves no purpose.
Not so. For example, the statements of the police officers in car CA07 say they were contacted well before 3:35, and that they departed at 03:35.
In Bonnett's log, cars CA05 and CA07 departed at about the same time as Jeremy's call (as timed by Pc West). They were sent earlier as a result of Nevill's call.
West phoned Bonnett at 3:26 to tell him about Jeremy's call. That means Jeremy called West prior to 3:26. The car was not sent till 3:35. Jeremy was put on hold for what he described at least 5 minutes though it seemed like a lot longer. What were they doing during those minutes he was on hold? Relaying all the things Jeremy stated and then figuring out what police station covered the area and
subsequently contacted police to be sent.
Your claim that police say they were contacted earlier than 3:35 is misleading because the only cop who provided a time was Saxby and he said around 3:30 he was not sure of the exact time. So he didn't dispoute it could have been 3:35. In the meantime about 3:30 is severla minutes after West had already contacted Bonnett regarding Jeremy's call. Your games are getting old and not gaining any traction.
The police clearly stated they were told about Jeremy's call, told he was going to meet them there and said they were dispatched for that reason not dispatched because Nevill phoned police:
(http://s2.postimg.org/wuv2s5vu1/saxby.jpg)
He didn't ask for all the same information again. Jeremy's assertion that Nevill had called him was new information. Much of the information was given by Jeremy before Pc West asked him for fine detail.
If Nevill didn't mention Jeremy, Pc West wouldn't already know Jeremy's name, address or telephone number. It turned out that Jeremy apparently gave a different age for Sheila. Also, Jeremy used the word "crazy" whereas Nevill had used the word "berserk". Jeremy was giving new information, not just repeating Nevill's call.
Your desperation is showing. You keep trying to distort but I am not going to let you get away with it.
You are the one who made such a big deal about the different ages listed on both accounts for Sheila. Nevill already had given her name and age allegedly. So too would he have given his address and phone number. Nevill also would have been asked who was at WHF and how many guns were there and so forth. This is the information that ther eowuld have been no reason to ask Jeremy for though West did ask for such infromation. You are trying to distprt by brining up Jeremy's address being taken down though that is a red herring. The point was that West would have had no reason to ask for all the information about WHF and Jeremy's family had Nevill called.
West testified that he asked Jeremy to provide such information. Your suggestion that Jeremy just blurted out Sheila's age, name, who was at WHF the phone number and address is just silly. The more you post like this the less you look like someone genuinely extremely confused and more like someone actively trying to distort.
They did dispatch cars as a result of Nevill's call - CA07 and CA05. It's likely that Bonnett did the despatching.
The statements of the officers in car CA07 confirm they were contacted at about 3:30, 6 minutes before Jeremy's call, and that they subsequently departed at about 3:35, also before Jeremy's call.
Well that establishes your dishonest efforts in full. The police officers say they were told to respond because jeremy received a call from Nevill not because police received a call from Nevill. You intentionally ignore this and ignore that Jeremy called prior to 3:26 because at 3:26 West called Bonnett to notify him of Jeremy's call.
Not even West suggests that he received the call from Jeremy at 3:36. He admitted he either made the mistake of logging it at the end or somehow misread the time. Had Jeremy called at 3:36 and remained on the phone for 7-10 minutes like he claimed then he coudl nto have arrived at WHF until well after police and police could not have passed him. Worse yet he certianly should have been able to remember that he rushed out of the house upon getting off the phone with police and thus could not have called Julie right after.
Your games just demonstrate a lack of candor on your part and harm your credibility.
That's true. I didn't say Pc West thought about that specific possibility. As Jeremy was calm, Pc West concentrated on responding to the call. Mentioning Nevill's call wasn't necessary.
Mentioning his call was necessary it not only would have made Jeremy feel better to know his father was still alive at the phone being disconnected and it would have saved time by not needing to record things from jeremy tha thad already been obtained.
You still have not explained what your comment meant if you were not trying to suggest they didn't tell him because they might never want to tell him in case they wanted to blame him. The only way to read that is that they refused to tell him that way if they wanted to blame him then he would not be able to use the call from Nevill to police prove that Nevill called Jeremy and thus to deny Jeremy a valid alibi.
You have been challenged to explain what else it could mean but you can't because that is in fact what you suggested. You just know it is stupid so don't want to admit it.
"Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call"
You clearly suggested that West wanted to keep it from Jeremy in case they wanted to accuse him of involvement later so they could conceal the call ever happened and thus deny Jeremy an alibi.
Then for good measure you added the bogus claim that it saved time when in fact taking down information again in order to conceal Nevill's call resulted in needless extra time. It took extra time to take down Sheila's name and age again, it took extra time to take down the address and phone number of WHF again it took extra time...
With the exception of people biased in favor of Jeremy who are willing to distort to try to find a way to pretend Jeremy is innocent there is no one who would claim after reviewing all the pertinent evidence that a phone call was made by Nevill to police.
You have no evidence of such a call and no arguments that make sense which is why you resort to attempting to distort in an effort to try to pretend your claims are plausible though they are not. You are so desperate now you are claiming Jeremy called West at 3:36 though that would mean the call ended 3:45 leaving no time to have his car overtaken by police, they would have beat him there.
Worse you ignore the police themselves state they were dispatched to go there because Jeremy phoned police not Nevill and even were told he would meet them there. You also absurdely suggest that West and Bonnett never were asked about receiving a call from Nevill so never denied it and had they been asked woudl have referenced such a call though such a call is not referenced anywhere in their notebooks like would be the case had he called and their statements make clear they put Jeremy on hold in order to find out what police covered the area of WHF to arrange cars to be sent. You ignore all the evidence and just twist and make things up to try to suit your agenda.
This issue is a microcosm of efforts by those asserting Jeremy is innocent. These type of games are done on every single issues.
When such nonsense is stripped away it is obvious that those asserting Jerem yis innocent have no evidence and no good arguments just blind faith but don't want to admit they are operating on blind faith and/or realize they are not going to persuade others with blind faith so result to distortion.
-
Why is so much of the thread missing? There were a lot of substantive posts that vanished while I was responding to something reader wrote.
Also why is Caroline just a guest now?
-
Why is so much of the thread missing? There were a lot of substantive posts that vanished while I was responding to something reader wrote.
Also why is Caroline just a guest now?
I do not think any substantive posts (i.e. those relating to the subject matter of this thread) have been removed. If any have been please let me know and I will try to reinstate them.
Caroline has left the forum.
-
I do not think any substantive posts (i.e. those relating to the subject matter of this thread) have been removed. If any have been please let me know and I will try to reinstate them.
Caroline has left the forum.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/elvis-has-left-the-building.html
-
I do not think any substantive posts (i.e. those relating to the subject matter of this thread) have been removed. If any have been please let me know and I will try to reinstate them.
Caroline has left the forum.
The post from reder I responded to is gone and so are a number preceding it.
I always keep 2 windows up so I can cut and paste from one while responding in the other.
The window starts with a post by reader Yesterday at 10:06 PM
features a reply by me:
Yesterday at 10:43 PM »
then another from reader: Today at 01:20 AM
a reply by me Today at 02:45 AM »
and finally a reply by reader Today at 04:01 AM which is the one I just responded to
I don't have the prior page on my screen so can't see if anything prior was erased. But without readers 4:01AM post up it looks like I just made up the quotes attributed to him so at least please restore that one.
-
The post from reder I responded to is gone and so are a number preceding it.
I always keep 2 windows up so I can cut and paste from one while responding in the other.
The window starts with a post by reader Yesterday at 10:06 PM
features a reply by me:
Yesterday at 10:43 PM »
then another from reader: Today at 01:20 AM
a reply by me Today at 02:45 AM »
and finally a reply by reader Today at 04:01 AM which is the one I just responded to
I don't have the prior page on my screen so can't see if anything prior was erased. But without readers 4:01AM post up it looks like I just made up the quotes attributed to him so at least please restore that one.
I will have a look.
-
I will have a look.
They are all still there. There may have been a few seconds when the thread itself disappeared when I was splitted certain posts out.
-
They are all still there. There may have been a few seconds when the thread itself disappeared when I was splitted certain posts out.
Yes that explains it. There wa snothing after the 15th but now that is back plus more. I can see some of went on now that seems to have led up to Caroline leaving.
I do not understand why peopel don't leave their acocunts intact though in case they ever want to return. If one wants to walk away and not post they can do so without having to delete their account.
I had some heated debates with her over the moderator evidence but still it is sad to see her go.
It seems that all that can be discussed has been discussed so many times that people are burned out on the subject and unless new things crop up to talk about probably will see more drop off.
-
Yes that explains it. There wa snothing after the 15th but now that is back plus more. I can see some of went on now that seems to have led up to Caroline leaving.
I do not understand why peopel don't leave their acocunts intact though in case they ever want to return. If one wants to walk away and not post they can do so without having to delete their account.
I had some heated debates with her over the moderator evidence but still it is sad to see her go.
It seems that all that can be discussed has been discussed so many times that people are burned out on the subject and unless new things crop up to talk about probably will see more drop off.
Usually you can't just leave, you need an admin to authorise the deletion. That is how it used to be anyway, perhaps it's changed again.
-
Yes that explains it. There wa snothing after the 15th but now that is back plus more. I can see some of went on now that seems to have led up to Caroline leaving.
I do not understand why peopel don't leave their acocunts intact though in case they ever want to return. If one wants to walk away and not post they can do so without having to delete their account.
I had some heated debates with her over the moderator evidence but still it is sad to see her go.
It seems that all that can be discussed has been discussed so many times that people are burned out on the subject and unless new things crop up to talk about probably will see more drop off.
I think we all know why!
-
Usually you can't just leave, you need an admin to authorise the deletion. That is how it used to be anyway, perhaps it's changed again.
It is still the same.
-
It is breathtakingly simple but again a complete waste of time because doing so serves no purpose.
West phoned Bonnett at 3:26 to tell him about Jeremy's call. That means Jeremy called West prior to 3:26. The car was not sent till 3:35. Jeremy was put on hold for what he described at least 5 minutes though it seemed like a lot longer. What were they doing during those minutes he was on hold? Relaying all the things Jeremy stated and then figuring out what police station covered the area and
subsequently contacted police to be sent.
Your claim that police say they were contacted earlier than 3:35 is misleading because the only cop who provided a time was Saxby and he said around 3:30 he was not sure of the exact time. So he didn't dispoute it could have been 3:35. In the meantime about 3:30 is severla minutes after West had already contacted Bonnett regarding Jeremy's call. Your games are getting old and not gaining any traction.
The police clearly stated they were told about Jeremy's call, told he was going to meet them there and said they were dispatched for that reason not dispatched because Nevill phoned police:
(http://s2.postimg.org/wuv2s5vu1/saxby.jpg)
Your desperation is showing. You keep trying to distort but I am not going to let you get away with it.
You are the one who made such a big deal about the different ages listed on both accounts for Sheila. Nevill already had given her name and age allegedly. So too would he have given his address and phone number. Nevill also would have been asked who was at WHF and how many guns were there and so forth. This is the information that ther eowuld have been no reason to ask Jeremy for though West did ask for such infromation. You are trying to distprt by brining up Jeremy's address being taken down though that is a red herring. The point was that West would have had no reason to ask for all the information about WHF and Jeremy's family had Nevill called.
West testified that he asked Jeremy to provide such information. Your suggestion that Jeremy just blurted out Sheila's age, name, who was at WHF the phone number and address is just silly. The more you post like this the less you look like someone genuinely extremely confused and more like someone actively trying to distort.
Well that establishes your dishonest efforts in full. The police officers say they were told to respond because jeremy received a call from Nevill not because police received a call from Nevill. You intentionally ignore this and ignore that Jeremy called prior to 3:26 because at 3:26 West called Bonnett to notify him of Jeremy's call.
Not even West suggests that he received the call from Jeremy at 3:36. He admitted he either made the mistake of logging it at the end or somehow misread the time. Had Jeremy called at 3:36 and remained on the phone for 7-10 minutes like he claimed then he coudl nto have arrived at WHF until well after police and police could not have passed him. Worse yet he certianly should have been able to remember that he rushed out of the house upon getting off the phone with police and thus could not have called Julie right after.
Your games just demonstrate a lack of candor on your part and harm your credibility.
Mentioning his call was necessary it not only would have made Jeremy feel better to know his father was still alive at the phone being disconnected and it would have saved time by not needing to record things from jeremy tha thad already been obtained.
You still have not explained what your comment meant if you were not trying to suggest they didn't tell him because they might never want to tell him in case they wanted to blame him. The only way to read that is that they refused to tell him that way if they wanted to blame him then he would not be able to use the call from Nevill to police prove that Nevill called Jeremy and thus to deny Jeremy a valid alibi.
You have been challenged to explain what else it could mean but you can't because that is in fact what you suggested. You just know it is stupid so don't want to admit it.
"Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call"
You clearly suggested that West wanted to keep it from Jeremy in case they wanted to accuse him of involvement later so they could conceal the call ever happened and thus deny Jeremy an alibi.
Then for good measure you added the bogus claim that it saved time when in fact taking down information again in order to conceal Nevill's call resulted in needless extra time. It took extra time to take down Sheila's name and age again, it took extra time to take down the address and phone number of WHF again it took extra time...
With the exception of people biased in favor of Jeremy who are willing to distort to try to find a way to pretend Jeremy is innocent there is no one who would claim after reviewing all the pertinent evidence that a phone call was made by Nevill to police.
You have no evidence of such a call and no arguments that make sense which is why you resort to attempting to distort in an effort to try to pretend your claims are plausible though they are not. You are so desperate now you are claiming Jeremy called West at 3:36 though that would mean the call ended 3:45 leaving no time to have his car overtaken by police, they would have beat him there.
Worse you ignore the police themselves state they were dispatched to go there because Jeremy phoned police not Nevill and even were told he would meet them there. You also absurdely suggest that West and Bonnett never were asked about receiving a call from Nevill so never denied it and had they been asked woudl have referenced such a call though such a call is not referenced anywhere in their notebooks like would be the case had he called and their statements make clear they put Jeremy on hold in order to find out what police covered the area of WHF to arrange cars to be sent. You ignore all the evidence and just twist and make things up to try to suit your agenda.
This issue is a microcosm of efforts by those asserting Jeremy is innocent. These type of games are done on every single issues.
When such nonsense is stripped away it is obvious that those asserting Jerem yis innocent have no evidence and no good arguments just blind faith but don't want to admit they are operating on blind faith and/or realize they are not going to persuade others with blind faith so result to distortion.
In Cracknells statement he was alerted at 3:33 does this help????
-
In Cracknells statement he was alerted at 3:33 does this help????
That depends on who you are asking. It certainly doesn't help those who want to suggest the police were dispatched as a reult of Nevill's call which would have required dispatching much sooner. West called Bonnet at 3:26 so that means Jeremy's call to West was earlier than 3:26 so dispatching several minutes prior to 3:26 would be necessary to establish by timing that they were dispatched as a result of a call from someone other than Jeremy.
In terms of testimonial evidence, the police officer who responded say they were told of a call from Jeremy and tha the would meet them there and Bonnett and West say they dispatched these police as a result of Jeremy's call.
So it is bad news for someone trying to establish Nevill called police and there is no reason to even think such happened. It is simply an invention to try to provide some who want to argue in favor of Jeremy's innocence with a point.
Without this and other similar inventions such as the claim Sheila was in the house communicating with police supporters are basically left with the argument that they have faith in Jeremy and don't believe he did it but have no actual evidence to establish he is definitely innocent. Some are not content with that argument because it is not going to sway others so they invent.
If all that is shed what are we left with?
A group of people who don't beleive the evidence against Jeremy proves he did it but who can't refute the evidence and a group that believes the evidence proves he is guilty. That is the heart of it and if we did strip everything and get to that heart the debate is pretty much a standstill there is no where else to go unless something new surfaced.
-
Do you know how long the phone was off the hook ??
At minimum it was removed before Jeremy left WHF, he could have taken it off the hook at any time between entering and before leaving. The last known use of said phone was when June was using it. While it is possible she failed to hang it up and was off the hook from the time she stopped using it forward, I doubt that.
-
Usually you can't just leave, you need an admin to authorise the deletion. That is how it used to be anyway, perhaps it's changed again.
I don't understand what you mean. I can't just stop posting and leave my account operational so that if one day I wanted to post again I could?
-
That depends on who you are asking. It certainly doesn't help those who want to suggest the police were dispatched as a reult of Nevill's call which would have required dispatching much sooner. West called Bonnet at 3:26 so that means Jeremy's call to West was earlier than 3:26 so dispatching several minutes prior to 3:26 would be necessary to establish by timing that they were dispatched as a result of a call from someone other than Jeremy.
In terms of testimonial evidence, the police officer who responded say they were told of a call from Jeremy and tha the would meet them there and Bonnett and West say they dispatched these police as a result of Jeremy's call.
So it is bad news for someone trying to establish Nevill called police and there is no reason to even think such happened. It is simply an invention to try to provide some who want to argue in favor of Jeremy's innocence with a point.
Without this and other similar inventions such as the claim Sheila was in the house communicating with police supporters are basically left with the argument that they have faith in Jeremy and don't believe he did it but have no actual evidence to establish he is definitely innocent. Some are not content with that argument because it is not going to sway others so they invent.
If all that is shed what are we left with?
A group of people who don't beleive the evidence against Jeremy proves he did it but who can't refute the evidence and a group that believes the evidence proves he is guilty. That is the heart of it and if we did strip everything and get to that heart the debate is pretty much a standstill there is no where else to go unless something new surfaced.
All I can say is that Cracknell stated in his statement that he was alerted by the control room at 3:33 yet their car CA5 did not arrive on site till 4:33
To be fair I have always thought that Jeremy called the police at appropriately 3:10 or 13:15 If this was the case then he must have phoned Maldon police slightly earlier than 3:10 or 3:15 like 3:05. If Cracknell was alerted at 3:33 by the control room and the call lasted, say, 10 minutes that brings the time back to 3:23 but if the call ended at 3:26 then its likely that the call was made at 3:15.
So, if Jeremy says his father phoned him prior to his call to Maldon then searched through the directory for Chelmsford police this then pushes the call made from NB to an earlier time which co-insides with JB's call to JM.
What are we left with? Human error that makes it impossible to conclude when any call took place at all. :) :) :) :) :)
Its really does not matter to me whether anyone believes a call was made from NB it could never be proved that there was one. Like it can never be proved that NB called Jeremy. There are no witnesses to either or documentation from BT.
-
At minimum it was removed before Jeremy left WHF, he could have taken it off the hook at any time between entering and before leaving. The last known use of said phone was when June was using it. While it is possible she failed to hang it up and was off the hook from the time she stopped using it forward, I doubt that.
No. I doubt very much that the phone would have been off the hook from when June used it because at that time,if a phone was left off the hook,there'd be a voice telling you to replace the receiver,then there would be an audible wailing sound until it was replaced.
You're forgetting that Neville rang Jeremy. ;D
-
No. I doubt very much that the phone would have been off the hook from when June used it because at that time,if a phone was left off the hook,there'd be a voice telling you to replace the receiver,then there would be an audible wailing sound until it was replaced.
You're forgetting that Neville rang Jeremy. ;D
After a phone is off the hook for a while those sounds stop and it is just silent. I used to hang up the phone a little crooked so it was not noticable that it was off the hook, the sounds would end and no one would know. It prevented calls I did not want to receive but also pissed off family when they found out because their calls also were not received. Plus itf they wanted to use the phone no dialtone- they had to play with the phones to see which was off the hook.
June had no reason to do that though.
As for Jeremy's claim he received a call from Nevill there is no evidence it actually happened and I do not believe it happened. The evidence stablishes someone else shot everyone including Sheila so there is no reason to believe Nevill would have made a call to Jeremy blaming Sheila.
-
I don't understand what you mean. I can't just stop posting and leave my account operational so that if one day I wanted to post again I could?
If you go to your account setting and try to delete the account, you can't. It needs an admin to delete it.
So if you change your mind later, then you can just log on as normal.
In Caroline case, it seems that NGB has accepted the request to delete her account.
-
You're asking questions that no one can possibly give you an answer to because it's not documented. I can't and won't speculate on something I can have no knowledge of
But you did speculate - you said that it wasn't because Nevill called that Smith said the clock was inaccurate. It quite possibly was for that reason.
I am not aware that any post of mine disappeared. They all seem to be present now.
It is breathtakingly simple but again a complete waste of time because doing so serves no purpose.
I sense you didn't try it. It's not as simple as it might seem. It's difficult.
West phoned Bonnett at 3:26 to tell him about Jeremy's call. That means Jeremy called West prior to 3:26.
In my scenario, Pc West telephoned Bonnett at 03:26 to tell him about Nevill's call. That meant Nevill had called Pc West at about 03:25.
The car was not sent till 3:35.
The evidence says otherwise. You've recently posted part of Pc Saxby's statement that says he was called at 03:30 and departed at 03:35. He said he was on duty with PC Myall and Ps Bews at the time, so it's unclear why it would take them about five minutes to depart, but that's what is claimed. If the officers who travelled in CA7 are to be believed, Bonnett's log records their departure time, not the time when they were requested to depart.
Jeremy was put on hold for what he described at least 5 minutes though it seemed like a lot longer.
Whose evidence do you believe? Pc West was quite sure at Jeremy's trial that Jeremy was on hold for about 3 minutes. What Jeremy said was "About five minutes it seemed like ages. Times are approximate." He didn't say "at least 5 minutes" and he didn't say "it seemed a lot longer".
What were they doing during those minutes he was on hold? Relaying all the things Jeremy stated and then figuring out what police station covered the area and subsequently contacted police to be sent.
That's speculation, and not confirmed by Bonnett's statements. In particular, Bonnett didn't log Sheila's age as 27, which is what Jeremy told Pc West (according to Pc West's log).
Your claim that police say they were contacted earlier than 3:35 is misleading because the only cop who provided a time was Saxby and he said around 3:30 he was not sure of the exact time.
That's incorrect. Pc Saxby used the word "about", but didn't say he was not sure of the exact time. In his statement of 23 September 1985, Ps Bews said "... having left Witham Police station about 3.35 am the same day in company with Pc 1509 Myall and Pc 1995 Saxby. The information from Chelmsford Police Station about 3.30 am the same day."
So he didn't dispute it could have been 3:35.
He had no reason to dispute something that wasn't put to him. Pc Saxby and Ps Bews gave the same times. It's common practice to use the word "about".
. . . about 3:30 is several minutes after West had already contacted Bonnett regarding Jeremy's call.
It's about 6 minutes before Jeremy's call to the police at 03:36, as logged by Pc West.
The police clearly stated they were told about Jeremy's call, told he was going to meet them there and said they were dispatched for that reason not dispatched because Nevill phoned police
That's based on Pc Saxby's statement of 23rd September 1985, but PC Myall's statement of 15th August 1985 merely states that they had been told to expect Jeremy, without saying anything to indicate that Jeremy's call to the police caused them to be sent.
Nevill also would have been asked who was at WHF and how many guns were there and so forth. . . . West would have had no reason to ask for all the information about WHF and Jeremy's family had Nevill called.
We don't know what Nevill was asked. It's reasonable to suppose he was asked for his name and address. Anything beyond that is just speculation, so it isn't known that Pc West asked Jeremy for information that Nevill had already given, apart from the WHF address and telephone number and Sheila's age (which, as noted before, was given differently).
West testified that he asked Jeremy to provide such information. Your suggestion that Jeremy just blurted out Sheila's age, name, who was at WHF the phone number and address is just silly.
I didn't suggest that.
Not even West suggests that he received the call from Jeremy at 3:36.
He did so at Jeremy's trial. He said he logged that time and that the time was disputed. If he'd changed his mind, the dispute would already have been resolved. He didn't say he definitely made a mistake about the time in his log.
Had Jeremy called at 3:36 and remained on the phone for 7-10 minutes like he claimed
Jeremy didn't make that claim.
. . . he certainly should have been able to remember that he rushed out of the house upon getting off the phone with police and thus could not have called Julie right after.
He didn't remember those things because they didn't happen. He called Julie before calling the police. He left home at about 3:42, which left him enough time to reach WHF without hurrying.
The only way to read that is that they refused to tell him that way if they wanted to blame him then he would not be able to use the call from Nevill to police prove that Nevill called Jeremy and thus to deny Jeremy a valid alibi.
That's just your misinterpretation. There was no need to tell Jeremy about Nevill's call. Pc West testified that he needed less than a minute on the telephone to Jeremy before calling HQIR, so he hadn't wasted time to any significant extent.
. . . you are claiming Jeremy called West at 3:36 though that would mean the call ended 3:45 leaving no time to have his car overtaken by police
Pc West's evidence allows the call's duration to be estimated as about 6 minutes, allowing Jeremy to leave at about 3:42, which is plausible.
You also absurdly suggest that West and Bonnett never were asked about receiving a call from Nevill.
That's not absurd. They weren't asked (as far as we know from their statements and evidence).
-
All I can say is that Cracknell stated in his statement that he was alerted by the control room at 3:33 yet their car CA5 did not arrive on site till 4:33
To be fair I have always thought that Jeremy called the police at appropriately 3:10 or 13:15 If this was the case then he must have phoned Maldon police slightly earlier than 3:10 or 3:15 like 3:05. If Cracknell was alerted at 3:33 by the control room and the call lasted, say, 10 minutes that brings the time back to 3:23 but if the call ended at 3:26 then its likely that the call was made at 3:15.
So, if Jeremy says his father phoned him prior to his call to Maldon then searched through the directory for Chelmsford police this then pushes the call made from NB to an earlier time which co-insides with JB's call to JM.
What are we left with? Human error that makes it impossible to conclude when any call took place at all. :) :) :) :) :)
Its really does not matter to me whether anyone believes a call was made from NB it could never be proved that there was one. Like it can never be proved that NB called Jeremy. There are no witnesses to either or documentation from BT.
Bonnett was very adamant about West contacting him at 3:26 so Jeremy's call was clearly several minutes earlier and clearly he phoned Julie before calling police.
Since there supposedly were police at Witham it is unclear whether he really called them or they truly didn't answer. It is unknown whether that was just a story to try to account for a lapse in time before calling West or he really did try. Either could be the truth there is no way to know.
It is quite clear Nevill never phoned though. They would have dispatched police on the basis of such call, would have told Jeremy about such call and woudl nto have taken down all the same information already obtained from Nevill. Police would have been aware of the call and would have used such to strengthen their assertion it was a murder suicide. They had that believe until the lab personnel disagreed in September.
It is not just acomplete absence of evidence of a call by Nevill to police but there is evidence that demonstrates such call didn't happen.
-
Bonnett was very adamant about West contacting him at 3:26 so Jeremy's call was clearly several minutes earlier and clearly he phoned Julie before calling police.
Since there supposedly were police at Witham it is unclear whether he really called them or they truly didn't answer. It is unknown whether that was just a story to try to account for a lapse in time before calling West or he really did try. Either could be the truth there is no way to know.
It is quite clear Nevill never phoned though. They would have dispatched police on the basis of such call, would have told Jeremy about such call and woudl nto have taken down all the same information already obtained from Nevill. Police would have been aware of the call and would have used such to strengthen their assertion it was a murder suicide. They had that believe until the lab personnel disagreed in September.
It is not just acomplete absence of evidence of a call by Nevill to police but there is evidence that demonstrates such call didn't happen.
He must have called Witham otherwise he would not have known that there was no one there. West called an officer from Witham on the radio and I believe the station was not manned that night to the public. West then called headquarters to inform them. Under examination West was asked if headquarters would receive 999 calls and West said yes they would. Anyway, I don't know where I am going with this yet...I'll be back lol :) :) :) :)
-
I sense you didn't try it. It's not as simple as it might seem. It's difficult.
In my scenario, Pc West telephoned Bonnett at 03:26 to tell him about Nevill's call. That meant Nevill had called Pc West at about 03:25.
Your scenario is entirely made up though. That is the whole point you just made up a call from Nevill out of thin air and even the time out of thin air. Bonnett stated in no uncertain terms 3:26 is when West called to report a call from Jeremy. In order to support your fairytale you had to make up that Nevill took the phone off the hook and left the phone off the hook for no rational reason for a long time. Then after 10 minutes pass he phones police because he figures Jeremy should have been able to get there in 10 minutes and he will never come. So in his urgency he looks up the number to call a station that is NOT his local station instead of dialing 999.
West and bonnett deny this, West and Bonnett wrote NOTHING in their notebooks and the police they call say they were told Jeremy phoned police and that is why they were being dispatched. You made up a load of nonsense out of thin air all because you want to make up something to support Jeremy. That is the bottom line. You are being thoroughly dishonest and lost all crediblity in my eyes completely.
The evidence says otherwise. You've recently posted part of Pc Saxby's statement that says he was called at 03:30 and departed at 03:35. He said he was on duty with PC Myall and Ps Bews at the time, so it's unclear why it would take them about five minutes to depart, but that's what is claimed. If the officers who travelled in CA7 are to be believed, Bonnett's log records their departure time, not the time when they were requested to depart.
No you are ignoring the evidence to suit your agenda. The statement said they were called AROUND 3:30 it was an estimation not an attempt to be to the minute and didn't say anything about departing at 3:35. It says that they received a call and left for WHF around 3:30.
Moreover you are ignoring they say there were told to go there because Jeremy had phoned which proves the 3:26 call Bonnett received referenced a call from Jeremy not Nevill.
Had Jeremy called at 3:36 police would have arrived before he did and they never would have passed him as he sat on the side of the road letting them go by.
Whose evidence do you believe? Pc West was quite sure at Jeremy's trial that Jeremy was on hold for about 3 minutes. What Jeremy said was "About five minutes it seemed like ages. Times are approximate." He didn't say "at least 5 minutes" and he didn't say "it seemed a lot longer".
I will believe evidence not your made up nonsense. It makes no difference whether Jeremy was on hold for 3 minutes of 5. It makes no difference whether Jeremy's call in total lasted 6 minutes or 10. A 6 minute call still doesn't help you at all. You are just making up nonsense for your agenda and demonstraitng a complete lack of integrity in the process.
That's speculation, and not confirmed by Bonnett's statements. In particular, Bonnett didn't log Sheila's age as 27, which is what Jeremy told Pc West (according to Pc West's log).
The speculation is all yours including WILD ABSURD speculation that because the age is different for Sheila that means there were 2 different callers both of whome could not recall her age or last name. If Nevill had already given HSeila's name and age to West he would not have asked Jeremy for an age and name so this harms your claims it doesn't help. Your claims are ridicilous wild fairytales that are completely and totally dispted by all the evidence you just keep ignoring the evidence and making up nonsense.
That's incorrect. Pc Saxby used the word "about", but didn't say he was not sure of the exact time. In his statement of 23 September 1985, Ps Bews said "... having left Witham Police station about 3.35 am the same day in company with Pc 1509 Myall and Pc 1995 Saxby. The information from Chelmsford Police Station about 3.30 am the same day."
He had no reason to dispute something that wasn't put to him. Pc Saxby and Ps Bews gave the same times. It's common practice to use the word "about".
About means around and is used to approximate. What was incorrect was you claiming tha tin their statements they indicated recieivng a call at 3:30 and them leaving at 3:35. They indicated they received a call and then left and hat this all occurred around 3:30. You twist to try to pretend your wild specilation ight be possible and again I stress they said they were told to go to WHF because Jeremy had called police which proves the reaosn why they were going was Jeremy had already called. WHich completely demolishes your bunk that they were sent because of Nevill's call and that Jeremy called after this at 3:36.
It's about 6 minutes before Jeremy's call to the police at 03:36, as logged by Pc West.
That's based on Pc Saxby's statement of 23rd September 1985, but PC Myall's statement of 15th August 1985 merely states that they had been told to expect Jeremy, without saying anything to indicate that Jeremy's call to the police caused them to be sent.
So Saxby is lying and lied in his notebook and the others all lied in their notebooks? How could they be told to expect Jeremy if Jeremy had not yet called and they were being sent because Nevill phoned? You keep playing games and while they might work with someone stupid and ignorant they are just making you look like you are dishoenst you shoudl keep that in mind. Your claims are making a big hit to your integrity.
You are accusing peopel of lying based on nothing at all but nonsense you made up and disregarding clear evidence to suit your agenda.
We don't know what Nevill was asked. It's reasonable to suppose he was asked for his name and address. Anything beyond that is just speculation, so it isn't known that Pc West asked Jeremy for information that Nevill had already given, apart from the WHF address and telephone number and Sheila's age (which, as noted before, was given differently).
West said he asked Jeremy for the phone number and address of WHF and SHeila's name and age. You just admitted he woudl have obitnied these from Nevill so why would he have asked jeremy?
We don't know that West would have asked Nevill who else was at WHF and what weapons were there? They are natural questions and he posed these questions to Jeremy so clearly woudl have posed them to Nevill. All you are doing is trying to dishonestly deny that he asked Jeremy the same things he alreayd would have obtained ot Nevill. Also to dishoenstly suggest he would have no reason to tell Jeremy Nevill phoned. Your games demosntrate yo uknow you are not being candid you should just give it up alreayd ypou severly lost this debate and all you are doing is domonstraitng how far you will go to try to distort to pretend Nevill called so that you can say you have evidence to suggest Jeremy is innocent.
I didn't suggest that.
He did so at Jeremy's trial. He said he logged that time and that the time was disputed. If he'd changed his mind, the dispute would already have been resolved. He didn't say he definitely made a mistake about the time in his log.
West admitted he may have misread the clock but also admitted he might have written down the time at the end of the call instead of beginning.
Jeremy didn't make that claim.
He didn't remember those things because they didn't happen. He called Julie before calling the police. He left home at about 3:42, which left him enough time to reach WHF without hurrying.
He said he was on hold for 3-5 minutes. He spoke to West before being placed on hold and after. Your suggestion is that the entire call lasted no more than 5 minutes and he instantly was out the door, it takes time to lock a house and walk to a car, start it...
Again though you ignore how the police said they were told they were going because of a call from jeremy.
That's just your misinterpretation. There was no need to tell Jeremy about Nevill's call. Pc West testified that he needed less than a minute on the telephone to Jeremy before calling HQIR, so he hadn't wasted time to any significant extent.
Pc West's evidence allows the call's duration to be estimated as about 6 minutes, allowing Jeremy to leave at about 3:42, which is plausible.
I would have to last no more than 5 minutes and the call would have to have been exactly 3:36:00 or your timetable still won't work. A call at 3:36:55 that ends at 3:42:00 is five minutes but six minutes would push it to 3:43 and by the time he is out the door it is too late.
Still though you ignore the testimony of all involved that they responde to WHF as a result of Jeremy's call and far form it being amisinterpretation that West woudl have told Jeremy that Nevill calle dit is a fact. You are being so dishoenst on such point that in my eyes I consider you to be bereft of integrity.
You have sunk in my eyes to around the level of mike which is regrettable because I thought much more of you.
No way would West have taken the same information he alreayd asked from Nevill including Nevill's name, age, address phone number and so forth all to conceal that Nevill had called.
A good example of your lack of integrity is how you denied making the following claim and keep running from it when I challenge you to explain what possible meaning it could have other than suggesting that West kept it a secret in case police later wanted to blame Jeremy and hide the call from Nevill because it would help Jeremy:
"Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call"
You clearly suggested that West wanted to keep it from Jeremy in case they wanted to accuse him of involvement later so they could conceal the call ever happened and thus deny Jeremy an alibi.
That's not absurd. They weren't asked (as far as we know from their statements and evidence).
It is absurd to keep suggesting that if asked directly whether Nevill called they might say yes. They didn't indicate any call in their notebooks, didn't indicate any call on thier logs, didn't indicate a call in any of their statements, didn't indicate a call to Jeremy and didn't indicate a call to police they told police Jeremy called.
You ar eplaying ridiculous games to support something you made up entirely and it is not becoming at all it leaves you looking like you are willing to do anything no matter how pathetic to pretend Jeremy is innocent no matter how dishonest such might be.
-
He must have called Witham otherwise he would not have known that there was no one there. West called an officer from Witham on the radio and I believe the station was not manned that night to the public. West then called headquarters to inform them. Under examination West was asked if headquarters would receive 999 calls and West said yes they would. Anyway, I don't know where I am going with this yet...I'll be back lol :) :) :) :)
The officers were at the station when they got the radio call. It was thus manned at the time we don't know if the phones would have been answered or not by them. Sometimes peopel asnwer because they think someone might be trying to reach them othertimes they will ignore it assuming it is a call not for them specifically and something they don't want to deal with.
The significance of HQ receiving 999 calls is that any such call would have been received by HQ instead of West. That is where that point leads to. Had Jeremy or his father dialed 999 West would not have been in the picture.
-
Your scenario is entirely made up though.
I didn't make up the logs and statements that I have used. As we don't have absolute proof that Nevill did (or didn't) call, any scenario will consider some things that haven't been proved.
. . . you just made up a call from Nevill out of thin air and even the time out of thin air.
I didn't. I read this idea in a post by MT many years ago. The times I've suggested are related to times in the available logs and statements.
Bonnett stated in no uncertain terms 3:26 is when West called to report a call from Jeremy.
Are you referring to Bonnett's log? That log mentions a message from the son of Mr Bamber, and you choose to interpret that as a reference to the preceding part of the log as well as the information about the guns at WHF. That's your choice, not something that Bonnett gave "in no uncertain terms".
. . . you had to make up that Nevill took the phone off the hook and left the phone off the hook for no rational reason for a long time.
I didn't suggest that.
Then after 10 minutes pass he phones police because he figures Jeremy should have been able to get there in 10 minutes and he will never come.
I didn't suggest that either. There is no 10-minute pause by Nevill in my scenario.
. . . they were told Jeremy phoned police and that is why they were being dispatched.
No, just Pc Saxby... in September 1985... I don't believe parts of his statement.
The statement said they were called AROUND 3:30 it was an estimation.
The statement says "about 03:30", not "around 03:30". Pc Saxby goes on to state "As a result of this at about 03:35 on the same day I left in company of Ps Bews and Pc Myall", etc. This time of about 03:35 matches Bonnett's record in his log of 03:35 as the departure time of car CA07.
Had Jeremy called at 3:36 police would have arrived before he did and they never would have passed him as he sat on the side of the road letting them go by.
Why? Jeremy would have taken about 6 minutes to reach the place where he was overtaken. Also, the police didn't say that he sat on the side of the road. They estimated his speed.
It makes no difference whether Jeremy was on hold for 3 minutes of 5.
So you can accept Pc West's estimate given in his evidence. A 6-minute call allows Jeremy to reach WHF at a normal speed.
. . . speculation that because the age is different for Sheila that means there were 2 different callers both of whom could not recall her age or last name.
I didn't say that, and you have supplied the word "means" and the notion that they couldn't recall her age. According to your scenario, Pc West wrote "27" in his log, then telephoned Bonnett and said "26" (or he said "27", but Bonnett thought he'd said "26"). Also, you hold he substituted "berserk" for "crazy" (and various other changes) . According to you, he didn't even log the time of Jeremy's call correctly (despite the fact that logging the time is a routine part of his job).
They indicated they received a call and then left and that this all occurred around 3:30.
They didn't use the words "this all occurred around". You made that bit up.
So Saxby is lying and lied in his notebook
I haven't seen his notebook, but you're getting the idea.
. . . he would have obtained these from Nevill, so why would he have asked Jeremy?
He wanted Jeremy's information.
Your suggestion is that the entire call lasted no more than 5 minutes and he instantly was out the door
I didn't use the words "no more than" and I didn't use the words "he instantly was out the door".
A call at 3:36:55 that ends at 3:42:00 is five minutes but six minutes would push it to 3:43 and by the time he is out the door it is too late.
I didn't say Jeremy called at 3:36:55. Why is 3:43 too late? According to Pc West's log, the police reached WHF at 3:50am.
. . . you ignore the testimony of all involved that they responded to WHF as a result of Jeremy's call
What testimony are you talking about? Just Pc Saxby's statement?
"Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call"
Are you claiming that Pc West did know?
It is absurd to keep suggesting that if asked directly whether Nevill called they might say yes.
I haven't made that suggestion.
The officers were at the station when they got the radio call.
However, they didn't clarify how recently they'd got back to the police station.
-
I didn't make up the logs and statements that I have used. As we don't have absolute proof that Nevill did (or didn't) call, any scenario will consider some things that haven't been proved.
You are ignoring what the logs state and pretending that the logs support a call being received from Nevill. The logs do not in any way do so. You have nothing at all to suggest a call was made by Nevill it is entirely made up and ignored all the evidence that establishes such never happened. You are playing worthless games because you don't want to admit you have only blind faith that Jeremy is innocent and nothing else.
I didn't. I read this idea in a post by MT many years ago. The times I've suggested are related to times in the available logs and statements.
Your defense that Mike made it up not you helps not one bit. In fact in a way it makes it worse that you are advocating someothing obviously made up by someone who has a history of making up things. The logs offer no support a all for a call being made by Nevill, nor do the notebooks of the dispatchers, the various testimony of the dispatchers, notebooks of police, testimony of police or of Jeremy himself. Denying reality doesn't make it go away it just makes the person ignoring it look foolish or dishonest.
Are you referring to Bennett's log? That log mentions a message from the son of Mr Bamber, and you choose to interpret that as a reference to the preceding part of the log as well as the information about the guns at WHF. That's your choice, not something that Bonnett gave "in no uncertain terms".
It does mean it in no uncertain terms. You are ignoring Bonnetts statements including his notes that he wrote this log to refer to Jeremy's call to West and ignoring the plain language. You are intentionally choosing to interpret it wrongly and thus you have no valid position.
It says the message above was passed to CD West from the son AFTER THE PHONE WENT DEAD. The interpretation you choose to select completely ignores the actual words used. There are 2 sentences one about the message being passed after the phone went dead and then a messageAFTER about the guns. If Bonnett were writing that a message about guns was passed he woudl have written one sentence not 2. Your interpretation is that he wrote:
"The following message was passed by Jeremy to Pc West: that there were various shotguns". That's no what he wrote at all. What he worte was that the preceeding message was passed by Jeremy and indeed both Bonnett and West say that such message was passed by Jeremy and Jeremy admits he passed such message. Your reading is dishonest and completely untenable. The message Jeremy passed was that Nevill said Sheila was going crazy and had a gun then the phone was disconnected. That is what Bonnett's log says that Jeremy claims the following message was passed to him by Nevill then the phone was disconnected.
The phone being disconnected is totally irrelevant to the supposed noting of what guns were at WHF and it would have been 1 sentence if he was writing that just the gun message was passed by Jeremy. There was a message written down on the paper. Then Bonnett wrote message was passed to CD by Bamber's son after call was disconnected. No one with any integrity would try pretending that comment was not referring to the message written prior.
I didn't suggest that.
I didn't suggest that either. There is no 10-minute pause by Nevill in my scenario.
Yes you did suggest both. You said that Nevill took the phone off the hook to call police but did not know the number so he left it off the hook as he went to look up the numbers and that is why Jeremy got a busy signal.
You suggest that Jeremy did not phone police until 3:36. You are attributing the actual timing of Jeremy's call (which was at least a minutes prior to 3:26) to Nevill. That leaves a gap of 10 minutes or so between when Nevill allegedly Jeremy and Nevill called the police.
You have tried to acocunt for this with more inventions just liek saying maybe Nevill called jeremy later than Jeremy thought or he left the phone off the hook as he went to look up the numbers. All you do is make up excuses and nonsense to try to find a way to pretend your claims could be true though your excuses demosntrate even you realize this never happened you are just being dishonest.
Not only do you have not a shred of evidence to suggest a call from Nevill by police there is considerable evidence that proves no such call was made.
No, just Pc Saxby... in September 1985... I don't believe parts of his statement.
More games from you. You are pretending that the only cop who said they were told they were dispatched because of a call from Jeremy was Saxby, that he is lying and that other police would say soemthing different though their notes and such make clear eveyrone is in agreement with Saxby. You are suggesting that he lied and everyone else just wasn't asked sufficiently for them to detial the call by Nevill.
You assert what suits you and ignore what doesn't in other words you are distorting.
The statement says "about 03:30", not "around 03:30". Pc Saxby goes on to state "As a result of this at about 03:35 on the same day I left in company of Ps Bews and Pc Myall", etc. This time of about 03:35 matches Bonnett's record in his log of 03:35 as the departure time of car CA07.
About means around- they mean the same exact thing. He could not recall the exact time he got the call that is why the term about was used it was an approximation. He doesn't know how long it took him and the boys to get ready. In the meantime he got the 3:35 time from the logs. That is why he was able to give a time for when he left.
In the meantime this fails to help you because Jeremy called before 3:30, before 3:26 even because at 3:26 West called Bonnett.
You grossly distort the log to pretend it says otherwise, and ignore a host of evidence that proves this call was from jerey including saying you refuse to believe Saxby's claim that they were told about Jeremy's call when dispatched. You refuse to believe that West would have told Jeremy his father alreayd called and insist he would have taken the same info he already got from Jeremy. You even absurdely suggest he alreayd dispatched police before Jeremy's call but put Jeremy on hold to figure out what police station covers the area so a car coudl be dispatched. Why would they put him on hold and have to look it up if they already knew and had already dispatched a car? Your claims are so absurd that one has to wonder why you make them. It places your credibility in the toilet. This means you are not only saying Saxby lied but West when West testified that he placed Jeremy on hold to look up the station that covered the area and dispatch a car.
Based on what evidence did they lie? You have none!
The funny part is you say West lied an dyet suggest that had West been asked about Nevill's call he woudl have admitted it took place. He went through countless efforts to conceal it supposedly but would have admitted it if asked. That's absurd.
Even lookou admitted it made no sense for Nevill to call both Jeremy and police and if Nevill did decide to call police he would have dialed 999 the suggestion Nevill would have called his non-local Chelmsford station is nonsense.
Not one thing you claim makes sense. You have to disregard all logic and all evidence to try making the claims you do which demonstrates they are claims made in bad faith.
Why? Jeremy would have taken about 6 minutes to reach the place where he was overtaken. Also, the police didn't say that he sat on the side of the road. They estimated his speed.
He told police he stopped to put on more clothing because he was cold. The point in any event was he was in front of them. 6 minutes to drive that far to be able to be infrotn of them still requires a least a minute to lock the house and walk to and start the car before even putting the car in drive.
There was not enough time for him to get there and your claim that the called ended at 3:42 for that to happen. You are playing games for naught and the faster he ran out of the house after calling police the more obviousl he was lying about calling Julie after police. It is not credible he just made a mistake and forgot he rushed out the door like a bolt of lightning as soon as he hung up the phone with police.
Nor could he do so unless he dressed prior to calling police. you ignroe that as well, he would have needed time to dress not just time to lock his door and walk to his car and start it.
So you can accept Pc West's estimate given in his evidence. A 6-minute call allows Jeremy to reach WHF at a normal speed.
6 minutes on the road but it would have taken addiitonal time to dress an dget to his car and start it. Your timetable doesn't workk no matter how much you strain and wish it would and has far too much evidence against it.
I didn't say that, and you have supplied the word "means" and the notion that they couldn't recall her age. According to your scenario, Pc West wrote "27" in his log, then telephoned Bonnett and said "26" (or he said "27", but Bonnett thought he'd said "26"). Also, you hold he substituted "berserk" for "crazy" (and various other changes) . According to you, he didn't even log the time of Jeremy's call correctly (despite the fact that logging the time is a routine part of his job).
Yes I get the idea loud and clear you are making up nonsense because of your agenda and can't be trusted at all. You didn't even things through the garbage you are making up clearly as I already demosntrated how stupid this claim of yours is.
Far from your claim that you took this theory from Mike you took some of his claims and you modified them yourself. Mike's claim was that Nevill called Bonnett HIMSELF. Your claim is that Nevill called West and that Nevill's message was passed to Bonnett from West.
So according to YOU not according to me West relayed the message where Bonnett wrote synonyms for words that West used. According to YOU West told Bonnett either 26 or 27 and Bonnett wrote down 26.
It is your claim that whatever Bonnett wrote was told to him by West.
You are making the wild claim that because Bonnett used some different words than West- words that are synonyms- that there is another log out there from West with such exact language. Ther emust be a log out there where West wrote the age as 26 and where West wrote verbatim what was on Bonnetts log as opposed to each paraphrasing and thus using different synonyms.
Your claim is ridiculously dumb. It is sheer idiocy to say that because West wrote 27 and Bonnett
wrote 26 for Sheila's age that means West must have fielded a call previously from Nevill where Nevill told West that Sheila's age was 26 and that the log is thus referring to Nevill's call.
It is an argument that is invented out of nothing which makes no sense at all.
It is also sheer idiocy to say that for sure West would have read verbatim off his log instead of speaking off the top of his head to Bonnett and that Bonnett in turn would write verbatim what he was told so both logs would match to the lette rin every single word and that if they don't that is proof that the logs refer to different calls and that 1 reflects a call from Jeremy while the other is recounting a call from Nevill.
Thus there has to be another log West wrote reflecting a call by Nevill that has the same things as Bonnett's log verbatim.
This argument is so patently absurd that it is not even a claim that can be made in good faith.
They didn't use the words "this all occurred around". You made that bit up.
I haven't seen his notebook, but you're getting the idea.
Yes I get the idea you are to biased to be honest and rational. You are ignoring that about is an approximation and ignoring that the defense has their notebooks and thus is it clear there ar eno notebooks that reference a call by Nevill period. Saying tha tbecause you didn't see them that holds out hope they might reference a call by Nevill is ridiculous the defense would have been all over such claim if there were actually any evidence to support it.
You play game after game after game and all you are doing in the process are showing yourself to be thoroughly dishonest.
It is hilarious that you are accusing Saxby of lying based on no evidence whatsoever, the only lying I see is coming from you.
He wanted Jeremy's information.
Totally absurd!
You are humilating yourself completely and totally and also dishonestly running away from your own claims.
Everyone reading this can see how you REFUSE to try to explain how the following is not suggesting that West set out to conceal the call from Nevill in case they wanted to frame Jeremy:
"Although Jeremy seemed straightforward, West couldn't know that he wouldn't later be accused of having hired someone to go to WHF and kill his family. There was no pressing need to tell him anything about Nevill's call"
Clearly the above says that West thought they might want to blame Jeremy and if so they would illegally conceal Nevill's call completely and totally. So he made sure not to give away that such clal had been received. You denied making this pathetic claim but you did I didn't lie as you tried to suggest.
You don't even have enough honesty to address your own claims.
Be that as it may, you new claim that he wanted Jeremy's information and failed to disclose the call for that reason is ABSURD for 2 reasons.
1) Nevill would have spoken to police AFTER he spooke to Jeremy. The latest most up to date information would have been given to police from Nevill directly the information given to Jeremy was older! For that reason alone police would not care so much about what he told Jeremy.
It would be like me calling a relative to report a bear on my street then calling police to report a current location. The relaitve claling police after me to report the older location means squat they don't give a rat's ass they want the most up to date info and from the horse's mouth.
2) That still fails to account for why West would want Nevill's name, age, address and phone number from Jeremy after already obtaining such from Nevill. It fails to account for why West would ask
for Sheila's name and age after already obtaining such from Nevill. It fails to account for why West would ask Jeremy who was at WHF and the other things asked if he already obtained such information.
Let's go back to the bear example. Why would the cop ask my relative for my address and phone number and all the various details he alreayd had? The cop would say I just spke to John and he told me all about the bear it is being taken care of. He woudl not pretend it is the first he heard of it and ask for outdated information and all my address and contact information that he already had.
Saying that they wanted Jeremy's full account so asked him for everything they already had is sheer idiocy as is suggesting there was no reason to tell him that Nevill had called. Your own made up fairytale is that they already dispatched police prior to Jeremy's clal. That alone is a reason to say Nevill called. Nevill called we already dispatched police don't worry. West would not have put him on hold to contact Bonnett period let alone to look up which police station to contact so police oculd be dispatched.
You are no more trustworthy than Mike that is what has come from all this.
I didn't use the words "no more than" and I didn't use the words "he instantly was out the door".
I didn't say Jeremy called at 3:36:55. Why is 3:43 too late? According to Pc West's log, the police reached WHF at 3:50am.
Because it would have taken Jeremy time to get dressed, lock his door, walk to his car and start it before he coudl even get on the road. The few minutes invovled in getting out the door is long enough too kill any chance of your timetabel being even remotely possible but there is considerable other evidence that proves your claims to be nonsense and it is quite clear you made up the entire thing. You have not a shred of evidence to support your claims it is all nonsense and consists of you saying:
1) West and Bonnett set out to conceal there was a call by Nevill in case police wanted rto frame Jeremy
2) West thus pretended he never received a call from Nevill and acted as if the call from Jeremy was the first one so took down everything from Jeremy that he had already obtained from nevilll
3) West and Bonnett made no references to Nevill's call in their notebooks or any statements
4) Police like Saxby lied about being dispatched because of Jeremy's call
5) Police who believed Sheila did it made no reference to Nevill's call in support of such assessment ever though it would have been high on the list of evidence supporting their claim and let such call be buried under the rug.
This is your outrageous argument and you have NOTHING at all to support your claims. You don't even have reasonable suspicion you made the whole thing up just to support your agenda.
What testimony are you talking about? Just Pc Saxby's statement?
No all testimonial evidence which means all notes, verbal and written statements, and court testimony.
The testimonial evidence of everyone establishes that the police were dispatched as a result of Jeremy's call. West said such in his court testimony even. He said Jeremy was put on hold so they could arrange for police to be dispatched. Your games don't work you are stuck having to say eveyrone lied and thus you have no evidence at all to establish they lied everyone was doctored so you have nothing but your bare bone allegations that make no sense at all and completely ignore reality.
Are you claiming that Pc West did know?
Of course West didn't know they would accuse Jeremy which makes your claim that he concealed Nevill's call from Jeremy in case they might want to accuse him even more absurd.
Your allegation was:
That West concealed the call because they might want to blame Jeremy and in that event the call from Nevill would be harmful to their case so they would need to pretend it never happened.
That is patently ridiculous.
You can't come up with a rational reason that West would conceal Nevill's call from Jeremy and in support of such concealment would ask Jeremy for the same information he already obtained from Nevill and even place him on hold to pretend he was dispatching a car as a result.
You are just spouting one nonsense claim after another digging your hole deeper.
I haven't made that suggestion.
Then why do you keep stressing that they were not asked whether Nevill made a call so beve rdenied it? The clear implication of stressing they never denied it is that they would say he called if asked. There is no other reason to bring such point up.
However, they didn't clarify how recently they'd got back to the police station.
It makes no difference at all how long they were at the station before West called them at the station to tell them to go to WHF.
-
Insulting and personal comments again. You can't help yourself can you.you are incapable of presenting your argument without calling the op dishonest. When they are not. Well I have been doing some research away from this forum. And I think a lot of your posts are no more than smoke and mirrors. Imo ;D so I know you won't take it seriously.
-
I don't,and never have taken him seriously.
-
Insulting and personal comments again. You can't help yourself can you.you are incapable of presenting your argument without calling the op dishonest. When they are not. Well I have been doing some research away from this forum. And I think a lot of your posts are no more than smoke and mirrors. Imo ;D so I know you won't take it seriously.
The smoke and mirrors are all from Jeremy supporters.
The claims reader made are dishonest and absurd and I demonstrated how and why.
Reader distorted tremendously from start to finish.
Reader not only insists all police lied on this issue but that the deception started immediately with them deciding to keep Nevill's call a secret from the outset.
What evidence does reader have of a call? None at all.
What does reader use to dishonestly suggest there is evidence?
Reader claims that West would have written down what Jeremy said verbatim and would have read such verbatim to Bonnett and that Bonnett would have written such verbatim as well. Neither of them would have paraphrased or gotten any of the words different according to Reader. Thus Bonnett's log varying in certain words from West's log means that West recorded those exact words found on Bonnett's on a different log made to document a different call. West then read those precise words related to a different call to Bonnett wrote down those precise words. West's log from that call was subsequently destroyed though.
Then after Jeremy called West started a new log and contacted Bonnett again but Bonnett used the same log and didn't bother recording the things Jeremy said except that there were shotguns at WHF and instead of writing such in a single sentence he wrote 2 sentences that clearly don't flow together.
That is Readers idiotic argument and there is no other term for it besides idiotic. It is completely absurd. Only someone totally lacking in common sense and logic and who has the same biases and same dishonest failings that Reader is using to come up with this crap would argue it isn't absurd.
Reader lost this debate long ago and lost a lot of respect in the eyes of people who thought reader was reasonable.
-
I don't,and never have taken him seriously.
That means very little. That is like an insane person telling their doctor they refuse to take them seriously. You are too biased to be interested in the facts of this case so refuse to learn the facts and ignore the facts and evidence anytime people present the truth.
You are so irraitonal and hypocritical that you posted against Nevill making a call stating it made no sense for Nevill to call police and Jeremy. You all but stated it didn't happen. But after it was explained how much such a call woudl help Jeremy you stated you believed Nevill mad eit but presented nothing at all in terms of evidence to support it happening and no explanation of what changed your mid. No explanation how you could reconcile it not making sense for Nevill to call police and Jeremy.
WHo takes you serious on any issue? You are here basically for peopel to say they like your hair or you as a perosn when it scomes ot the substance of this case you have nothing at all to add and nothing that anyone at all is persuaded by because you know no facts and don't care about the facts.
-
You are ignoring what the logs state...
I'm aware of what they state. However, I don't know much about Pc West, so I don't assume that what he did is what I would do in a similar situation if I were a police officer. There is a log that states "One dead male and one dead female in kitchen." Somewhat inventive explanations of why that was logged have been put forward, but the straightforward explanation is that it was true. That would imply a considerable amount of subsequent wrong-doing by the police and others, which, whilst deplorable, isn't implausible in certain exceptional circumstances. Thus, I have to consider that EP may have chosen not to release documents that would expose such wrong-doing, hoping that what remains will be seen as "normal police work" that doesn't point towards a miscarriage of justice having occurred. Similarly, I have to consider the possibility that various people were told not to mention various facts in their statements and evidence, and that some statements may have been altered after being made. If you take this into account, it might be easier for you to understand that I'm not setting out to be dishonest, nor am I deliberately proposing anything absurd.
Your defense that Mike made it up not you helps not one bit.
I didn't say he "made it up". He compared the logs before I'd seen them and made comments about them (which I read) before posting copies of them. Though the logs don't prove that Nevill called the police, there are various differences between them that point in that direction when considered in isolation. I am therefore considering whether such a call is impossible or absurd, or is something that could have occurred and then been kept hidden by the police. I'm particularly cautious about drawing conclusions of absurdity that are based on statements produced in September 1985 or later.
You are intentionally choosing to interpret it wrongly.
As explained, my intention is not to interpret them wrongly, but to consider a particular interpretation originally proposed by MT.
It says the message above was passed to CD West from the son AFTER THE PHONE WENT DEAD.
It doesn't. You've inserted the word "above" that isn't in the log and significantly alters the meaning of the sentence. I'm not assuming that Bonnett was intent on writing fully-punctuated perfect English. As he wrote "message passed", not "A message was passed" or "The following message was passed", it is plausible that he was writing notes that reflected the order in which events were described to him. In that case, use of "." instead of ":" is minor mispunctuation, not proof that the second sentence wasn't the message referred to in the first sentence.
What he wrote was that the preceding message was passed by Jeremy
It wasn't. You have inserted the word "preceding", which suits your interpretation, but isn't necessarily what Bonnett meant. You explained why you think that "preceding" was meant, but your reasoning is not proof. You have declined to provide a plausible full conversation between Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett that is consistent with your point of view.
The message Jeremy passed was that Nevill said Sheila was going crazy and had a gun then the phone was disconnected.
The exact wording is not known, but Pc West's log suggests it was "Please come over. Your sister has gone gone crazy and has the gun." or very similar to that.
That is what Bonnett's log says.
Not quite. His log has various differences in the wording: "berserk" instead of "crazy", "daughter" instead of "your sister", "one of my guns" instead of "the gun", inserting "aged 26 yrs" and omitting "Please come over".
That leaves a gap of 10 minutes or so between when Nevill allegedly Jeremy and Nevill called the police.
Regarding the 10 minutes you have referred to, I am suggesting that Nevill may have called the police after hanging up on Jeremy. I'm not suggesting Nevill delayed for 10 minutes, but a short delay, with the handset off-hook, can't be ruled out.
On the other hand, I am suggesting that there was a period of around 6 to 14 minutes between when Jeremy received Nevill's call and when Jeremy called Pc West. In that period, Jeremy was probably (a) pausing briefly, (b) trying to ring Nevill back several times, (c) calling Julie, (d) speaking to Julie, (e) again pausing, uncertain how to proceed, (f) getting dressed, and (g) finding the number for Chelmsford police station. He may also have found the number for Witham police station and tried that number, but he didn't recall doing that when interviewed in September 1985. This scenario is, of course, not produced directly from Jeremy's first statement, which couldn't have been accurate about this period.
Because it would have taken Jeremy time to get dressed, lock his door, walk to his car and start it before he could even get on the road. The few minutes involved in getting out the door is long enough too kill any chance of your timetable being even remotely possible
Jeremy was probably already dressed, so around a minute would have sufficed for him to go out to his car. Regarding Jeremy's speed, MT drove the entire distance in 7 minutes 17 seconds. If the point where Jeremy was overtaken was a mile prior to WHF, as alleged by the police, MT took about 5 1/2 minutes to reach the point where Jeremy was overtaken. I think Jeremy would have taken a bit longer, as he had to leave his house, get into and start his car, etc. Hence I estimate 6 to 7 minutes for Jeremy, which is consistent with Jeremy's call to Pc West having ended at about 3:41am, just before 03:42, the time logged by Pc West for the WHF line-check. You say Jeremy told police he stopped after being overtaken to put on more clothing because he was cold. I haven't seen a police statement that confirms this, but if it's true, it explains why Jeremy took a minute or two longer to reach WHF than would otherwise be the case, which is consistent with the estimate given by the police that they waited near WHF for several minutes before Jeremy arrived.
-
That means very little. That is like an insane person telling their doctor they refuse to take them seriously. You are too biased to be interested in the facts of this case so refuse to learn the facts and ignore the facts and evidence anytime people present the truth.
You are so irraitonal and hypocritical that you posted against Nevill making a call stating it made no sense for Nevill to call police and Jeremy. You all but stated it didn't happen. But after it was explained how much such a call woudl help Jeremy you stated you believed Nevill mad eit but presented nothing at all in terms of evidence to support it happening and no explanation of what changed your mid. No explanation how you could reconcile it not making sense for Nevill to call police and Jeremy.
WHo takes you serious on any issue? You are here basically for peopel to say they like your hair or you as a perosn when it scomes ot the substance of this case you have nothing at all to add and nothing that anyone at all is persuaded by because you know no facts and don't care about the facts.
Blimey. All this gumph just because I happened to look at BOTH sides of the coin ::)
-
I'm aware of what they state. However, I don't know much about Pc West, so I don't assume that what he did is what I would do in a similar situation if I were a police officer. There is a log that states "One dead male and one dead female in kitchen." Somewhat inventive explanations of why that was logged have been put forward, but the straightforward explanation is that it was true.
You are ignoring what West and Bonnett's logs state and in fact thoroughly misrepresenting what they state. Far form being straightforward you are being thoroughly dishonest. You are making arguments that make no sense at all and can't be characterized as anything but sheer nonsense. The invetive stories are coming from you. Bonnett's log clearly states that the message was passed by Nevill to Jeremy and then Jeremy to PC West. You distort to pretend that he was just claiming Jeremy passed a message about shotguns. You distort to pretend that Jeremy didn't call police until 3:36AM and wa son the phone for just a couple of minutes to pretend that th epolice were dispatched prior to Jeremy calling even though West, Bonnett say they dispatched them as a result of Jeremy's call and the police who responded say they were told they were responding because of Jeremy's call.
Jeremy said he was put on hold and the acocunt of why from police was to contact Bonnett and arrange for police to go there. This alone disputes your nonsense. You are ignoring all evidence and just making things up.
Now you are changing the subject and going off about different logs. You are making more nonsense claims about those logs. It makes no difference AT ALL that someone far form the scene messed up and thought there were 2 bodies in the kitchen. We know for a fact that it is not true because the physical evidence proves that the 2 females in the house were in the master bedroom. The blood evidence, among other evidence proves they were killed in the bedroom and that there bodies were not moved somewhere else. You are ignoring that evidence and suggesting that one of their bodies was moved by police to the bedroom and this means police can't be trusted. Your games are for naught again all you are doing is demonstrating you are too biased to be honest and rational.
That would imply a considerable amount of subsequent wrong-doing by the police and others, which, whilst deplorable, isn't implausible in certain exceptional circumstances. Thus, I have to consider that EP may have chosen not to release documents that would expose such wrong-doing, hoping that what remains will be seen as "normal police work" that doesn't point towards a miscarriage of justice having occurred. Similarly, I have to consider the possibility that various people were told not to mention various facts in their statements and evidence, and that some statements may have been altered after being made. If you take this into account, it might be easier for you to understand that I'm not setting out to be dishonest, nor am I deliberately proposing anything absurd.
You are being dishonest. Far from the log that erroenously suggested 2 bodies in the kitchen being evidence of wrongdoing it is simply evidence of miscommunication between officers.
There is nothing at all that suggests Nevill made a call and it was covere dup the entire tale is an invention of yours simply. It makes no difference that Mike made up parts of it before you and that you changed it up it is an invention of yours not something supported by any evidence.
You ignore a vast amount of evidence tha tproves your claim fiction and even ignore common sense. Your claim that it saved time to ask Jeremy all the same things already obtained from Nevill is not only a lie but a very stupid lie. What would have saved time was to tell Jeremy they already received a call from Nevill, already dispatched police and to leave it at that. That owuld have been short and sweet. Instead yo0u dishonestly say it saved tome to hide from Jeremy that his father had called and to take down all the inforation form him and even put him on hold to pretend they were dispatching a car so he would think the car was dispatched because of his call. your claims are ludicrous. Your attempt to say you are on solid ground in suspecting they did such and were covering things up is a joke.
I didn't say he "made it up". He compared the logs before I'd seen them and made comments about them (which I read) before posting copies of them. Though the logs don't prove that Nevill called the police, there are various differences between them that point in that direction when considered in isolation.
This is another blatant lie. The differences between Bonnet's log and West's log don't point to a call having been made by Nevill.
You failed miserably in explaining how or why those differences point to Nevill calling police let alone demonstrating the difference suggest such.
1 log says 26 while another says 27 for Sheila's age. West is the one who told Bonnett Sheila's age. What does that mean? The universe of possiiblities are:
1) West wrote down a different age than he told Bonnett
2) West told Bonnett the same age he wrote down but Bonnett misunderstood and wrote a different age than West said.
Those are the only possiblities. How does either of these suggest Nevill called? I challenged you time and again to explain how either suggests a call by Nevill. You were unable to do so because neither does.
You made a GIANT LEAP to argue that the age difference suggests a call from Nevill. That giant leap is that there is another log out there by West which was destroyed. On that log he wrote age 26 and thus he told Bonnett age 26 and Bonnett wrote down age 26. You then make another GIANT LEAP and say that this log you have no proof exists means someone else called prior to Jeremy and tha tit had to be Nevill.
The same tortured logic is applied to other dminor differences between West's log and Bonnett's log.
In addition you ignore the plain language of Bonnett's log which says Jeremy passed the message about Sheila going crazy with a gun to West and say that such sentence doesn' refer to such though it clearly references the message being passed before the phone was disconnected. You intentionally distort Bonnett's log to pretend that he simply was saying that Jeremy passed a message about shotguns though that makes no sense at all and would have been written in a single sentence if that were the case.
You are not using logic you are distorting to the Nth degree to pretend the logs suggest a call from nevill to police when in fact they suggest nothing of the sort.
"differences between them that point in that direction when considered in isolation"
In isolation the differences suggest nothing of the sort. Indeed you are making up the notion there is an additional West log out there with age 26 wirtten on it and the precise language on Bonnett's log verbatim. That is not looking at them in isolation when you are pretending there is another log and that is required for your nonsense to have any support at all.
Looking in isolation doesn't support your claims at all and when looking at all available evidence not just in isolation it puts your nonsense speculation to bed completely.
I am therefore considering whether such a call is impossible or absurd, or is something that could have occurred and then been kept hidden by the police. I'm particularly cautious about drawing conclusions of absurdity that are based on statements produced in September 1985 or later.
Your claims are absurd simply based on logic and you are are intentionally lying to pretend you have logic on your side.
It is already stupid enough to claim Nevill would call Jeremy and then call police too. He would have just called the police. It is even worse to suggest that instead of calling 999 Nevill would look up the number of a station not even local to his town and thus end up speaking to West right after Jeremy did. But it is worst of all to suggest that West would decide that instead of making his life easy and telling Jeremy not to worry that his father already called and that police had already been dispatched that instead he decided to conceal that Nevill had phoned in case down the road police wanted to pretend Nevill's call never happened and use Jeremy's call to frame him and thus and thus he asked Jeremy for Nevill's name, address, phone number, Sheila's name and age and all the rest of the information already obtained so Jeremy would not realize Nevill had called. He also put Jeremy on hold and pretended he arranged to dispatch police so Jeremy would be unaware they dispatched police prior. This is just ludicrous. So ludicrous that someone who honestly believed such should seek psychiatric help. But you clearly don't believe this garbage you are jsut trying to sell this crap to us but the only people willing to buy it are people so desperate to pretend Jeremy didn't do it that they will accept anything favorable no matter how lacking in evidentiary support or logic.
As explained, my intention is not to interpret them wrongly, but to consider a particular interpretation originally proposed by MT.
While you claim such you are obviously lying. Your intention is indeed to distort and you have done so again and again and again.
It doesn't. You've inserted the word "above" that isn't in the log and significantly alters the meaning of the sentence. I'm not assuming that Bonnett was intent on writing fully-punctuated perfect English. As he wrote "message passed", not "A message was passed" or "The following message was passed", it is plausible that he was writing notes that reflected the order in which events were described to him. In that case, use of "." instead of ":" is minor mispunctuation, not proof that the second sentence wasn't the message referred to in the first sentence.
It wasn't. You have inserted the word "preceding", which suits your interpretation, but isn't necessarily what Bonnett meant. You explained why you think that "preceding" was meant, but your reasoning is not proof. You have declined to provide a plausible full conversation between Pc West and Malcolm Bonnett that is consistent with your point of view.
You are changing the meaning of Bonnett's words not me. You are adding things not me.
There is a full sentence that says message passed to CD by Mr Bamber's son after the phone was disconnected. What message was passed to the DD after the phone was disconnected? The message on the sheet of course.
If Bonnett meant to write that Bmaber's son passed a message that there was a shotgun collection at the farm he would have done so in a single sentence. You are the one twisting to pretend that bonnett's log says something it doesn't. Not only do you ignore the plain language Bonnett gave statements where he confrimed that is what the log means. The log contains a message Nevill supposedly passed to Jeremy that Jeremy then passed to West. You have dishonestly suggested that Bonnett didn't mean that though it is clear and dishonestly suggested Bonnett hasn't calrified that is what he meant when he wrote the log. You are just being thoroughly dishonest and doing so intentionally because you are so biased.
I have no need to detail the conversation between Bonnett and West so as to try to time it out, it serves no purpose for me to bother. I don't have to do it to establish your lies and nonsense as lies and nonsense I already did so.
Your dishonesty is not even a question at this point. You have no credibility whatsoever and like Mike I would not even trust you if you said the sky was blue. You are the only other person here who has earned such regard as a result of intentionally distorting beyond all reason.
The exact wording is not known, but Pc West's log suggests it was "Please come over. Your sister has gone gone crazy and has the gun." or very similar to that.
Not quite. His log has various differences in the wording: "berserk" instead of "crazy", "daughter" instead of "your sister", "one of my guns" instead of "the gun", inserting "aged 26 yrs" and omitting "Please come over".
All of which differences merely indicate either: 1) West used different words than he wrote down when he spoke to Bonnett and/or 2) Bonnett wrote down different words than West used. That is all the differences indicate. Mike's allegation is not supported by any evidence but suggests that Nevill called Bonnett directly. There is no West as a middleman in his scenario and that makes all the difference in the World. In his scenario the different language is because Bonnett wrote down a message from Nevill while West wrote down a message passed from Jeremy.
Your scenario is that Bonnett wrote down a message passed from West which is the truth. HOWEVER you make the GIANT LEAP that such message was passed to West from Nevill not from Jeremy. There is no way for Bonnett's log to indicate a message passed form Nevill to West except by stating: message passed to West from Nevill. It says the message was passed from Jeremy though and Bonnett and West insist the message was passed by Jeremy and all the evidence supports their claim.
You have nothing at all to dispute their claims, NOTHING. Your argument that the differences in wording proves there is another West log out there reflecting a call directly from Nevill is absurd nonsense.
Regarding the 10 minutes you have referred to, I am suggesting that Nevill may have called the police after hanging up on Jeremy. I'm not suggesting Nevill delayed for 10 minutes, but a short delay, with the handset off-hook, can't be ruled out.
Leaving the phone off the hook to wait a bit before phoning police is senseless and absurd liek all your suggestions. This snesless act is contrived to make Jeremy's claim he phoned back and the phone was busy plausible. The one inventing things and making up excuses out of bias is you not me. I don't have to twist anything just view all the evidence rationally.
On the other hand, I am suggesting that there was a period of around 6 to 14 minutes between when Jeremy received Nevill's call and when Jeremy called Pc West. In that period, Jeremy was probably (a) pausing briefly, (b) trying to ring Nevill back several times, (c) calling Julie, (d) speaking to Julie, (e) again pausing, uncertain how to proceed, (f) getting dressed, and (g) finding the number for Chelmsford police station. He may also have found the number for Witham police station and tried that number, but he didn't recall doing that when interviewed in September 1985. This scenario is, of course, not produced directly from Jeremy's first statement, which couldn't have been accurate about this period.
Jeremy was probably already dressed, so around a minute would have sufficed for him to go out to his car. Regarding Jeremy's speed, MT drove the entire distance in 7 minutes 17 seconds. If the point where Jeremy was overtaken was a mile prior to WHF, as alleged by the police, MT took about 5 1/2 minutes to reach the point where Jeremy was overtaken. I think Jeremy would have taken a bit longer, as he had to leave his house, get into and start his car, etc. Hence I estimate 6 to 7 minutes for Jeremy, which is consistent with Jeremy's call to Pc West having ended at about 3:41am, just before 03:42, the time logged by Pc West for the WHF line-check. You say Jeremy told police he stopped after being overtaken to put on more clothing because he was cold. I haven't seen a police statement that confirms this, but if it's true, it explains why Jeremy took a minute or two longer to reach WHF than would otherwise be the case, which is consistent with the estimate given by the police that they waited near WHF for several minutes before Jeremy arrived.
Jeremy said he tried to call his father but since th ephone was busy he looked up the police numbers and phoned police. That is what someone in his position would have done. Instead he called Julie as you admit and then lied about calling her before calling police. That right there says a great deal about his mindset. Far from being worried he was busy trying to get her to support his alibi of having received a call from Nevill. He had no reaosn to call her at all let alone before calling police. The evidence is tha the called her before the time he even claimed Nevill phoned him.
That is why you made up the BS about Nevill calling police because otherwise it is obvious no call was made to Jeremy and that Nevill was dead already by the time Jeremy claimed to have received a call. Jeremy's claims are he got dressed after calling police. You say he got dressed before to try to fit your timetable of him being able to phone police at 3:36 and still being able to be able to be passed by police at 3:45-3:38. That still doesn't work though, Jeremy could not have gotten off the phone at 3:42 an dmade it there to be passed no matter how bad you wish.
All you are doing is distorting trmendously to pretend Nevill called though all the evidence proves he was killed by Jeremy before Jeremy even claimed to receive a call. It is impossible Sheila killed everyone else without getting their blood and GSR oin her clothign and body, impossible she shot herself without getting GSR on her clothing and impossible she shot herself then after she was dead she moved her body flat, played with the bible then put the moderator away.
Your games are for naught they just demonstrate the lengths to which you will distort they don't help Jeremy at all.
-
Good luck Reader ;)
-
I'm sick of hearing " it doesn't/won't help Jeremy " ! Vilifying him won't,either !!
-
Did Nevill phone the police that night? I personally suspect not. What actually happened was not that Bamber was dishonest, but that years after his trial what he thought was another telephone report surfaced which indicated that an earlier telephone call was made to the police. He immediately was over the moon that at last he could prove that what he said about his father phoning him that night was true.
He lept at the chance and was eager to put through as new evidence in a new appeal. But his lawyers advised him that it would be unwise to do that and recommended that he should not base all his hopes on that one newly discovered telephone log. But he did not listen to them and put it forward anyway.
I do not believe that Bamber was lying. He genuinely thought that this was new evidence and that surely the CCRC would see it as such. But alas it was not to be.
-
Did Nevill phone the police that night? I personally suspect not. What actually happened was not that Bamber was dishonest, but that years after his trial what he thought was another telephone report surfaced which indicated that an earlier telephone call was made to the police. He immediately was over the moon that at last he could prove that what he said about his father phoning him that night was true.
He lept at the chance and was eager to put through as new evidence in a new appeal. But his lawyers advised him that it would be unwise to do that and recommended that he should not base all his hopes on that one newly discovered telephone log. But he did not listen to them and put it forward anyway.
I do not believe that Bamber was lying. He genuinely thought that this was new evidence and that surely the CCRC would see it as such. But alas it was not to be.
Actually I agree to a point BUT, the OS seem to be supporting the notion that Neville called even though it is at odds with what Jeremy initially said about the time he called the police and seem happy to now suggest he called at 03:36 just to fit in with the notion of a call by Neville. Also, The Daily Mail has reported that the log relating to 'Neville's call' was only recently discovered when in fact this was the log shown to the jury. This is certainly misleading!
-
Did Nevill phone the police that night? I personally suspect not. What actually happened was not that Bamber was dishonest, but that years after his trial what he thought was another telephone report surfaced which indicated that an earlier telephone call was made to the police. He immediately was over the moon that at last he could prove that what he said about his father phoning him that night was true.
He lept at the chance and was eager to put through as new evidence in a new appeal. But his lawyers advised him that it would be unwise to do that and recommended that he should not base all his hopes on that one newly discovered telephone log. But he did not listen to them and put it forward anyway.
I do not believe that Bamber was lying. He genuinely thought that this was new evidence and that surely the CCRC would see it as such. But alas it was not to be.
When you say Jeremy you really mean his advocates because I think they are the ones who suspected the transcript could be related to a call from Nevill to Bonnet.
I doubt Jeremy himself was going through documents and doubt he would even have thought of such because he knows Nevill called no one.
When you have such a suspicion you investigate but the investigation results in it in fact being a log of West's call to Bonnet describing Jeremy's call.
Since it fell apart on scrutiny was this allegation actually made to the CCRC? I have not seen any evidence that the argument was carried that far. It seems to me the campaign team ran with it and distorted by saying it deifnitely happend instead of they wonder if a call was made by Nevill.
-
When you say Jeremy you really mean his advocates because I think they are the ones who suspected the transcript could be related to a call from Nevill to Bonnet.
I doubt Jeremy himself was going through documents and doubt he would even have thought of such because he knows Nevill called no one.
When you have such a suspicion you investigate but the investigation results in it in fact being a log of West's call to Bonnet describing Jeremy's call.
Since it fell apart on scrutiny was this allegation actually made to the CCRC? I have not seen any evidence that the argument was carried that far. It seems to me the campaign team ran with it and distorted by saying it deifnitely happend instead of they wonder if a call was made by Nevill.
He was going through documents himself but I don't know who emphasised the notion that Neville called.
-
Actually I agree to a point BUT, the OS seem to be supporting the notion that Neville called even though it is at odds with what Jeremy initially said about the time he called the police and seem happy to now suggest he called at 03:36 just to fit in with the notion of a call by Neville. Also, The Daily Mail has reported that the log relating to 'Neville's call' was only recently discovered when in fact this was the log shown to the jury. This is certainly misleading!
That definitely is a misrepresentation that the trial lawyers did not know about both logs. There was no real argument to be made of a call from Nevill. That is why the trial lawyers didn't make the claim and Reader's suggesitons are actually worse. I can see how some could wonder whether the log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett if not read carefully. Saying it is a reflection that Neivll called West and then West called Bonnet is way out there.
-
He was going through documents himself but I don't know who emphasised the notion that Neville called.
I doubt it was him, usually advocates make up more crap than anyone, but he would clearly have a reason to distort and say it suggested such so it is not out of the realm of possibilities.
-
I doubt it was him, usually advocates make up more crap than anyone, but he would clearly have a reason to distort and say it suggested such so it is not out of the realm of possibilities.
Well, as we know, to fit in a call from Nevile - he has to change his original time scale and people either don't realise that or are happy to go along with it.
-
Your claims are absurd simply based on logic
So you think my claims are simply based on logic, yet they're absurd? That would contradict your assertion that I'm lying.
We know Pc West wrote "crazy". Why would he then say "berserk" to Bonnett? If he said "crazy" to Bonnett, why would Bonnett write down "berserk"? This difference, considered in isolation, points to the simpler explanation that Pc West wrote down and said "berserk", which Bonnett wrote down without alteration.
We know Pc West wrote down "age 27". Why would he then say "aged 26 yrs" to Bonnett? If he said "age 27" or "aged 27" or "aged 27 yrs" to Bonnett, why would Bonnett write down "aged 26 yrs"? Did Bonnett mishear "27" as "26", even though they sound quite different? This difference, considered in isolation, points to the simpler explanation that PC West wrote down and said "aged 26 yrs" or "age 26 yrs" (or similar), and Bonnett then wrote down "aged 26 yrs".
We know Pc West wrote down "has the gun". Why would he then say "has got hold of one of my guns" to Bonnett? If he said "has the gun", why would Bonnett write down "has got hold of one of my guns"? Bonnett wouldn't have known at that time whose gun it was. This difference, considered in isolation, points to the simpler explanation that Pc West wrote down "has got hold of one of my guns" and Bonnett then wrote that down.
We know Pc West wrote down 0336 as the time when he received Jeremy's call. Is he so bad at his job that he can't even log the time correctly? A simpler explanation is that this time was correct.
If Pc West made a separate log of a call from Nevill, would EP be happy to release that log to Jeremy or would they tell Pc West to keep quiet about it? Why did it later take a court order for EP to release many pages of police logging that they had previously denied the existence of?
Malcolm Bonnett's log was not made available on the internet until well after the 2002 appeal. As far as we know, it wasn't used at that appeal. That makes little sense if the defence were aware of it all along.
Despite stating that I'm lying and that what I'm considering is absurd and ridiculous, you've since stated "I can see how some could wonder whether the log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett".
-
So you think my claims are simply based on logic, yet they're absurd? That would contradict your assertion that I'm lying.
We know Pc West wrote "crazy". Why would he then say "berserk" to Bonnett? If he said "crazy" to Bonnett, why would Bonnett write down "berserk"? This difference, considered in isolation, points to the simpler explanation that Pc West wrote down and said "berserk", which Bonnett wrote down without alteration.
We know Pc West wrote down "age 27". Why would he then say "aged 26 yrs" to Bonnett? If he said "age 27" or "aged 27" or "aged 27 yrs" to Bonnett, why would Bonnett write down "aged 26 yrs"? Did Bonnett mishear "27" as "26", even though they sound quite different? This difference, considered in isolation, points to the simpler explanation that PC West wrote down and said "aged 26 yrs" or "age 26 yrs" (or similar), and Bonnett then wrote down "aged 26 yrs".
We know Pc West wrote down "has the gun". Why would he then say "has got hold of one of my guns" to Bonnett? If he said "has the gun", why would Bonnett write down "has got hold of one of my guns"? Bonnett wouldn't have known at that time whose gun it was. This difference, considered in isolation, points to the simpler explanation that Pc West wrote down "has got hold of one of my guns" and Bonnett then wrote that down.
We know Pc West wrote down 0336 as the time when he received Jeremy's call. Is he so bad at his job that he can't even log the time correctly? A simpler explanation is that this time was correct.
If Pc West made a separate log of a call from Nevill, would EP be happy to release that log to Jeremy or would they tell Pc West to keep quiet about it? Why did it later take a court order for EP to release many pages of police logging that they had previously denied the existence of?
Malcolm Bonnett's log was not made available on the internet until well after the 2002 appeal. As far as we know, it wasn't used at that appeal. That makes little sense if the defence were aware of it all along.
Despite stating that I'm lying and that what I'm considering is absurd and ridiculous, you've since stated "I can see how some could wonder whether the log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett".
I think what Scipio means is 'based on logic, your claims are absurd'
-
So you think my claims are simply based on logic, yet they're absurd? That would contradict your assertion that I'm lying.
I have pointed out how your claims are completely illogical. For instance how it is completely illogical to claim it would save time by not telling Jeremy that Nevill called and that police were already not on the way and instead asking Jeremy for all the same information that would already have been obtained from Nevill an dpplacing him on hold ot pretend they were dispatching police as a result of his call.
It is completely illogical to claim that after speaking to Nevill and finding out the most up to date account from Nevill the police would be very interested in taking down every little detail of Jeremy's older acocunt including details they already obtained from Nevill.
It is completely illogical for police to test Nevill's number to make sure it is busy like Jeremy claimed if Nevill had called police after calling Jeremy and thus police knew the phone had been used after.
It is completely illogical to claim that because West wrote down a different age for Sheila on his log than Bonnett wrote on his log that this suggests two different calls from two different people who gave West 2 different ages and that there is another log out there that West filled out that lists Sheila's age as 26 which notes Nevill as the caller.
I can continue but I think I sufficiently made my point.
We know Pc West wrote "crazy". Why would he then say "berserk" to Bonnett? If he said "crazy" to Bonnett, why would Bonnett write down "berserk"? This difference, considered in isolation, points to the simpler explanation that Pc West wrote down and said "berserk", which Bonnett wrote down without alteration.
This is a perfect example of how you are being completely and totally illogical.
Why would West use a synonym or Bonnett use a synonym? Easy, West was not likely reading verbati from his log but rather freely speaking and thus paraphrasing. It is also possible that Bonnett was paraphrasing because he didn't have time to write it down what he was told verbatim. These are the simple explanations and the explanations most likely.
Your explanation is neither simple nor likely it is pure fantasy.
Your explanation is that West fielded a call from Nevill and wrote down verbatim what was on Bonnett's log. He then contacted Bonnett and read such verbatim. Bonnett then wrote down such verbatim. West then fielded a call from Jeremy and wrote down another log- the log in question. West used Jeremy's call as an opportunity to hide Nevill's call and destroyed the log of Nevill's call and made no mention of such call in his notebook or anywhere else. Bonnett for his part helped cover it up by adding to his log that the quote was conveyed to West from Jeremy though it had been conveyed by Nevill and he also failed to note Nevill's call in his notebook or statements.
Far from being simple you made a grand conspiracy out of absolutely nothing. There is nothing at all suspicious about people paraphrasing and using different synonyms. I do it all the time and so do most people. Your conspiracy is unsupportable.
We know Pc West wrote down "age 27". Why would he then say "aged 26 yrs" to Bonnett? If he said "age 27" or "aged 27" or "aged 27 yrs" to Bonnett, why would Bonnett write down "aged 26 yrs"? Did Bonnett mishear "27" as "26", even though they sound quite different? This difference, considered in isolation, points to the simpler explanation that PC West wrote down and said "aged 26 yrs" or "age 26 yrs" (or similar), and Bonnett then wrote down "aged 26 yrs".
Once again your explanation is not the simpler explanation it is a completel illogical and not even remotely likely.
You ridiculously suggest that people can't make a mistake and write down something but say something different when recounting what they wrote. Peopel mispeak all the time even when giving speeches that they read off of something. People also misunderstand frequently when recording wha tothers tell them, make mistakes as they are writing because someone is speaking faster than they can write so they are trying to recall what was said moments earlier and they are behind or even accidentally write something wrong though they heard correctly. That is the simple answer and suggesting such is unlikely is ridiculous.
Your explanation is neither simple nor likely it is pure fantasy.
Your explanation is that West fielded a call from Nevill, Nevill made a mistake and said she was 26 though she was 28 and thus West wrote down age 26. West then notified Bonnett of Nevill's call and told him that he said Sheila was 26. West then fielded a call from Jeremy and though he already received Sheila's name and age form Nevill he asked Jeremy her name and age anyway. Jeremy told him 27 so he wrote this down on another log- the log in question. West used Jeremy's call as an opportunity to hide Nevill's call and destroyed the log of Nevill's call and made no mention of such call in his notebook or anywhere else. He didn't bother to tell Bonnett that Jeremy gave a different age so on Bonnett's it still listed 26. Bonnett helped cover up Nevill's call by adding to his log that the quote was conveyed to West from Jeremy though it had been conveyed by Nevill and he also failed to note Nevill's call in his notebook or statements.
That is simpler than one of them making a mistake? Far form it your explanation is not simple at all it is a ridiculously complicated conspiracy theorey supposerted by no evidence at all and completely lacking in logic.
We know Pc West wrote down "has the gun". Why would he then say "has got hold of one of my guns" to Bonnett? If he said "has the gun", why would Bonnett write down "has got hold of one of my guns"? Bonnett wouldn't have known at that time whose gun it was. This difference, considered in isolation, points to the simpler explanation that Pc West wrote down "has got hold of one of my guns" and Bonnett then wrote that down.
You are a broken record merely. Once again your explanation is not the more simple explanation it is convoluted conpiracy claim tha tis pure fantasy.
West easily could have chosen to say something different than he wrote down. He coudl have tried conveying to Bonnett what he thought Nevill would have conveyed to Jeremy. It is also possible that Bonnett chose to dres sit up. Either one is not only possible but most likely what happened. Your claim is not even remotely likely.
Far from being simple once again you come up with the compex ridiculous tale that West fielded a call from Nevill and wrote down verbatim what was on Bonnett's log. He then contacted Bonnett and read such verbatim. Bonnett then wrote down such verbatim. West then fielded a call from Jeremy and wrote down another log- the log in question. West used Jeremy's call as an opportunity to hide Nevill's call and destroyed the log of Nevill's call and made no mention of such call in his notebook or anywhere else. Bonnett for his part helped cover it up by adding to his log that the quote was conveyed to West from Jeremy though it had been conveyed by Nevill and he also failed to note Nevill's call in his notebook or statements.
Each time you claim this conspiracy nonsense is the more simple and the more likely explanation than West and/or Bonnett paraphrasing or making mistakes you insult our intelligence. This is the 3rd time in the same post you made such claim and it is not even remotely true.
We know Pc West wrote down 0336 as the time when he received Jeremy's call. Is he so bad at his job that he can't even log the time correctly? A simpler explanation is that this time was correct.
The simple explanation is that Bonnett wrote down the time that West called him whereas West wrote down the time at his call with Jeremy ended. West acknowledged that the time is not always written at the beginning. When something significant happens you want to record the most important details which is the substance the time is not nearly as important.
Your explanation is not simple it is a complex ridiculous conspiracy claim. Your claim is that after calling Jeremy Nevill hung up the phone and then immediately took it off the hook and left it off the hook as he looked up the phone number of a police station that was not his local station. Around 10 minutes passed and he hung the phone up to get a dialtone then dialed the station. West answered the call and filled out a log, then at 3:26 called Bonnett to report the call. Bonnett recorded the call as reaching him at 3:26. They then dispatched police telling them to go to WHF because Nevill called. As soon as the call with Nevill ended then Jeremy called the same exact station that Nevill did and gets the same dispatcher. Nevill records this call as being received at 3:36. West decides to use Jeremy's call as an opportunity to hide Nevill's call and destroyed the log of Nevill's call and made no mention of such call in his notebook or anywhere else. Bonnett for his part helped cover it up by adding to his log that the quote was conveyed to West from Jeremy though it had been conveyed by Nevill and he also failed to note Nevill's call in his notebook or statements. Bonnett forgot to alter the time of the call though and never wrote down the time of Jeremy's call on his. The police were contacted by radio and told not to mention to Jeremy that they were dispatched as a result of Nevill's call and told to pretend Nevill had never called and only report that they had been dispatched as a result of Jeremy's call.
Far from being a more simple explanation you have made up a wild fairytale and ignore that Jeremy calling so late doesn't fit any of the evidence at all including making it impossible for him to have been able to been passed by police.
If Pc West made a separate log of a call from Nevill, would EP be happy to release that log to Jeremy or would they tell Pc West to keep quiet about it? Why did it later take a court order for EP to release many pages of police logging that they had previously denied the existence of?
Malcolm Bonnett's log was not made available on the internet until well after the 2002 appeal. As far as we know, it wasn't used at that appeal. That makes little sense if the defence were aware of it all along.
The defense was aware of Bonnett's log it was used at trial. The defense was well aware the times on the logs did not match. West said he could have made a mistake about the time or may not have written the time at the beginning of the call.
Far from being hidden Bonnett's log offers no ability of the defense to claim what you are alleging you made up a load of nonsense that is not suggested at all by the logs.
Your whole argument hinges upon there being another log that was kept by West that was destroyed. Moroever your argument requires West to have colluded with Bonnett and the police responding to the scene to conceal Nevill's call. It requires West to have decided instantly to conceal it from Jeremy himself and to get the officers to also conceal it from Jeremy and to lie from that point forward. There is no reason at all for West to have decided to do that or for any police to agree to go along at that early point in time. It is completely absurd. They didn't even know if anyone had bene hurt at WHF at that point in time.
There is no evidence at all to support such wild accusations so how coudl the defense have alleged it to an appeal court?
Despite stating that I'm lying and that what I'm considering is absurd and ridiculous, you've since stated "I can see how some could wonder whether the log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett".
Yes I said that if someone failed to read it carefully and only read the quote attributed to Nevill they could get that impression BUT upon closer scrutiny it becomes readily apparent that the caller was PC West not Nevill and that the quote is allegedly what Nevill said to Jeremy. Moreover after looking a tall the available testimony it beocmes even more readily apparent. If someone is made aware of all such testimony and everything on the log is pointed out to them and they still maintin it proves a call from Nevill then at that point they can't claim they are just making an error but are actively lying.
Far from making that mistake you ridiculously suggest Bonnett's log reflects a call from Nevill to West though it does no such thing and the notebooks, statements and court testimony of these men and the police who they dispatched makes clear that is not the case.
Your fantasy tale is complete BS and everyone knows it. It is even worse than Mike's claims of it reflecting a call from Nevill to Bonnet. The only people who might not admit it are those Jeremy supporters who are so biased and desperate to pretend there is evidence of Jeremy's innocence they will likewise allege complete BS they know was made up.
-
When you say Jeremy you really mean his advocates because I think they are the ones who suspected the transcript could be related to a call from Nevill to Bonnet.
I doubt Jeremy himself was going through documents and doubt he would even have thought of such because he knows Nevill called no one.
When you have such a suspicion you investigate but the investigation results in it in fact being a log of West's call to Bonnet describing Jeremy's call.
Since it fell apart on scrutiny was this allegation actually made to the CCRC? I have not seen any evidence that the argument was carried that far. It seems to me the campaign team ran with it and distorted by saying it deifnitely happend instead of they wonder if a call was made by Nevill.
No I mean Bamber himself. He really did believe that he had discovered another telephone log that showed that his father phoned the police. I believed it for a while as there are cewrtain discrepancies. But after you worked out the timing I realised that it was very unlikely that Nevill did phone the police?
-
I'd put it down to an innocent mistake and not a straw that Jeremy was clutching tightly to as his proof.
It's very very difficult trying to convince the world and his dog that you're telling the truth and you have nothing and nobody to back you up.
I prefer to give the man the benefit of the doubt until this mess is sorted,and not jump in feet first as the EASIEST option !
-
I'd put it down to an innocent mistake and not a straw that Jeremy was clutching tightly to as his proof.
It's very very difficult trying to convince the world and his dog that you're telling the truth and you have nothing and nobody to back you up.
I prefer to give the man the benefit of the doubt until this mess is sorted,and not jump in feet first as the EASIEST option !
Correct. I believe that Bamber honestly thought that this new "previously hidden" log would have helped him and I think it totally unjust to say he lied about it.
-
Correct. I believe that Bamber honestly thought that this new "previously hidden" log would have helped him and I think it totally unjust to say he lied about it.
Bandwagon and jumping------two operative words on here. Looking for hidden agendas that AREN'T there,to justify why the man's guilty------pah ! Booooooring.
-
Bandwagon and jumping------two operative words on here. Looking for hidden agendas that AREN'T there,to justify why the man's guilty------pah ! Booooooring.
In fact it is quite interesting to watch as the original story has been twisted to make Bamber look evil at every turn. But the original story as I told it is quite simply a mistake made by a man who is desparate to prove his innocence.
-
In fact it is quite interesting to watch as the original story has been twisted to make Bamber look evil at every turn. But the original story as I told it is quite simply a mistake made by a man who is desparate to prove his innocence.
Exactly. You wouldn't know where to turn in such a desperate situation.I wonder how many times this has happened to some mothers' son. ? Anything that seemed the least bit of likely proof,you'd jump at,and this is what Jeremy has spent years doing,just sifting through everything to try and find even the tiniest clue that he's telling the truth. It's just awful.
-
In fact it is quite interesting to watch as the original story has been twisted to make Bamber look evil at every turn. But the original story as I told it is quite simply a mistake made by a man who is desparate to prove his innocence.
No one is trying to make Bamber look evil at all (although if guilty he is evil). This was initially brought up when I noticed that the log everyone assumed had been recently discovered (the log with Neville's details) was in fact the log shown to the jury and it was actually the log with Jeremy's details that was 'rediscovered'. For someone who claims to be open minded I'd have thought you would be interested in squashing myths and far from it being a 'simply mistake' - it was also incorrectly reported in daily newspapers (The Daily Mail being one of them). They were under the same illusion as the rest of us because that's the way the CT have made it sound. Jeremy supporters should be happy when myths are squashed because they do Jeremy no favours whatsoever.
-
No one is trying to make Bamber look evil at all (although if guilty he is evil). This was initially brought up when I noticed that the log everyone assumed had been recently discovered (the log with Neville's details) was in fact the log shown to the jury and it was actually the log with Jeremy's details that was 'rediscovered'. For someone who claims to be open minded I'd have thought you would be interested in squashing myths and far from it being a 'simply mistake' - it was also incorrectly reported in daily newspapers (The Daily Mail being one of them). They were under the same illusion as the rest of us because that's the way the CT have made it sound. Jeremy supporters should be happy when myths are squashed because they do Jeremy no favours whatsoever.
If you are honest and there's no reason to think you aren't you must be able to see how simple things and ordinary mistakes that are attributed to Bamber are always made to look evil acts of deceit by the guilters. I am surprised that you don't see it quite frankly?
-
If you are honest and there's no reason to think you aren't you must be able to see how simple things and ordinary mistakes that are attributed to Bamber are always made to look evil acts of deceit by the guilters. I am surprised that you don't see it quite frankly?
To be honest, I think some people are far too sensitive and take any criticism of Jeremy personally. You have made no comment on the fact that The Daily Mail (for one) were also under the wrong impression about which log the jury saw - rather you seem to be suggesting that the myth in respect to Neville's call shouldn't have been brought up because it reflects negatively on Jeremy. It actually reflects badly on his CT but Jeremy was willing to change the time of his call to police to fit in with the notion that Neville called. This doesn't mean he's guilty, but suggests desperation - which is understandable. However, such desperation does his plight no good because it's been made to fit into the wrong shaped hole
-
To be honest, I think some people are far too sensitive and take any criticism of Jeremy personally. You have made no comment on the fact that The Daily Mail (for one) were also under the wrong impression about which log the jury saw - rather you seem to be suggesting that the myth in respect to Neville's call shouldn't have been brought up because it reflects negatively on Jeremy. It actually reflects badly on his CT but Jeremy was willing to change the time of his call to police to fit in with the notion that Neville called. This doesn't mean he's guilty, but suggests desperation - which is understandable. However, such desperation does his plight no good because it's been made to fit into the wrong shaped hole
But all you have to do is read the posts of Adam to see how many use that mistake of Bamber's as an opportunity to vilify him rather than accepting it as a simple mistake. It has nothing to do with taking think personally. Although it does appear that making it personal is a fault rather of many of the guilters than the innocents? For it is at such times they abuse Bamber and his supporters in one breath.
-
But all you have to do is read the posts of Adam to see how many use that mistake of Bamber's as an opportunity to vilify him rather than accepting it as a simple mistake. It has nothing to do with taking think personally. Although it does appear that making it personal is a fault rather of many of the guilters than the innocents? For it is at such times they abuse Bamber and his supporters in one breath.
Don't think I've done any of that - in fact my experience has been quite the opposite but I maintain that it is important to highlight mistakes, myths and inaccuracies when spotted. They do no one any favours.
-
Don't think I've done any of that - in fact my experience has been quite the opposite but I maintain that it is important to highlight mistakes, myths and inaccuracies when spotted. They do no one any favours.
Yes but it is one thing to highlight mistakes, but quite another to turn those mistakes into an opportunity for abuse against that person. I'm talking about Bamber of course, although there are some on here that do not have the capacity to forget or forgive.
-
i can see why jeremy and his team would think there was a call considering what was writtan in the logs.
when a gun gets changed to my gun i could see why they would think nevile must of made a call.
-
Yes but it is one thing to highlight mistakes, but quite another to turn those mistakes into an opportunity for abuse against that person. I'm talking about Bamber of course, although there are some on here that do not have the capacity to forget or forgive.
I don't believe that particular behaviour to be the prerogative of one side over the other OR this case in particular. It's a tactic used across the board when people are passionate about "their" cause.
-
Yes but it is one thing to highlight mistakes, but quite another to turn those mistakes into an opportunity for abuse against that person. I'm talking about Bamber of course, although there are some on here that do not have the capacity to forget or forgive.
You've lost me now - I can only talk about myself and I don't abuse anyone. I have posted things I know, things I've worked out and things I believe may have happened - only to be met with a barrage of abuse, sarcasm and downright rudeness from people I didn't think would turn on me with such venom. However, they aren't people I know or have any real knowledge of so I'm not too concerned. People can agree, disagree or just be rude but it won't alter my opinion.
Personally, I have no feelings towards Bamber but I can understand those who believe he's guilty - not liking him very much, someone they believe killed 5 people including two little boys won't be making many people's Christmas card list.
-
i can see why jeremy and his team would think there was a call considering what was writtan in the logs.
when a gun gets changed to my gun i could see why they would think nevile must of made a call.
I think both Scipio and I have done all we can to highlight the implausibility of Neville's call - if people STILL wish to cling onto it, that's up to them. The jury saw the 'Neville' log and it has been explained but because most people think (incorrectly) that this log was only recently discovered - a whole conspiracy has been engineered around it. And no one from the CT have done anything to correct the myth - I find this dishonest at the worst and careless at the least.
-
You've lost me now - I can only talk about myself and I don't abuse anyone. I have posted things I know, things I've worked out and things I believe may have happened - only to be met with a barrage of abuse, sarcasm and downright rudeness from people I didn't think would turn on me with such venom. However, they aren't people I know or have any real knowledge of so I'm not too concerned. People can agree, disagree or just be rude but it won't alter my opinion.
Personally, I have no feelings towards Bamber but I can understand those who believe he's guilty - not liking him very much, someone they believe killed 5 people including two little boys won't be making many people's Christmas card list.
Actually I fear that you don't really know anything about being on the receiving end of abuse caroline. But having said that you have completely missed the point I was making, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally I don't know? I was not referring to you in my post by the way. So don't think that everything I say is directed at you.
-
I think both Scipio and I have done all we can to highlight the implausibility of Neville's call - if people STILL wish to cling onto it, that's up to them. The jury saw the 'Neville' log and it has been explained but because most people think (incorrectly) that this log was only recently discovered - a whole conspiracy has been engineered around it. And no one from the CT have done anything to correct the myth - I find this dishonest at the worst and careless at the least.
i said i can see why they thought it from the wording that doesnt mean it happend but i can see why they thought it did.
-
I'd rather dwell on the fact that exhibit 29 as told to the defence at the trial,was only a single page document,but as it turned out,it was in fact a 24 page summary of radio communications which EP refused to hand over. So in 2004,the matter was taken to the trial judge and the prosecution counsel asking if either had known of its existence. Neither had !
Once the defence looked at the 24 page document,they noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written,but also edited as well,and according to police witnesses,several messages that had been made,were left out.
However,when the defence asked for the original copies to be electronically tested,EP refused,and after a few more requests,they have still refused.
Can anyone give a reason why EP would refuse such a simple and straightforward request as an analysis ?
-
Actually I fear that you don't really know anything about being on the receiving end of abuse caroline. But having said that you have completely missed the point I was making, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally I don't know? I was not referring to you in my post by the way. So don't think that everything I say is directed at you.
Well, on that we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm really not sure (genuinely) what point you are trying to make and I didn't think you were referring to me. Perhaps it's best to just leave stuff in the past and move on.
-
Well, on that we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm really not sure (genuinely) what point you are trying to make and I didn't think you were referring to me. Perhaps it's best to just leave stuff in the past and move on.
As I said, things tend to repeat themselves. ::)
-
I'd rather dwell on the fact that exhibit 29 as told to the defence at the trial,was only a single page document,but as it turned out,it was in fact a 24 page summary of radio communications which EP refused to hand over. So in 2004,the matter was taken to the trial judge and the prosecution counsel asking if either had known of its existence. Neither had !
Once the defence looked at the 24 page document,they noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written,but also edited as well,and according to police witnesses,several messages that had been made,were left out.
However,when the defence asked for the original copies to be electronically tested,EP refused,and after a few more requests,they have still refused.
Can anyone give a reason why EP would refuse such a simple and straightforward request as an analysis ?
-
Well, on that we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm really not sure (genuinely) what point you are trying to make and I didn't think you were referring to me. Perhaps it's best to just leave stuff in the past and move on.
Simple I haven't left the thread at all I am talking about the supposed second telephone log that Bamber believed to indicate that Nevill made a call to police. I am making the point that it was a genuine mistake on his part. Do you not understand my words? I believe it was a genuine mistake on his part. But there are those who take the opportunity to make it look as if he was lying about it. That is all I am saying. Why do you think I am trying to accuse you of anything? The point I am making is simple enough to understand.
-
Clearly the 'No's' have it by a factor of 2:1. There was no telephone call from Nevill to the police or anyone else, pure fiction.
-
Simple I haven't left the thread at all I am talking about the supposed second telephone log that Bamber believed to indicate that Nevill made a call to police. I am making the point that it was a genuine mistake on his part. Do you not understand my words? I believe it was a genuine mistake on his part. But there are those who take the opportunity to make it look as if he was lying about it. That is all I am saying. Why do you think I am trying to accuse you of anything? The point I am making is simple enough to understand.
As Jeremy didn't pull that information out of the ether, but had it imparted to him quite late into his prison term, the "mistake" was never his anyway. I certainly don't recall that he ever said his father had told him he'd called the police and UNLESS he had, Jeremy wouldn't have had any way of knowing. IF such a call had occurred, I imagine that the police would have told him at the time, if only to stop him repeating information they already had.
-
the confusion is perfectly understandable if you look at the notes.
-
As Jeremy didn't pull that information out of the ether, but had it imparted to him quite late into his prison term, the "mistake" was never his anyway. I certainly don't recall that he ever said his father had told him he'd called the police and UNLESS he had, Jeremy wouldn't have had any way of knowing. IF such a call had occurred, I imagine that the police would have told him at the time, if only to stop him repeating information they already had.
That is correct. Bamber never mentioned it in his statement or in court. He didn't know about "another telephone log". As you rightly observe, the information was imparted to him long into his prison term. The mistake was not his as you correctly have stated, but the police make errors in the passing on of the logs from one person to another. The police must receive criticism for that.
But the mistake Bamber made was to immediately grab it as proof that his father had phoned the police.
The point that I am emphasising is that his was aq genuine mistake and the indication that it was a genuine mistake on his part is the very fact that it is still a controversial subject to this day and indeed is the subject of this very thread.
It is controversial because of the ambiguous nature of the wording and the wording is ambiguous otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it now.
Therefore Bamber was genuinly mistaken about it indicating a phone call from his father to the police. In other words it was not his intention to mislead anyone about it. Indeed it was he who was misled.
-
I'd rather dwell on the fact that exhibit 29 as told to the defence at the trial,was only a single page document,but as it turned out,it was in fact a 24 page summary of radio communications which EP refused to hand over. So in 2004,the matter was taken to the trial judge and the prosecution counsel asking if either had known of its existence. Neither had !
Once the defence looked at the 24 page document,they noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written,but also edited as well,and according to police witnesses,several messages that had been made,were left out.
However,when the defence asked for the original copies to be electronically tested,EP refused,and after a few more requests,they have still refused.
Can anyone give a reason why EP would refuse such a simple and straightforward request as an analysis ?
Nobody knew about this either.
-
Simple I haven't left the thread at all I am talking about the supposed second telephone log that Bamber believed to indicate that Nevill made a call to police. I am making the point that it was a genuine mistake on his part. Do you not understand my words? I believe it was a genuine mistake on his part. But there are those who take the opportunity to make it look as if he was lying about it. That is all I am saying. Why do you think I am trying to accuse you of anything? The point I am making is simple enough to understand.
So am I Grahame but what you're failing to understand is, that log was shown to the jury, Bamber already knew about it - I don't think it's a genuine mistake at all. How can it be if he already knew about it?
-
Before there is anymore confusion - this is the log that the jury saw
-
That is correct. Bamber never mentioned it in his statement or in court. He didn't know about "another telephone log". As you rightly observe, the information was imparted to him long into his prison term. The mistake was not his as you correctly have stated, but the police make errors in the passing on of the logs from one person to another. The police must receive criticism for that.
But the mistake Bamber made was to immediately grab it as proof that his father had phoned the police.
The point that I am emphasising is that his was aq genuine mistake and the indication that it was a genuine mistake on his part is the very fact that it is still a controversial subject to this day and indeed is the subject of this very thread.
It is controversial because of the ambiguous nature of the wording and the wording is ambiguous otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it now.
Therefore Bamber was genuinly mistaken about it indicating a phone call from his father to the police. In other words it was not his intention to mislead anyone about it. Indeed it was he who was misled.
So now we must imagine that if WE are the convicted person who is in prison and someone hands US information that could throw doubt on our conviction, wouldn't we grab the information with both hands and run with it? Of COURSE we would. Would it make any difference if we were innocent and wrongly convicted or guilty but pleading an MOJ? I suspect it wouldn't.
-
So now we must imagine that if WE are the convicted person who is in prison and someone hands US information that could throw doubt on our conviction, wouldn't we grab the information with both hands and run with it? Of COURSE we would. Would it make any difference if we were innocent and wrongly convicted or guilty but pleading an MOJ? I suspect it wouldn't.
I agree April, if JB saw it as a chance guilty or innocent it would surely be worth a shot imo. It doesn't prove anything, either way.
-
april quite right when Jeremy Bamber received this infomation he would cease on it with both hands thinking it may help prove his innocence but then again if he is guilty he would know that a call did not exist if you get my meaning. Am I picking you up right on this point or not.
-
I agree April, if JB saw it as a chance guilty or innocent it would surely be worth a shot imo. It doesn't prove anything, either way.
The point is that people are under an illusion that it was the Neville log that was recently rediscovered but it wasn't, it was the one written by West with Jeremy's details. However, the CT have done nothing to stop this incorrect assumption and news papers like the Daily Mail have repeated the mistake. It's important because when you think it was the Neville log that was discovered in a file, it makes the whole thing sound more conspiratorial when in fact, this is just another myth.
-
I agree April, if JB saw it as a chance guilty or innocent it would surely be worth a shot imo. It doesn't prove anything, either way.
Thank you Maggie. That was the exact point I was trying to make. The second log was discovered and he mistakenly thought that it indicated that his father phoned the police. He wasn't being dishonest. But my point I feel has not been understood? In other words Bamber honestly thought he was in with a chance with new evidence and was not deliberately trying to mislead people. In fact his legal team advised him not to use it, but he didn't listen. That unfortunately is what he does. He seems to dig holes for himself and doesn't listen very well to advice given by others who have better knowledge of legal matters than he.
-
The point is that people are under an illusion that it was the Neville log that was recently rediscovered but it wasn't, it was the one written by West with Jeremy's details. However, the CT have done nothing to stop this incorrect assumption and news papers like the Daily Mail have repeated the mistake. It's important because when you think it was the Neville log that was discovered in a file, it makes the whole thing sound more conspiratorial when in fact, this is just another myth.
Unfortunately for Bamber the CT can be criticised for such innacurate information.
-
Mr. Gee he was being dishonest if he is guilty but guess he is the only one who can answer that so I will not judge him.
-
april quite right when Jeremy Bamber received this infomation he would cease on it with both hands thinking it may help prove his innocence but then again if he is guilty he would know that a call did not exist if you get my meaning. Am I picking you up right on this point or not.
I guess that's more or less IT, Susan. I don't think Jeremy did ANYTHING that, under his circumstances, WE wouldn't have done either. His innocence/guilt, only HE knows 100% -and is an entirely separate issue- so it had to be worth a shot.
-
The point is that people are under an illusion that it was the Neville log that was recently rediscovered but it wasn't, it was the one written by West with Jeremy's details. However, the CT have done nothing to stop this incorrect assumption and news papers like the Daily Mail have repeated the mistake. It's important because when you think it was the Neville log that was discovered in a file, it makes the whole thing sound more conspiratorial when in fact, this is just another myth.
Yes I understand all of that, however I was agreeing with April that if this was offered for Jeremy Bamber to make use of he would have done whether guilty or innocent imo which renders it useless as a debating point.
I accept your point about the CT misleading but not convinced JB has much control of what is posted on there.
-
Mr. Gee he was being dishonest if he is guilty but guess he is the only one who can answer that so I will not judge him.
What you say is of course blatently obvious. But the point I was making is that his reaction to the finding of the second log is an indication that he was being honest. And unfortunately there are those who will judge him dishonest because of it.
-
Thank you Maggie. That was the exact point I was trying to make. The second log was discovered and he mistakenly thought that it indicated that his father phoned the police. He wasn't being dishonest. But my point I feel has not been understood? In other words Bamber honestly thought he was in with a chance with new evidence and was not deliberately trying to mislead people. In fact his legal team advised him not to use it, but he didn't listen. That unfortunately is what he does. He seems to dig holes for himself and doesn't listen very well to advice given by others who have better knowledge of legal matters than he.
However, if the whole story about his father's call to him is fictitious he would have known there was no call made to the police -other than his own- but innocent or guilty it was still worth a shot.
-
Yes I understand all of that, however I was agreeing with April that if this was offered for Jeremy Bamber to make use of he would have done whether guilty or innocent imo which renders it useless as a debating point.
I accept your point about the CT misleading but not convinced JB has much control of what is posted on there.
Given that some people still believe the call happened and that it is made much of on the OS, I think it is very much worthy of debate.
-
april I agree with points made on the forum on this subject BUT if he is guilty he could not turn round and say oh that cannot be true I know because I shot him this is just an opinion and in no way am I saying it is the right one just my one :'( he would have to go with the find.
-
Given that some people still believe the call happened and that it is made much of on the OS, I think it is very much worthy of debate.
I am not saying it isn't worthy of debate, I am saying it will never prove JBs guilt or innocence. I agree there are issues within the whole question which are worthy of debate.
-
What you say is of course blatently obvious. But the point I was making is that his reaction to the finding of the second log is an indication that he was being honest. And unfortunately there are those who will judge him dishonest because of it.
What Caroline is saying (I think :-\ ), is that the log wasn't recently found. It was referred to in court, listed as an exhibit and received a sticker identifying it as an exhibit.
The dishonesty is not in it's misinterpretation, but in claiming that it was only recently available. The fact that it has always been available, suggests that the misinterpretation isn't genuine.
Nevertheless, whether a person believes that there was an intent to be dishonest or not, it's quite clear that the Campaign Team are continuing to present erroneous misleading information. I'd be quite surprised if anybody didn't believe that to be the case.
Log with exhibit label:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5582.0;attach=37063;image)
List of exhibit labels (see 29).
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2227.0;attach=23971;image)
-
Given that some people still believe the call happened and that it is made much of on the OS, I think it is very much worthy of debate.
I absolutely agree, Caroline. I've said repeatedly that some things apply whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent and this is one of those. Either way, I feel certain he'd rather be out of prison if there's the slightest chance of it.
-
I am not saying it isn't worthy of debate, I am saying it will never prove JBs guilt or innocence. I agree there are issues within the whole question which are worthy of debate.
Actually the only thing from the 'known' evidence that would prove his innocence is if he could prove either Neville called him or Neville called the police because it means Neville was alive around the time that Jeremy called the police from another location.
-
Thank you Maggie. That was the exact point I was trying to make. The second log was discovered and he mistakenly thought that it indicated that his father phoned the police. He wasn't being dishonest. But my point I feel has not been understood? In other words Bamber honestly thought he was in with a chance with new evidence and was not deliberately trying to mislead people. In fact his legal team advised him not to use it, but he didn't listen. That unfortunately is what he does. He seems to dig holes for himself and doesn't listen very well to advice given by others who have better knowledge of legal matters than he.
It's called being impetuous,Mr G,and we've all been that at sometime in our lives. Nothing sinister was going through his mind at all. It's not his fault. Must be like looking for a needle in a haystack for the tiniest clue that he can find,hence his long-standing patience in searching and wracking his brain. I fully admire his determination and his need to seek the truth.
-
What Caroline is saying (I think :-\ ), is that the log wasn't recently found. It was referred to in court, listed as an exhibit and received a sticker identifying it as an exhibit.
The dishonesty is not in it's misinterpretation, but in claiming that it was only recently available. The fact that it has always been available, suggests that the misinterpretation isn't genuine.
Nevertheless, whether a person believes that there was an intent to be dishonest or not, it's quite clear that the Campaign Team are continuing to present erroneous misleading information. I'd be quite surprised if anybody didn't believe that to be the case.
Log with exhibit label:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5582.0;attach=37063;image)
List of exhibit labels (see 29).
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2227.0;attach=23971;image)
Got it in one! ;)
-
Got it in one! ;)
HOW many? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Actually the only thing from the 'known' evidence that would prove his innocence is if he could prove either Neville called him or Neville called the police because it means Neville was alive around the time that Jeremy called the police from another location.
I do agree Caroline.
-
Got it in one! ;)
As did I.
-
It makes no difference AT ALL that someone far from the scene messed up and thought there were 2 bodies in the kitchen.
The only other explanation put forward for the log referring to a female (prior to when the police investigated the main bedroom) is that Nevill's body was mistaken for that of a female. As Nevill was wearing a man's pyjama jacket, how could he have been positioned for it to be possible that he was mistaken for a female? As the kitchen light was on, the area in front of the Aga would have been clearly visible. The logged times indicate that raid team officers entered the kitchen just minutes after the raid started. No mention is made of any of them immediately realizing or being told that what was expected to be a female was in fact a male.
-
depends on the light i suppose it really depends what view they had of him.
from a distasnce you can mistake a mans pjama top for a womans.
-
nugnug I have read that because of the position Ralph was sat in the his hair made them think he was a female it fell forward and appeared to be long.
-
The only other explanation put forward for the log referring to a female (prior to when the police investigated the main bedroom) is that Nevill's body was mistaken for that of a female. As Nevill was wearing a man's pyjama jacket, how could he have been positioned for it to be possible that he was mistaken for a female? As the kitchen light was on, the area in front of the Aga would have been clearly visible. The logged times indicate that raid team officers entered the kitchen just minutes after the raid started. No mention is made of any of them immediately realizing or being told that what was expected to be a female was in fact a male.
So women don't wear PJ's? ???
-
We are told that Pc Collins went up to the kitchen window and looked in, so the whole interior of the kitchen was nearby. Various officers stated that the kitchen light was on, so visibility would have been very good.
-
dont forget they had all been up all night.
-
We are told that Pc Collins went up to the kitchen window and looked in, so the whole interior of the kitchen was nearby. Various officers stated that the kitchen light was on, so visibility would have been very good.
Should have gone to Spec Savers perhaps? Other opticians provide a similar service :)
-
For whatever reason, he mistook Neville's body for that of a female. I can quite easily see how a quick glance in the kitchen, before ducking back behind cover, he could have come to the conclusion that he did, with Neville being in an awkward position with his head and relatively long hair dangling down.
This is a link to the only picture we have of Neville, it's black and white so not as gruesome as some pictures, it's up to you if you want to see it.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4326;image (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4326;image)
Collins appears to be quite clear in what he saw and reported.
-
We are told that Pc Collins went up to the kitchen window and looked in, so the whole interior of the kitchen was nearby. Various officers stated that the kitchen light was on, so visibility would have been very good.
That's an assumption. You have no idea what could or couldn't be seen. Unless you're able to look though the same window under the same conditions, you're unable to prove what would or wouldn't be visible.
-
depends on the light i suppose it really depends what view they had of him.
from a distasnce you can mistake a mans pjama top for a womans.
This is a continual problem invthis case, isn't it nugs. As we weren't there we really cannot tell how much of poor Nevill was visible, we know the kitchen light was definitely on, we know he was wearing pyjamas with the bottoms pulled down but have no idea what was visible and how long Nevill's hair was at that time. Nevill was a big guy with broad shoulders you would wonder if the whole of him was seen and not hidden by the inset by the door you would maybe wonder how he could be mistaken as definitely a woman I would have thought if there was any doubt he would have been described as a perso, sex unclear, or words to that effect?
-
For whatever reason, he mistook Neville's body for that of a female. I can quite easily see how a quick glance in the kitchen, before ducking back behind cover, he could have come to the conclusion that he did, with Neville being in an awkward position with his head and relatively long hair dangling down.
This is a link to the only picture we have of Neville, it's black and white so not as gruesome as some pictures, it's up to you if you want to see it.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4326;image (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4326;image)
Collins appears to be quite clear in what he saw and reported.
Seems pretty clear to me.
-
For whatever reason, he mistook Neville's body for that of a female. I can quite easily see how a quick glance in the kitchen, before ducking back behind cover, he could have come to the conclusion that he did, with Neville being in an awkward position with his head and relatively long hair dangling down.
This is a link to the only picture we have of Neville, it's black and white so not as gruesome as some pictures, it's up to you if you want to see it.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4326;image (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4326;image)
Collins appears to be quite clear in what he saw and reported.
I can see how it may have been difficult to be sure even with a full view but reiterate can't see why he was definitely identified as a woman.
-
Caroline as clear as mud to me think a visit to spec savers is called for ;D
-
Caroline absolutely right we are all just guessing really.
-
I can see how it may have been difficult to be sure even with a full view but reiterate can't see why he was definitely identified as a woman.
Why have you used the word 'definitely'?
He said and I quote: "I first thought and reported that this was the body of a female person".
-
all it really says to me is they saw the back of his head and not his face.
if his hair looked a bit on the long side they may well of thought he was a woman.
-
all it really says to me is they saw the back of his head and not his face.
if his hair looked a bit on the long side they may well of thought he was a woman.
Did you look at the picture that I provided a link to above?
-
For whatever reason, he mistook Neville's body for that of a female. I can quite easily see how a quick glance in the kitchen, before ducking back behind cover, he could have come to the conclusion that he did, with Neville being in an awkward position with his head and relatively long hair dangling down.
This is a link to the only picture we have of Neville, it's black and white so not as gruesome as some pictures, it's up to you if you want to see it.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4326;image (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4326;image)
Collins appears to be quite clear in what he saw and reported.
In seeking (further) clarification of the above we can ascertain that he saw A body -not 2- which he FIRST mistook to be female, but later -as he said in his original statement- discovered it was the body of an adult male, ie, Neville Bamber. Seems clear enough to me.
-
Did you look at the picture that I provided a link to above?
yes i cant really make out anything from that picure.
-
I'll post it, I don't think people will find it so bad. :-\
You can see the dishwasher, the window is just out of shot to the left, above the kitchen sink.
I think from the view that Collins had, it's very simple to understand why he mistook the body for that of a female.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4326;image)
-
However, if the whole story about his father's call to him is fictitious he would have known there was no call made to the police -other than his own- but innocent or guilty it was still worth a shot.
I think thegoverning word there is "IF".
-
In seeking (further) clarification of the above we can ascertain that he saw A body -not 2- which he FIRST mistook to be female, but later -as he said in his original statement- discovered it was the body of an adult male, ie, Neville Bamber. Seems clear enough to me.
Yes a single body, the same body.
-
I'll post it, I don't think people will find it so bad. :-\
You can see the dishwasher, the window is just out of shot to the left, above the kitchen sink.
I think from the view that Collins had, it's very simple to understand why he mistook the body for that of a female.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4326;image)
Given that all that's visible is a back view and long crown hair which has fallen forward over the face, a first and distant impression COULD have been that the body was female.
-
I think thegoverning word there is "IF".
IF is only a governing word IF you believe it happened.
-
Given that all that's visible is a back view and long crown hair which has fallen forward over the face, a first and distant impression COULD have been that the body was female.
Not only COULD, but according to Collins, it in fact WAS. ;)
-
I have see this photograph, not just the photocopy shown here. Without going into details there is far more visible. I accept that a brief glimpse of the view from the rear might have led to the mistaken conclusion that the body was that of a women, but that is far less likely than might appear from this poor quality photocopy.
This remains an aspect of the case which troubles me.
-
I have see this photograph, not just the photocopy shown here. Without going into details there is far more visible. I accept that a brief glimpse of the view from the rear might have led to the mistaken conclusion that the body was that of a women, but that is far less likely than might appear from this poor quality photocopy.
This remains an aspect of the case which troubles me.
The trouble with that NGB, is that the alternative is preposterous.
I also am aware of somebody else who has seen the original, and their view was that it is even MORE apparent that not only could a person misidentify the gender of the body, they deemed it likely that a person WOULD misidentify the gender from that view.
I guess that's the fun of opinions. :-\
-
thats of course if he did miss indentify the body and mistanly write female instead of male in his notes.
-
Why have you used the word 'definitely'?
He said and I quote: "I first thought and reported that this was the body of a female person".
Well he originally stated it was a woman so understand at that point he believed the body was definitely a woman, not may be a woman, not sure etc. In hindsight he admits he did believe she was a woman although now he knows, believes whatever the body was that of a man. ?????
-
Well he originally stated it was a woman so understand at that point he believed the body was definitely a woman, not may be a woman, not sure etc. In hindsight he admits he did believe she was a woman although now he knows, believes whatever the body was that of a man. ?????
It's splitting hairs, but no. He 'thought' it was a female body and reported it.
The fact that he was mistaken and it turned out to be that of a male is irrelevant.
-
It's splitting hairs, but no. He 'thought' it was a female body and reported it.
The fact that he was mistaken and it turned out to be that of a male is irrelevant.
Its not just splitting hairs harters he STATED it was a female body what he 'thought' at that point was irrelevant.
-
Its not just splitting hairs harters he STATED it was a female body what he 'thought' at that point was irrelevant.
No he DIDN'T!
He stated that he: "I first thought and reported that this was the body of a female person"
At no point, does he ever say that he was certain or definite. 'But' even if he had, thirty seconds later he found out that he was mistaken.
As I said, it is splitting hairs.
-
I can go with the mix up re: female body and even the further 3 bodies found upstairs - just. However,I have never seen a plausible explanation for the male and female found in kitchen described as a murder AND a suicide. How could Nevill's lone body possibly be described as both?
-
No he DIDN'T!
He stated that he: "I first thought and reported that this was the body of a female person"
At no point, does he ever say that he was certain or definite. 'But' even if he had, thirty seconds later he found out that he was mistaken.
As I said, it is splitting hairs.
Goodness harters so he didnt use that word, I simply cant be bothered with this any more.
-
If you are honest and there's no reason to think you aren't you must be able to see how simple things and ordinary mistakes that are attributed to Bamber are always made to look evil acts of deceit by the guilters. I am surprised that you don't see it quite frankly?
What honest mistakes?
How can it just be an honest mistake that he remembered things that never happened?
It was an honest mistake he originally told police he had trained Sheila how to use the murder weapon and that she had fired all weapons in the house though he later admitted this had not happened?
It was an honest mistake that he told police he called Julie after police though he clearly left after hanging up with police?
It was an honest mistake that he told police he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders but later change dhis story to he and Nevill repeatedly using the gun the week before the murders so as to prevent AP from being the last known user?
It was an honest mistake there were too many bullets remaining in the kitchen for such supply to have been the sole source of ammunition used in the murders if his claims were true?
It was an honest mistake that he told police the gun could not fit in the closet with the scope and moderator attached though it could?
It was an honest mistake to say he relaced the phone in the kitchen with the bedroom phone because the kitchen phone borke when in fact the kitchen phone worked fine?
These are the things raised to show he was being dishonest.
Things where honest mistakes could have been made were not raised such as the conflicting story of whether he claimed to have fired the gun. Some police and relatives say he told them he fired the gun while others say he clamied he didn't. While it is possible he told them initially he fired and then changed his story it is also possible that they assumed used meant fired and that he was never intending to claim it was fired. So he is given a pass for such and similar like things where genine errors could account for the discrepancies.
-
Goodness harters so he didnt use that word, I simply cant be bothered with this any more.
So why are you arguing then? ???
-
I can go with the mix up re: female body and even the further 3 bodies found upstairs - just. However,I have never seen a plausible explanation for the male and female found in kitchen described as a murder AND a suicide. How could Nevill's lone body possibly be described as both?
I have mistaken living men for women and women for men. Perhaps even worse I have mistaken rather ugly women as being men in drag. Some people are easy to mistake. When you see a face up close you can usually tell whether you were right or wrong.
In this case the face could not be seen even from a distance so that makes it far easier to mistake Nevill for a woman.
What people keep ignoring is that he logs were not written by someone on the scene. The logs were written by people far from the scene who can misinterpret what they hear. Worse yet they were being fed information from people who were not eyewitnesses and who theselves could have been misconstrued things. That is why courts want testimony from eyewitnesses instead of second or thirdhard accounts of what such eyewitnesses saw.
There are no eyewitnesses who saw more than 1 body in the kitchen. The person who looked in the window only saw 1 body, the one that ultimately ended up being Nevill. Likewise every cop who entered only saw 1 body in the kitchen. That's more than a dozen people. That alone is enough to demonstrate the log entry was definitely a mistake.
But the physical evidence says that as well. The physical evidence is that Sheila and June died in the master bedroom. Blood evidence as well as shell casings demonstrate that. There is no evidence to suggest either were dragged by the killer to the kitchen then dragged back to their orignal death location by police.
-
What honest mistakes?
How can it just be an honest mistake that he remembered things that never happened?
It was an honest mistake he originally told police he had trained Sheila how to use the murder weapon and that she had fired all weapons in the house though he later admitted this had not happened?
It was an honest mistake that he told police he called Julie after police though he clearly left after hanging up with police?
It was an honest mistake that he told police he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders but later change dhis story to he and Nevill repeatedly using the gun the week before the murders so as to prevent AP from being the last known user?
It was an honest mistake there were too many bullets remaining in the kitchen for such supply to have been the sole source of ammunition used in the murders if his claims were true?
It was an honest mistake that he told police the gun could not fit in the closet with the scope and moderator attached though it could?
It was an honest mistake to say he relaced the phone in the kitchen with the bedroom phone because the kitchen phone borke when in fact the kitchen phone worked fine?
These are the things raised to show he was being dishonest.
Things where honest mistakes could have been made were not raised such as the conflicting story of whether he claimed to have fired the gun. Some police and relatives say he told them he fired the gun while others say he clamied he didn't. While it is possible he told them initially he fired and then changed his story it is also possible that they assumed used meant fired and that he was never intending to claim it was fired. So he is given a pass for such and similar like things where genine errors could account for the discrepancies.
If guilty is is neither honest nor a mistake because Neville couldn't have called if he'd just killed him.
-
. . . but later - as he said in his original statement - discovered it was the body of an adult male
On the day in question, Collins did something that was significant at the time: he went up to the kitchen window, looked in and saw what he reported to be the body of a female. In his statement dated that same day, he stated "the following lights were switched on. kitchen with no curtains at window," and so visibility would have been good. The window probably shows very little of the area immediately next to the door, but that area has a chair in it in the photograph, Nevill's body being near the Aga, where most of it could be seen. If Pc Collins saw the male body that he had just previously identified as female, it's very strange that his statement of the same day makes no mention of the sighting through the window, no mention of reporting a female body, and no mention of any surpise on discovering a male body. It merely gives "We forced an entry into the house via this door and moved into the kitchen where we saw behind the door near to the fire the body of a male person aged about sixty years". How could he simply forget to mention that he'd reported seeing a female just minutes before that? He must have deliberately omitted that information.
-
If guilty is is neither honest nor a mistake because Neville couldn't have called if he'd just killed him.
Which I guess is why Jeremy is the ONLY one to know for certain sure if the police received a call from Neville.
-
Jeremy couldn't know for certain that Nevill called the police, and if Nevill did call the police, the person who received his call would also know, so Jeremy couldn't possibly be the only person to know.
-
Simple I haven't left the thread at all I am talking about the supposed second telephone log that Bamber believed to indicate that Nevill made a call to police. I am making the point that it was a genuine mistake on his part. Do you not understand my words? I believe it was a genuine mistake on his part. But there are those who take the opportunity to make it look as if he was lying about it. That is all I am saying. Why do you think I am trying to accuse you of anything? The point I am making is simple enough to understand.
In order for it to be a genuine mistake on Jeremy's part he would have to have received a call from Nevill and be innocent.
Otherwise it is impossible to be a mistake and instead to be an intentional lie he made up thinking tha the coudl pull one over on peopel and make them think Nevill phoned police.
It could only be a genuine mistake for Jeremy advocates though tha trequires the to read it very quickly and miss that it states the message came from PC West and that it was passed to him from Jeremy.
There are 2 possiiblities:
1) After many years Jeremy finally thought up the lie that the log used at trial supports Nevill having called police
or
2) someone else thought of it and then Jeremy adopted it.
I think the latter is true he would have come up with it sooner if he came up with it himself and he damn well knew Nevill didn't call police so that is why he didn't see an opportunity.
It took someone who:
A) believed Nevill could have made the call
and
either:
B) Read the document so poorly as to miss that it said West was the caller and that the quote was passed to him from Jeremy
or
C) The person knew it said West was the caller and the quote was passed to him from Jeremy but decided to pull a fast one anyway and ignore such or claim such was added later to conceal the call from Nevill.
It is possible jeremy thought it up years later he had eveyr reaosn to lie an dpretend Nevill called him and police but I personally doubt he thought it up I believe someone else thought this up and Jeremy just adopted it.
But he didn't run too far with this argument it never made it to the CCRC so far as I can tell, the campaign team is who ran with it.
-
On the day in question, Collins did something that was significant at the time: he went up to the kitchen window, looked in and saw what he reported to be the body of a female. In his statement dated that same day, he stated "the following lights were switched on. kitchen with no curtains at window," and so visibility would have been good. The window probably shows very little of the area immediately next to the door, but that area has a chair in it in the photograph, Nevill's body being near the Aga, where most of it could be seen. If Pc Collins saw the male body that he had just previously identified as female, it's very strange that his statement of the same day makes no mention of the sighting through the window, no mention of reporting a female body, and no mention of any surpise on discovering a male body. It merely gives "We forced an entry into the house via this door and moved into the kitchen where we saw behind the door near to the fire the body of a male person aged about sixty years". How could he simply forget to mention that he'd reported seeing a female just minutes before that? He must have deliberately omitted that information.
Reader, even after all this time, I'm still not certain what it is you're asking us to believe. When I first joined the forum I thought it rather odd that a man was mistaken for a woman but from what I can make out -for the first time, I might add- from that very grainy photo, I CAN see why the mistake would have occurred. The body appears to be clad in very dark clothes. What stands out, therefore, is the shock of long, almost colourless hair which is falling forward. I can quite see how, on first sighting, this would appear to be more female than male, especially if viewed by someone not au fait with how middle class men of a certain generation wear their hair OR if they'd only previously seen it smoothed and groomed.
-
So why are you arguing then? ???
I am not arguing, for some reason you decided to pick an argument over a word, it's quite clear what I meant.
-
Jeremy couldn't know for certain that Nevill called the police, and if Nevill did call the police, the person who received his call would also know, so Jeremy couldn't possibly be the only person to know.
If Neville was already dead it's highly unlikely he'd have called the police.
-
I am not arguing, for some reason you decided to pick an argument over a word, it's quite clear what I meant.
Quite an important word though, I would suggest.
-
I have see this photograph, not just the photocopy shown here. Without going into details there is far more visible. I accept that a brief glimpse of the view from the rear might have led to the mistaken conclusion that the body was that of a women, but that is far less likely than might appear from this poor quality photocopy.
This remains an aspect of the case which troubles me.
Can you explain more Ngb
What troubles you on this very important point?
-
Jeremy couldn't know for certain that Nevill called the police, and if Nevill did call the police, the person who received his call would also know, so Jeremy couldn't possibly be the only person to know.
Jeremy knows for sure that Nevill did not call police. He knows that he entered the master bedroom and shot them and then killed Neivll in the kitchenand that he can't have called anyone.
That is why he was not of a mindset to think up the lie that Bonnett's log proves Nevill phoned police it took someone else to think up such a tale.
-
Jeremy as the killer would have to say Neville would not call the police. As apparently Neville liked to keep things private. That is because as the killer, he knew Neville had not called the police.
If he claimed Neville called the police, the police would check and show that is incorrect. Making the police instantly suspicious of Jeremy.
He only claimed Neville called the police decades later.
-
Jeremy knows for sure that Nevill did not call police. He knows that he entered the master bedroom and shot them and then killed Neivll in the kitchenand that he can't have called anyone.
That is why he was not of a mindset to think up the lie that Bonnett's log proves Nevill phoned police it took someone else to think up such a tale.
In your opinion!!!
-
Jeremy as the killer would have to say Neville would not call the police. As apparently Neville liked to keep things private. That is because as the killer, he knew Neville had not called the police.
If he claimed Neville called the police, the police would check and show that is incorrect. Making the police instantly suspicious of Jeremy.
He only claimed Neville called the police decades later.
I thought he only claimed Neville called the police because someone gave him that information.
-
Jeremy couldn't know for certain that Nevill called the police, and if Nevill did call the police, the person who received his call would also know, so Jeremy couldn't possibly be the only person to know.
Of course he could, if h killed him!
-
Of course he could, if h killed him!
If Neville was already dead it's highly unlikely he'd have called the police.
I'd go with that ;D ;D ;D
-
The document may have had a stamp on it saying Chelmsford Court, but is there any documentation that it was actually discussed in court or shown to the jury? Just asking! ;D ;D ;D
-
The document may have had a stamp on it saying Chelmsford Court, but is there any documentation that it was actually discussed in court or shown to the jury? Just asking! ;D ;D ;D
It actually says so on Bambers own website.
-
It actually says so on Bambers own website.
Does the website say so or is there documented proof that it was shown to the jury? Or are they contradicting themselves?? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The document may have had a stamp on it saying Chelmsford Court, but is there any documentation that it was actually discussed in court or shown to the jury? Just asking! ;D ;D ;D
It makes no difference at all. The claim was that the defense didn't know about the log and thus didn't know that the log suggested Nevill called police and thus that argument wasn't made at trial. The reality is the trial defense knew about he document and also knew it doesn't suggest Nevill called police and that is why the defense did not assert such at trial and there is no evidence the appellate defense asserted such nonsense to the CCRC or Court of Appeal.
Only the campaign teams seems to continue asserting such rubbish and blatantly lying about other aspects as well including the mutually exclusive claims that the document was hidden from the trial defense and yet claiming the Jeremy and his defense team have always maintained Nevill called police. On the contrary the claim was invented many years later Jeremy insisted at trial that his father was a private man and didn't want police involved so that is why Nevill called him instead of police.
-
I thought he only claimed Neville called the police because someone gave him that information.
He saw a log which he could manipulate.
Just like the log saying there were conversations in the house.
-
It makes no difference at all. The claim was that the defense didn't know about the log and thus didn't know that the log suggested Nevill called police and thus that argument wasn't made at trial. The reality is the trial defense knew about he document and also knew it doesn't suggest Nevill called police and that is why the defense did not assert such at trial and there is no evidence the appellate defense asserted such nonsense to the CCRC or Court of Appeal.
Only the campaign teams seems to continue asserting such rubbish and blatantly lying about other aspects as well including the mutually exclusive claims that the document was hidden from the trial defense and yet claiming the Jeremy and his defense team have always maintained Nevill called police. On the contrary the claim was invented many years later Jeremy insisted at trial that his father was a private man and didn't want police involved so that is why Nevill called him instead of police.
I'm not sure how it all works to be fair with you. I suspect that all exhibits are labelled and numbers and a list is made out, then the list is passed on the CPS and the defense. Not sure if the defense has to request the exhibit. Maybe NGB can clarify. :D :D :D
What did Terzon say?
-
Does the website say so or is there documented proof that it was shown to the jury? Or are they contradicting themselves?? ;D ;D ;D ;D
The document had a court stamp and is listed as an exhibit if that's not good enough - what would be? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He saw a log which he could manipulate.
Just like the log saying there were conversations in the house.
Please provide your source for this which I think is HIGHLY speculative.
-
Jeremy knows for sure that Nevill did not call police. He knows that he entered the master bedroom and shot them and then killed Neivll in the kitchenand that he can't have called anyone.
That is why he was not of a mindset to think up the lie that Bonnett's log proves Nevill phoned police it took someone else to think up such a tale.
Both telephone logs were not available at the trial, only one log was available. It was not a tale made up by Bamber or anyone else for that matter. It was another log that was discovered years later. If there were originally both logs the fight would have taken place in the court room. But it didn't. Therefore we must conclude that only one log was available in court for the prosecution and defence. It is therefore only logical to come to the conclusion that the other log materialised years later and that means that only one of the logs was shown to the court.
-
The kitchen light had to be on in order for the cop to have craned his neck to see Neville in the chair. It seems a tight corner in which to view from a window.
I've said this before,that the natural thing to do when looking through a window,is to look straight ahead first before looking nearside. All I can say is that the cops spatial vision must be extraordinary,as I would have said that as he looked ahead he DID see a womans' body first and then on entering,saw the body of Neville in the corner.
-
He saw a log which he could manipulate.
Just like the log saying there were conversations in the house.
This is of course highly speculative of you to confidently suggest this. I have already explained to the forum Bambers reaction and action when he discovered this "other" log. This is the kind of thing when I was trying to explain to Caroline that some on the forum rather than accept a plain explanation concerning this other log would rather suggest that Bamber lied. Which was not necessarily so.
-
The document had a court stamp and is listed as an exhibit if that's not good enough - what would be? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well its not, not really. It does not prove it was used in court all it proves is that it had a court stamp on it. Unless there is documented evidence somewhere to suggest it was. It is likely or not likely that it was indeed used?
For the record I don't believe NB called the police, never have believed it, but I can see and understand why they come to that conclusion... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Both telephone logs were not available at the trial, only one log was available. It was not a tale made up by Bamber or anyone else for that matter. It was another log that was discovered years later. If there were originally both logs the fight would have taken place in the court room. But it didn't. Therefore we must conclude that only one log was available in court for the prosecution and defence. It is therefore only logical to come to the conclusion that the other log materialised years later and that means that only one of the logs was shown to the court.
The trial defense had access to the notebooks of the officers involved including the dispatchers. They also had access to the 2 logs. That is how they knew about the time discepancy between both logs and why they discussed such at trial. How could such have been discussed at trial unless they were aware of it? It doesn't matter that the prosecution chose ot only use Bonnett's at trial the defense was stil aware of the other.
In the meantime it is Bonnett's log the one used at trial, that the campaign team alleges is a log of a call from Nevill to Bonnett. There is no way to claim the defense lawyers didn't see it, they had ot have seen it.
They read it and didn't think it reflects a call from Nevill to Bonnett because it clearly states the caller was PC West, it clearly states the message was passed to West by Jeremy and they had access to all of Bonnett and West's notes and statements where they described hoaw Jeremy had contacted West and then West passed such infromation to Bonnett.
West's log has nothing to do with Bonnett's log being misconstrued. Those who misconstrue it intentionally ignore eveyrthing above and are intentionally distorting.
The trial lawyers can't do that nor can the appellate lawyers it is unethical and the argument goes no where because there is so much evidence proving the made up allegation to be false.
-
The trial defense had access to the notebooks of the officers involved including the dispatchers. They also had access to the 2 logs. That is how they knew about the time discepancy between both logs and why they discussed such at trial. How could such have been discussed at trial unless they were aware of it? It doesn't matter that the prosecution chose ot only use Bonnett's at trial the defense was stil aware of the other.
In the meantime it is Bonnett's log the one used at trial, that the campaign team alleges is a log of a call from Nevill to Bonnett. There is no way to claim the defense lawyers didn't see it, they had ot have seen it.
They read it and didn't think it reflects a call from Nevill to Bonnett because it clearly states the caller was PC West, it clearly states the message was passed to West by Jeremy and they had access to all of Bonnett and West's notes and statements where they described hoaw Jeremy had contacted West and then West passed such infromation to Bonnett.
West's log has nothing to do with Bonnett's log being misconstrued. Those who misconstrue it intentionally ignore eveyrthing above and are intentionally distorting.
The trial lawyers can't do that nor can the appellate lawyers it is unethical and the argument goes no where because there is so much evidence proving the made up allegation to be false.
I was just about to say exactly that. Thank-you for saving me the trouble ;) ;D
-
Well its not, not really. It does not prove it was used in court all it proves is that it had a court stamp on it. Unless there is documented evidence somewhere to suggest it was. It is likely or not likely that it was indeed used?
For the record I don't believe NB called the police, never have believed it, but I can see and understand why they come to that conclusion... ;D ;D ;D ;D
It is easy to see that those who come to the conclusion are too biased to be honest and admit relaity and instead distort.
If one is completely ignorant of all facts and doesn't understand how to read a document and does so extremely poorly then in that case one can see the quote on the page and think Nevill passed the message to Bonnett. But after it being pointed out how the document identifies West as the caller, that it specifically states that message was passed to West from Jeremy and represents what Nevill allegedly told Jeremy and becomes aware in full of the claims made by West and Bonnett as well as police who responded who say they were told to go to WHF because of a call made by Jeremy it totally closes the door to Bonnett being called by Nevill.
Far from it being easy to see how anyone can insist the call was made by Nevill once all of this is out there it is impossible to find such claim to be made in good faith.
It obviously is not being made by the campaign team in good faith because they even lied and suggested this has always been a stance of the defense but that the defense had no proof until Bonnett's log surfaced many years later. It didn't surface many years later the trial defense had to have seen it all exhibits are known about in advance of trial. All potentially witnesses and a summary of what they will testify to is known in advance as well. that is how lawyers are able to prepare for a case. the secret witnesses and trial shocks seen in movies and TV virtually never happen.
-
It is easy to see that those who come to the conclusion are too biased to be honest and admit relaity and instead distort.
If one is completely ignorant of all facts and doesn't understand how to read a document and does so extremely poorly then in that case one can see the quote on the page and think Nevill passed the message to Bonnett. But after it being pointed out how the document identifies West as the caller, that it specifically states that message was passed to West from Jeremy and represents what Nevill allegedly told Jeremy and becomes aware in full of the cliams mad eby West and Bonnett as well as police who responded who say they were told to go to WHF because of a call made by Jeremy it totally closes the door to Bonnett being called by Nevill.
Far from it being easy to see how anyone can insist the call was made by Nevill once all of this is out there it is impossible to find such claim to be made in good faith.
It obviously is not being mad eby the campaign team in good faith because they even lied and suggested this has always been a stance of the defense and that the defense had no proof until Bonnett's log surfaced.
No comment Sciopo what you have just posted bares no relation to my post at all....Sorry me duck. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The trial defense had access to the notebooks of the officers involved including the dispatchers. They also had access to the 2 logs. That is how they knew about the time discepancy between both logs and why they discussed such at trial. How could such have been discussed at trial unless they were aware of it? It doesn't matter that the prosecution chose ot only use Bonnett's at trial the defense was stil aware of the other.
In the meantime it is Bonnett's log the one used at trial, that the campaign team alleges is a log of a call from Nevill to Bonnett. There is no way to claim the defense lawyers didn't see it, they had ot have seen it.
They read it and didn't think it reflects a call from Nevill to Bonnett because it clearly states the caller was PC West, it clearly states the message was passed to West by Jeremy and they had access to all of Bonnett and West's notes and statements where they described hoaw Jeremy had contacted West and then West passed such infromation to Bonnett.
West's log has nothing to do with Bonnett's log being misconstrued. Those who misconstrue it intentionally ignore eveyrthing above and are intentionally distorting.
The trial lawyers can't do that nor can the appellate lawyers it is unethical and the argument goes no where because there is so much evidence proving the made up allegation to be false.
I wasn't aware that the two logs were discussed at the trial? I should think that ngb will confirm that? I was under the impression that the other log was discovered years later? If what you say is true, then that puts a different complexion on things?
-
It is easy to see that those who come to the conclusion are too biased to be honest and admit relaity and instead distort.
If one is completely ignorant of all facts and doesn't understand how to read a document and does so extremely poorly then in that case one can see the quote on the page and think Nevill passed the message to Bonnett. But after it being pointed out how the document identifies West as the caller, that it specifically states that message was passed to West from Jeremy and represents what Nevill allegedly told Jeremy and becomes aware in full of the claims made by West and Bonnett as well as police who responded who say they were told to go to WHF because of a call made by Jeremy it totally closes the door to Bonnett being called by Nevill.
Far from it being easy to see how anyone can insist the call was made by Nevill once all of this is out there it is impossible to find such claim to be made in good faith.
It obviously is not being made by the campaign team in good faith because they even lied and suggested this has always been a stance of the defense but that the defense had no proof until Bonnett's log surfaced many years later. It didn't surface many years later the trial defense had to have seen it all exhibits are known about in advance of trial. All potentially witnesses and a summary of what they will testify to is known in advance as well. that is how lawyers are able to prepare for a case. the secret witnesses and trial shocks seen in movies and TV virtually never happen.
There is no need to make such a comment, especially towards Patti. Everyone is biased whether they are on the guilty side or on the innocent side. Please refrain from such defamatory comments. I'm sure it is within your vast capabilities?
-
Approaching the evidence chronologically, Bamber first takes issue with police reports of his telephone call to Chelmsford station.
After speaking to Bamber, PC West contacted his colleague Malcolm Bonnett in the Chelmsford HQ Information Room. There was also contact with an officer at Witham police station, which is halfway between Chelmsford and Tolleshunt. Bonnett wrote up a memo headed “daughter gone bezerk”, in which he paraphrases what Nevill is supposed to have told Jeremy about Sheila having “got hold of one of my guns”, and adds “Information passed to CD [control at Chelmsford] by Mr Bamber’s son”, confirming that Bonnett’s source was Jeremy Bamber via PC West.
West times Bamber’s own call from Goldhanger to Chelmsford Control at 03.36, whereas the other memo times West’s conversation with Bonnett in the Information Room at 03.26, so at least one timing is inaccurate. But Bamber concludes that the timing is spot on: his suggestion is that the other officer didn’t get his information from West, but from no less a person than Nevill Bamber. The officer, Jeremy maintains, must have taken an emergency call from the 61-year-old farmer and noted Nevill’s words as he’d spoken them.
Aware that a problem existed reconciling the order in which calls between the parties were placed and the time at which they were said to have happened, the Crown liaised with Bonnett. He confirmed that he’d spoken to West at 03.26, passing on the information received from Jeremy Bamber moments beforehand. Later he filled out an official Document Record to this effect.
At no time had he heard from Nevill Bamber or anyone else in connection with the incident at White House Farm. Presumably then, West had misread the clock when he filled out his call log, or just mistakenly wrote 03.36 instead of 03.26.
At 03.35, patrol car CA7 was dispatched to attend the scene from Witham, and Chelmsford directed CA5 to attend at 03.36. Overlooking the fact that the police were co-ordinating their response across relevant parts of the county, Bamber’s supporters also ask why the Essex constabulary should send a car from each station unless the police were responding separately to different reports?
There is something darkly comic about the image of Nevill Bamber, under a hale of bullets, leafing through the phone book to get hold of the number for his local station instead of dialling 999.
Plainly, there is little for Bamber’s defence team to get their teeth into here, but that hasn’t stopped them promoting the risible scenario of a call from Nevill to Witham police station. Earlier this summer the mainstream press picked up on the story: the Mail and Mirror were among papers reporting it on 5 August as a dramatic new find that had the potential to clear the supposed killer.
These papers uncritically reported that all along, documented proof seems to have existed that police had heard about Sheila’s rampage not only via Jeremy but directly from Nevill. If this information was correct, Jeremy’s account was vindicated and he could not possibly be guilty of the murders.
It’s worth considering the implications of the defence’s claim. If it were true, several members of the Essex constabulary would have been aware of the existence of a call from Nevill on the morning of the murders. When officers began to suspect the son of involvement and started poking around for discrepancies in Jeremy’s story, they would quickly have turned up accounts of Nevill’s call, snuffing out any doubts they had about Sheila’s culpability.
In these circumstances, police would only have continued to pursue Bamber for the murders if they were intentionally attempting to frame him.
In fact, Bamber maintains that this is exactly what happened, although he casts the net much wider to take in his relatives as well as the Essex constabulary.
Bamber’s legal team must be aware that claims about Nevill telephoning police withstand no scrutiny. Perhaps their strategy is to keep throwing anything at all to the papers, the better to build a groundswell of feeling that their client is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
The long retired Stan Jones recently told the Essex Chronicle that Bamber "consistently presents material which has already been discussed and adjudicated on in court and appeal hearings”, manipulating its supposed meaning to support his claim to be wrongly convicted.
-
There is no need to make such a comment, especially towards Patti. Everyone is biased whether they are on the guilty side or on the innocent side. Please reframe from such defamatory comments. I'm sure it is within your vast capabilities?
How did I aim it at Patti? Patti hasn't indicated she believes that a call was made. Or did she say such somewhere and I miss it? She said the opposite so far as I have seen.
-
The trial defense had access to the notebooks of the officers involved including the dispatchers. They also had access to the 2 logs. That is how they knew about the time discepancy between both logs and why they discussed such at trial. How could such have been discussed at trial unless they were aware of it? It doesn't matter that the prosecution chose ot only use Bonnett's at trial the defense was stil aware of the other.
In the meantime it is Bonnett's log the one used at trial, that the campaign team alleges is a log of a call from Nevill to Bonnett. There is no way to claim the defense lawyers didn't see it, they had ot have seen it.
They read it and didn't think it reflects a call from Nevill to Bonnett because it clearly states the caller was PC West, it clearly states the message was passed to West by Jeremy and they had access to all of Bonnett and West's notes and statements where they described hoaw Jeremy had contacted West and then West passed such infromation to Bonnett.
West's log has nothing to do with Bonnett's log being misconstrued. Those who misconstrue it intentionally ignore eveyrthing above and are intentionally distorting.
The trial lawyers can't do that nor can the appellate lawyers it is unethical and the argument goes no where because there is so much evidence proving the made up allegation to be false.
I totally agree Scipio, it's been proven beyond a shadow but if people want to try and claim that the jury/defense didn't see it then they are simply in denial. It has a court stamp, an exhibit number and even the Bamber OS claim that the jury saw the log. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I totally agree Scipio, it's been proven beyond a shadow but if people want to try and claim that the jury/defense didn't see it then they are simply in denial. It has a court stamp, an exhibit number and even the Bamber OS claim that the jury saw the log. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just out of curiosity could you point me to the court transcript or document that refers to the two logs having been discussed in court?
-
How did I aim it at Patti? Patti hasn't indicated she believes that a call was made. Or did she say such somewhere and I miss it? She said the opposite so far as I have seen.
Your comments look as if you are referring to me Scip. Grahame being the gentleman he is, is pointing this out to you. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Your comments look as if you are referring to me Scip. Grahame being the gentleman he is, is pointing this out to you. ;D ;D ;D ;D
It doesn't matter who he was referring to in his comments. It is necessary that we all begin to treat others as valuable individuals and not to count them as fools or the like. I am trying to do so. I know it's difficult. But I think we must at least make the effort.
-
There is nothing in Wilkes's book about the call logs being discussed at trial. Maybe it was discussed but not in relation to the possibility of Neville phoning the police. But then what was the reason for discussing it at all ?
The mirror uncritically brought up the issue decades later. After Jeremy suddenly decided a log showed Neville called the police.
-
There is nothing in Wilkes's book about the call logs being discussed at trial. Maybe it was discussed but not in relation to the possibility of Neville phoning the police. But then what was the reason for discussing it at all ?
The mirror uncritically brought up the issue decades later. After Jeremy suddenly decided a log showed Neville called the police.
Or someone else pointed it out to him.
-
It doesn't matter who he was referring to in his comments. It is necessary that we all begin to treat others as valuable individuals and not to count them as fools or the like. I am trying to do so. I know it's difficult. But I think we must at least make the effort.
Totally agree with you Grahame. ;)
-
Or someone else pointed it out to him.
Very possible.
-
Whatever happened I for one would still like to see some kind of documentation to confirm that the two telephone logs were discussed in court. Scipio got the information from somewhere. So I would like to know where, as I have not heard this before?
-
Whatever happened I for one would still like to see some kind of documentation to confirm that the two telephone logs were discussed in court. Scipio got the information from somewhere. So I would like to know where, as I have not heard this before?
Agree with that.
-
Yes,it would appear that he " knows " rather a lot,but whether or not it's authentic,it's up to him ?
-
Whatever happened I for one would still like to see some kind of documentation to confirm that the two telephone logs were discussed in court. Scipio got the information from somewhere. So I would like to know where, as I have not heard this before?
It's on Bambers website!
-
Very possible.
Well, let's look at it more closely, Adam. It wasn't a new document It must have been looked at and pored over dozens of times. Maybe it was a new member of the team who looked at it with a fresh view. It makes more sense than someone who knows the contents by heart suddenly finding new meaning in it.
-
The only reason this seems new is that most people have been assuming (wrongly) that it was the log relating to Jeremy's details that the jury saw when in fact it was the log referring to Neville's.
The following is from Bambers OS
-
Well, let's look at it more closely, Adam. It wasn't a new document It must have been looked at and pored over dozens of times. Maybe it was a new member of the team who looked at it with a fresh view. It makes more sense than someone who knows the contents by heart suddenly finding new meaning in it.
Agree. Bamber or someone close to him looked at the documents decades later. And somehow decided Neville called the police.
Neville calling the police was not discussed at trial. Unless someone can provide a source it was.
-
A very prejudiced argument I must say.
Weren't the logs different in that one said sister,the other daughter ? Also the mix-up in Sheilas' age ?
Between Bonnett and West,did either of them know what they were doing ? How did one know if a car had been sent to WHF if the other hadn't told him ?
-
The only reason this seems new is that most people have been assuming (wrongly) that it was the log relating to Jeremy's details that the jury saw when in fact it was the log referring to Neville's.
The following is from Bambers OS
Hmm. Easy to see how the confusion arose, isn't it?
-
Whatever happened I for one would still like to see some kind of documentation to confirm that the two telephone logs were discussed in court. Scipio got the information from somewhere. So I would like to know where, as I have not heard this before?
West's trial testimony as well as the exhibit files.
West's c1 log and Bonnet's log were both among exhibits that COULD be used at trial if desired. Both sides gets a copy of such documents and sees them. So that means the defense saw both logs.
The exhibit submitted for use as a trial exhibit was Bonnett's. That was the one admitted into court as evidence that the jury was free to look at if desired. The jury can examine any exhibits admitted into evidence.
West's c1 log was used to refresh his memory. You are allowed to allow witnesses to refresh their memory with notes. So his was admitted into evidence in court only through testimony- he read from it. It wasn't admitted formally as a document that the jury could have looked at like the Bonnett log was. The jury had to listen to West's testimony to understand about such log.
Here is where on direct examination where the judge allows West to use the log to refresh his memory and shows him reading from it:
(http://s21.postimg.org/6n1qrtc47/westlogrefresher.jpg)
I didn't copy it all they discussed the log contents more but this illustrates my point.
On cross examination he was asked about the time difference and the question specifies 3:26. Where did the defense lawyer get 3:26 from? He got it from Bonnett's log that was admitted into evidence at trial.
(http://s13.postimg.org/kmapudlpj/westcrossexam.jpg)
So the notion that the trial defense did not know about both logs is ludicrous.
All that happened in many years later someone decided to make up the claim that the trial lawyers did not make up- that Bonnett's log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett. Instead of admitting they made up something that the trial lawyers did not consider because it was meritless they created the cover story that the trial lawyers were unaware of Bonnett's log, which is nonsense, and that is why the trial team did not advance the claim. They didn't want the truth to come out which is that it is meritless and that is why the trial lawyers never made the claim.
-
If Neville was already dead it's highly unlikely he'd have called the police.
If Caroline's premise that Jeremy killed Nevill is accepted, it follows trivially that we all know that Nevill didn't call the police, so Jeremy definitely isn't the ONLY one to know. In any case, Pc West knows.
If Caroline's premise that Jeremy killed Nevill isn't accepted, only Pc West knows for certain whether Nevill telephoned him or not.
Either way, your original conclusion that only Jeremy knows can't be right.
-
If Caroline's premise that Jeremy killed Nevill is accepted, it follows trivially that we all know that Nevill didn't call the police, so Jeremy definitely isn't the ONLY one to know. In any case, Pc West knows.
If Caroline's premise that Jeremy killed Nevill isn't accepted, only Pc West knows for certain whether Nevill telephoned him or not.
Either way, your original conclusion that only Jeremy knows can't be right.
My premise ;D ;D? Sorry Reader but I think Jeremy might be in prison because he was convicted of killing Neville so the premise is isn't mine!
-
So the notion that the trial defense did not know about both logs is ludicrous.
All that happened in many years later someone decided to make up the claim that the trial lawyers did not make up- that Bonnett's log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett. Instead of admitting they made up something that the trial lawyers did not consider because it was meritless they created the cover story that the trial lawyers were unaware of Bonnett's log, which is nonsense, and that is why the trial team did not advance the claim. They didn't want the truth to come out which is that it is meritless and that is why the trial lawyers never made the claim.
Excellent post scipio. Like so many arguments raised in this case over the last 29 years there is usually a sensible and measured response available for most of them, for the rest it is a case of grasping at straws.
As time goes by however the desperation is beginning to wane in favour of pained acceptance that Bamber is indeed guilty.
-
West's trial testimony as well as the exhibit files.
West's c1 log and Bonnet's log were both among exhibits that COULD be used at trial if desired. Both sides gets a copy of such documents and sees them. So that means the defense saw both logs.
The exhibit submitted for use as a trial exhibit was Bonnett's. That was the one admitted into court as evidence that the jury was free to look at if desired. The jury can examine any exhibits admitted into evidence.
West's c1 log was used to refresh his memory. You are allowed to allow witnesses to refresh their memory with notes. So his was admitted into evidence in court only through testimony- he read from it. It wasn't admitted formally as a document that the jury could have looked at like the Bonnett log was. The jury had to listen to West's testimony to understand about such log.
Here is where on direct examination where the judge allows West to use the log to refresh his memory and shows him reading from it:
(http://s21.postimg.org/6n1qrtc47/westlogrefresher.jpg)
I didn't copy it all they discussed the log contents more but this illustrates my point.
On cross examination he was asked about the time difference and the question specifies 3:26. Where did the defense lawyer get 3:26 from? He got it from Bonnett's log that was admitted into evidence at trial.
(http://s13.postimg.org/kmapudlpj/westcrossexam.jpg)
So the notion that the trial defense did not know about both logs is ludicrous.
All that happened in many years later someone decided to make up the claim that the trial lawyers did not make up- that Bonnett's log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett. Instead of admitting they made up something that the trial lawyers did not consider because it was meritless they created the cover story that the trial lawyers were unaware of Bonnett's log, which is nonsense, and that is why the trial team did not advance the claim. They didn't want the truth to come out which is that it is meritless and that is why the trial lawyers never made the claim.
I don't dispute that the times of the call was discussed in court. It was argued over and over again in order to determine the approximate time of the call from Jeremy to the police. There are several logs in question here, its also a question of which log was used at the time. None of us can see what was passed to the jury and there is no mention of "my daughter or that one log says 27 years old and the other says 26 years old" Nor did they discuss the many inconsistencies on each log. If there are documents to prove this then by all means pop them up on the forum and lets have a look at them? ;D ;D
-
My premise?
Yes, your premise in your post #317, which was what April replied to.
-
There are two logs, one by PC West and one by civilian worker Bonnett. The disputed times were 3.26 and 3.36am which isn't in the least surprising since clocks weren't computer synchronised in 1985.
The suggestion that Nevill phoned the police has been shown to be false on so many levels yet some poor souls persist with this nonsense. A bit like the police shot Sheila crap.
-
There are two logs, one by PC West and one by civilian worker Bonnett. The disputed times were 3.26 and 3.36am which isn't in the least surprising since clocks weren't computer synchronised in 1985.
The suggestion that Nevill phoned the police has been shown to be false on so many levels yet some poor souls persist with this nonsense. A bit like the police shot Sheila crap.
Er nowt wrong with my soul ;)
John the log that Bamber claims to have found in 2007 which was published in the press as new evidence that Neville B had called the police is in dispute. I think all of us want to know if it was this particular document was discussed in court as being different from the other one. For example one log says she was 26 and the other said she was 27...There are differences, obviously they were written by two different people.
Having been in court yourself is it normal practice to show the jury all labelled exhibited documents that are listed? ;D ;D ;D
-
I have mistaken living men for women and women for men. Perhaps even worse I have mistaken rather ugly women as being men in drag. Some people are easy to mistake. When you see a face up close you can usually tell whether you were right or wrong.
In this case the face could not be seen even from a distance so that makes it far easier to mistake Nevill for a woman.
What people keep ignoring is that he logs were not written by someone on the scene. The logs were written by people far from the scene who can misinterpret what they hear. Worse yet they were being fed information from people who were not eyewitnesses and who theselves could have been misconstrued things. That is why courts want testimony from eyewitnesses instead of second or thirdhard accounts of what such eyewitnesses saw.
There are no eyewitnesses who saw more than 1 body in the kitchen. The person who looked in the window only saw 1 body, the one that ultimately ended up being Nevill. Likewise every cop who entered only saw 1 body in the kitchen. That's more than a dozen people. That alone is enough to demonstrate the log entry was definitely a mistake.
But the physical evidence says that as well. The physical evidence is that Sheila and June died in the master bedroom. Blood evidence as well as shell casings demonstrate that. There is no evidence to suggest either were dragged by the killer to the kitchen then dragged back to their orignal death location by police.
Nope,sorry but there is no explanation amongst your post as to how the lone body of Bevill Bamber in the kitchen could possibly have been described as a murder AND a suicide.
-
The disputed times were 3.26 and 3.36am which isn't in the least surprising since clocks weren't computer synchronised in 1985.
They were digital clocks, so they had quartz timing or their timing was based on the frequency of the power supply. Either way, they would easily stay approximately synchronized unless manually set incorrectly.
-
The logs were written by people far from the scene who can misinterpret what they hear.
Why do you think EP have failed to release Pc Saxby's log?
-
Er nowt wrong with my soul ;)
John the log that Bamber claims to have found in 2007 which was published in the press as new evidence that Neville B had called the police is in dispute. I think all of us want to know if it was this particular document was discussed in court as being different from the other one. For example one log says she was 26 and the other said she was 27...There are differences, obviously they were written by two different people.
Having been in court yourself is it normal practice to show the jury all labelled exhibited documents that are listed? ;D ;D ;D
The supposedly new log is Bonnett's log that was a trial exhibit:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-missing-police-phone-239793
Bonnett did not testify at trial instead they just had his log admitted into evidence. West actually spoke to Jeremy so they had him testify. Thus his log was not admitted into evidence to be used in lieu of testimony but rather he testified as to the contents of his log instead.
-
The only reason this seems new is that most people have been assuming (wrongly) that it was the log relating to Jeremy's details that the jury saw when in fact it was the log referring to Neville's.
The following is from Bambers OS
I can't seem to see that this refers to two logs. But only one was shown to the jury apparently. But scipio referred to the two logs being argued over in court. That is what I wanted to know. But reading this document does not say that any arguing took place? So where did scipio get that information?
-
West's trial testimony as well as the exhibit files.
West's c1 log and Bonnet's log were both among exhibits that COULD be used at trial if desired. Both sides gets a copy of such documents and sees them. So that means the defense saw both logs.
The exhibit submitted for use as a trial exhibit was Bonnett's. That was the one admitted into court as evidence that the jury was free to look at if desired. The jury can examine any exhibits admitted into evidence.
West's c1 log was used to refresh his memory. You are allowed to allow witnesses to refresh their memory with notes. So his was admitted into evidence in court only through testimony- he read from it. It wasn't admitted formally as a document that the jury could have looked at like the Bonnett log was. The jury had to listen to West's testimony to understand about such log.
Here is where on direct examination where the judge allows West to use the log to refresh his memory and shows him reading from it:
(http://s21.postimg.org/6n1qrtc47/westlogrefresher.jpg)
I didn't copy it all they discussed the log contents more but this illustrates my point.
On cross examination he was asked about the time difference and the question specifies 3:26. Where did the defense lawyer get 3:26 from? He got it from Bonnett's log that was admitted into evidence at trial.
(http://s13.postimg.org/kmapudlpj/westcrossexam.jpg)
So the notion that the trial defense did not know about both logs is ludicrous.
All that happened in many years later someone decided to make up the claim that the trial lawyers did not make up- that Bonnett's log reflected a call from Nevill to Bonnett. Instead of admitting they made up something that the trial lawyers did not consider because it was meritless they created the cover story that the trial lawyers were unaware of Bonnett's log, which is nonsense, and that is why the trial team did not advance the claim. They didn't want the truth to come out which is that it is meritless and that is why the trial lawyers never made the claim.
Oh yes I see what you mean now.
-
I have see this photograph, not just the photocopy shown here. Without going into details there is far more visible. I accept that a brief glimpse of the view from the rear might have led to the mistaken conclusion that the body was that of a women, but that is far less likely than might appear from this poor quality photocopy.
This remains an aspect of the case which troubles me.
As we haven't seen the photo of Neil in the kitchen it is surely interesting to hear from someone who has. If Ngb tells us there is far more visible than in the photocopy and for that reason he apparently has doubts why there was a mistake about the sex if the body then surely that is interesting and should be taken on board.
As far as I can see the photocopy of the photo is so dark it's almost impossible to make out any features at all of the deceased. I wonder if the photograph was posted on the forum and showed without doubt the person n the photo was male if guilters would at east hesitate for a moment,. Surely ngb is trustworthy enough to deserve some consideration of his judgement. Surely it should at least be food for thought. imo
-
Nope,sorry but there is no explanation amongst your post as to how the lone body of Bevill Bamber in the kitchen could possibly have been described as a murder AND a suicide.
Yes Tyler. Yet another intriguing mystery.
-
They were digital clocks, so they had quartz timing or their timing was based on the frequency of the power supply. Either way, they would easily stay approximately synchronized unless manually set incorrectly.
Yes they did have syncronized clocks and watches in 1985 didn't they? I remember I had one. A quartz watch.
-
Oh yes I see what you mean now.
Then you also see why Jeremy's lawyers would be unable to advance the claim on appeal that:
1) Bonnett's log was hidden from the original trial team and
2) it proves Bonnett received a call from Nevill.
So instead of being a genuine argument that could result in Jeremy being freed it merely is a propaganda argument used to try to get Jeremy followers.
That is the real difference between the campaign team and legal team. The legal team is looking for evidence and arguments that can be used in court to get Jeremy freed. The campaign team is just looking for anything that can use to convince the public to believe that Jeremy is innocent whether true or not.
The legal team needs credible evidence the campaign team needs credible evidence to convince people with strong knowledge of the case but can fool people with poor knowledge of the case rather easily. That seems to be who they are going after.
The legal team has the harder task and the more important one.
-
The supposedly new log is Bonnett's log that was a trial exhibit:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-missing-police-phone-239793
Bonnett did not testify at trial instead they just had his log admitted into evidence. West actually spoke to Jeremy so they had him testify. Thus his log was not admitted into evidence to be used in lieu of testimony but rather he testified as to the contents of his log instead.
But as the document Caroline copied from the OS stated that one of the logs was not shown to the jury, is that correct?
-
Then you also see why Jeremy's lawyers would be unable to advance the claim on appeal that:
1) Bonnett's log was hidden from the original trial team and
2) it proves Bonnett received a call from Nevill.
So instead of being a genuine argument that could result in Jeremy being freed it merely is a propaganda argument used to try to get Jeremy followers.
That is the real difference between the campaign team and legal team. The legal team is looking for evidence and arguments that can be used in court to get Jeremy freed. The campaign team is just looking for anything that can use to convince the public to believe that Jeremy is innocent whether true or not.
The legal team needs credible evidence the campaign team needs credible evidence to convince people with strong knowledge of the case but can fool people with poor knowledge of the case rather easily. That seems to be who they are going after.
The legal team has the harder task and the more important one.
Yes I can see that now. Obviously not new evidence.
-
As we haven't seen the photo of Neil in the kitchen it is surely interesting to hear from someone who has. If Ngb tells us there is far more visible than in the photocopy and for that reason he apparently has doubts why there was a mistake about the sex if the body then surely that is interesting and should be taken on board.
As far as I can see the photocopy of the photo is so dark it's almost impossible to make out any features at all of the deceased. I wonder if the photograph was posted on the forum and showed without doubt the person n the photo was male if guilters would at east hesitate for a moment,. Surely ngb is trustworthy enough to deserve some consideration of his judgement. Surely it should at least be food for thought. imo
Whether someone's hair enables them to be mistaken as a female is in the eye of the beholder. It's quite subjective. Just because one person thinks someone looks like a man doesn't think everyone will.
Nevill's hair looks pretty wild and I can see why someone might think it was a woman. Someone else might have a different view though.
Whether one is a male or female is an objective standard but which gender someone appears to be is subjective.
The only thing that would be able to cobat the testimony of so many cops saying 1 body was in the kitchen is if there were physicla evidence to establish otherwise.
Quite clearly though the physical evidence establishes both women were killed in the master bedroom and didn't leave there. The boys were clearly killed in their beds and didn't leave their room.
There is thus no possiblity of an additional body having been in the kitchen let alone a reason to move said body to a upstairs.
-
Yes I can see that now. Obviously not new evidence.
No, not new evidence - glad you can see it now.
-
But as the document Caroline copied from the OS stated that one of the logs was not shown to the jury, is that correct?
Bonnett's log was admitted into evidence which means an exhibit tha tis part of the record and the jury is free to look at and reveiw.
West's log was only in West's hands and he simply read from it to answer questions. So the jury can't have seen it, they just heard what was contained on it. Unless they were asleep they heard what was on it. Whether they bothered to actually read Bonnett's who knows. They had the opportunity but might not have. So it is possible they heard about West's because they paid attention to the testimony but paid no mind to Bonnett's log.
-
Yes I can see that now. Obviously not new evidence.
No not new evidence just a new argument. You can't raise new arguments on appeal though unless they are based on new evidence.
But even if Bonnett's log had been new evidence it still doesn't support the claim that it relates to a call from Nevill to Bonnett anyway because it clearly states the caller was West and that the message was relayed to West by Jeremy.
So they are barred from raising the argument on appeal and even if permitted it would be rejected as erroneous anyway.
-
The supposedly new log is Bonnett's log that was a trial exhibit:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-missing-police-phone-239793
Bonnett did not testify at trial instead they just had his log admitted into evidence. West actually spoke to Jeremy so they had him testify. Thus his log was not admitted into evidence to be used in lieu of testimony but rather he testified as to the contents of his log instead.
Jeremy had the option of claiming Neville phoned the police at the 2012 CCRC application.
That was if he thought it was worthy new evidence. Or whether it is just media bravado. He certainly did not submit this at the 2002 COA application.
If he did submit it two years ago, it was out of desperation due to his overall claim being so weak. I suspect he did not include this in his submission. Either way the CCRC rejected the appeal.
Case closed.
-
Whether someone's hair enables them to be mistaken as a female is in the eye of the beholder. It's quite subjective. Just because one person thinks someone looks like a man doesn't think everyone will.
Nevill's hair looks pretty wild and I can see why someone might think it was a woman. Someone else might have a different view though.
Whether one is a male or female is an objective standard but which gender someone appears to be is subjective.
The only thing that would be able to cobat the testimony of so many cops saying 1 body was in the kitchen is if there were physicla evidence to establish otherwise.
Quite clearly though the physical evidence establishes both women were killed in the master bedroom and didn't leave there. The boys were clearly killed in their beds and didn't leave their room.
There is thus no possiblity of an additional body having been in the kitchen let alone a reason to move said body to a upstairs.
Which is why I said the alternative was preposterous.
I don't believe that this is an aspect of the case which troubles NGB, I think he was playing around when he posted that just to be annoying. ::)
-
Nope,sorry but there is no explanation amongst your post as to how the lone body of Bevill Bamber in the kitchen could possibly have been described as a murder AND a suicide.
They didn't identify and describe Nevill's body as a murder and suicide. I think you are taking the information too literally. They are describing the incident as possible murder and suicide based on the information that they gained from Jeremy (which turned out to be largely erroneous).
This is why Davidson, when informed and requested to attend the scene, was told it was murder and suicide. He took this to mean that there was ONE or TWO bodies involved.
-
Whether someone's hair enables them to be mistaken as a female is in the eye of the beholder. It's quite subjective. Just because one person thinks someone looks like a man doesn't think everyone will.
Nevill's hair looks pretty wild and I can see why someone might think it was a woman. Someone else might have a different view though.
Whether one is a male or female is an objective standard but which gender someone appears to be is subjective.
The only thing that would be able to cobat the testimony of so many cops saying 1 body was in the kitchen is if there were physicla evidence to establish otherwise.
Quite clearly though the physical evidence establishes both women were killed in the master bedroom and didn't leave there. The boys were clearly killed in their beds and didn't leave their room.
There is thus no possiblity of an additional body having been in the kitchen let alone a reason to move said body to a upstairs.
You have no idea like the rest of us where Sheila had been before she apparently died in the bedroom.
AS ngb has seen the photo and you haven't surely his opinion should carry some credence? Much of your post is unconvincing bluster imo. .... no offence.
-
You have no idea like the rest of us where Sheila had been before she apparently died in the bedroom.
AS ngb has seen the photo and you haven't surely his opinion should carry some credence? Much of your post is unconvincing bluster imo. .... no offence.
NGB's opinion doesn't carry any credence whatsoever in this instance.
He is having you on. ::)
-
You have no idea like the rest of us where Sheila had been before she apparently died in the bedroom.
AS ngb has seen the photo and you haven't surely his opinion should carry some credence? Much of your post is unconvincing bluster imo. .... no offence.
In fact the only persons to be killed in their beds were the two little boys. All others were were they should not be other than June who was found out of bed in her own and her husband's room.
-
NGB's opinion doesn't carry any credence whatsoever in this instance.
He is having you on. ::)
I think that ngb's word carries a lot of credence in this instance. For he has actually seen the original photograph and you haven't. So his word in this instance is more valuable than any of our opinions.
There is also a hint in your post that ngb is lying ie "having us on". Please be careful in your insinuations.
-
Excellent post scipio. Like so many arguments raised in this case over the last 29 years there is usually a sensible and measured response available for most of them, for the rest it is a case of grasping at straws.
As time goes by however the desperation is beginning to wane in favour of pained acceptance that Bamber is indeed guilty.
The same can be said for those of you who think he's guilty,too. Grasping at straws ? It couldn't have been any clearer when bicycle,wetsuit,file,dyed hair, flour on face,expensive suit,lobsters,champagne,crocodile tears,MONEY,selling valuables, Porsche, ( the list is endless ) came into play.
It's not a case of acceptance. Like Jeremy,I prefer the truth and not to follow those who think they're in the majority so MUST be right !! It doesn't always follow as has been proved in the past.
Give a dog a bad name and all that. Mud sticks------------except that it doesn't always,as it can be WIPED.!
-
The same can be said for those of you who think he's guilty,too. Grasping at straws ? It couldn't have been any clearer when bicycle,wetsuit,file,dyed hair, flour on face,expensive suit,lobsters,champagne,crocodile tears,MONEY,selling valuables, Porsche, ( the list is endless ) came into play.
It's not a case of acceptance. Like Jeremy,I prefer the truth and not to follow those who think they're in the majority so MUST be right !! It doesn't always follow as has been proved in the past.
Give a dog a bad name and all that. Mud sticks------------except that it doesn't always,as it can be WIPED.!
Morning lookout. All those comments about Bamber remember were to discredit him and were meant to make him look as bad as they could in the eyes of the readers. If they were relying on facts alone then they wouldn't need to use such underhanded tactics. But unfortunately that is the way of the red forum and I fear they are loath to change, as it is indelibly tattood into their corrupt Pharisaical natures.
-
Morning lookout. All those comments about Bamber remember were to discredit him and were meant to make him look as bad as they could in the eyes of the readers. If they were relying on facts alone then they wouldn't need to use such underhanded tactics. But unfortunately that is the way of the red forum and I fear they are loath to change, as it is indelibly tattood into their corrupt Pharisaical natures.
I know,Mr Gee.It bothers me not I'm afraid. You have to feel a certain amount of pity that they've ran out of steam. ;D ;D so revert back to the only way they know.
-
Which is why I said the alternative was preposterous.
I don't believe that this is an aspect of the case which troubles NGB, I think he was playing around when he posted that just to be annoying. ::)
It does trouble me and I was not "playing around". I do not post for the purpose of being annoying, although I accept that some may be annoyed by my posts!
I have a hunch that something went wrong after the raid team entered and this has been covered up. There is no doubt that bodies were moved by the police before the crime scene photographs were taken. This was even referred to by at least two members of the raid team when they were shown a video a couple of days later as part of a debriefing. Against that background I am concerned about the initial sighting of what was believed to be a female in the kitchen. I accept that it could simply be a mistake although having looked at the photograph itself I personally find it a surprising mistake. It also troubles me that there was no immediate correction of this "mistake" on the radio following entry to the house.
I hope that helps.
-
NGB's opinion doesn't carry any credence whatsoever in this instance.
He is having you on. ::)
I hope you are joking Harters. I am certainly not. If I post an opinion it is a genuine opinion. It may be wrong, but it is genuinely held. Please do not suggest that I am playing games because I am not. I am in fact very critical of much that has been said by those connected with the campaign. I think claims which are baseless seriously harm the defence and obscure some very strong defence points.
-
It does trouble me and I was not "playing around". I do not post for the purpose of being annoying, although I accept that some may be annoyed by my posts!
I have a hunch that something went wrong after the raid team entered and this has been covered up. There is no doubt that bodies were moved by the police before the crime scene photographs were taken. This was even referred to by at least two members of the raid team when they were shown a video a couple of days later as part of a debriefing. Against that background I am concerned about the initial sighting of what was believed to be a female in the kitchen. I accept that it could simply be a mistake although having looked at the photograph itself I personally find it a surprising mistake. It also troubles me that there was no immediate correction of this "mistake" on the radio following entry to the house.
I hope that helps.
A very clear and concise post ngb. This is one of my concerns as well.
-
Which is why I said the alternative was preposterous.
I don't believe that this is an aspect of the case which troubles NGB, I think he was playing around when he posted that just to be annoying. ::)
To be fair, NGB looked at a photograph with the benefit of hindsight, he could examine it at his leisure for as long as he wished with full prior knowledge that the victim was a man. All of which would obviously affect his opinion. Collins didn't have the benefit of hindsight, he made a snap judgment based on a quick look through a window under stressful circumstances. He made a mistake, a mistake that has been jumped on.
-
It does trouble me and I was not "playing around". I do not post for the purpose of being annoying, although I accept that some may be annoyed by my posts!
I have a hunch that something went wrong after the raid team entered and this has been covered up. There is no doubt that bodies were moved by the police before the crime scene photographs were taken. This was even referred to by at least two members of the raid team when they were shown a video a couple of days later as part of a debriefing. Against that background I am concerned about the initial sighting of what was believed to be a female in the kitchen. I accept that it could simply be a mistake although having looked at the photograph itself I personally find it a surprising mistake. It also troubles me that there was no immediate correction of this "mistake" on the radio following entry to the house.
I hope that helps.
Haha, yeah okay. :D
The inference is that a body of a female was actually in the kitchen when the police entered. I don't believe for one second that you believe that to be the case.
I do not believe that the claims of a female body being in the kitchen 'trouble you'.
As I said, I think you are playing around, if that is what you are now suggesting.
-
Haha, yeah okay. :D
The inference is that a body of a female was actually in the kitchen when the police entered. I don't believe for one second that you believe that to be the case.
I do not believe that the claims of a female body being in the kitchen 'trouble you'.
As I said, I think you are playing around, if that is what you are now suggesting.
It appears to me that you are still insinuating tha ngb is lying? Ufortunately this kind of judgment appears to be a common affliction with you and probably is part of your nature, sadly.
However I think ngb's concerns are real. For he states that one of his concerns is that the statement over the radio that a body of a female was seen in the kitchen was not corrected when the team actually entered. Furthermore they compounded the error by stating on entry one male and one female dead.
The confusion unfortunately was created by them, the raid team. Therefore I think ngb is quite justified in expressing his concerns.
-
Why was Sheilas' body presumed to have been found in THREE places ?
Namely the kitchen----on the bed------and on the floor of the main bedroom.
Which is it to be,or,what was the REAL truth ?
-
Why was Sheilas' body presumed to have been found in THREE places ?
Namely the kitchen----on the bed------and on the floor of the main bedroom.
Which is it to be,or,what was the REAL truth ?
Because people are trying to make a conspiracy out of something that isn't.
-
Why was Sheilas' body presumed to have been found in THREE places ?
Namely the kitchen----on the bed------and on the floor of the main bedroom.
Which is it to be,or,what was the REAL truth ?
It is unfortunate that the only proof we have of the location of Sheila's body are the official pictures which show her quite clearly on the floor beside the bed. Although we of course have our suspicions as to where she actually was found and certain documents that hint at her being seen in several places, Ann Eaton's statement being one of them. She states that she was told either by a police officer or by JM that Sheila and June were both found on the bed with the rifle between them
This may explain (1) the unusual position of the rifle across Sheila's body. A more natural position for the rifle to end up if she shot herself would be beside her having fallen off her body after the shot. (2) The Bible with the unusual bloodstain pattern that indicates thather body had been moved at some stage. Note that Ann Eaton also mentioned the Bible as being on Sheila's chest.
-
That's a dangerous practice,Caroline. Given that the police were " palsy-walsy " with the rellies and seemingly told the rellies everything to keep them up to speed,would the police have told the rellies the different locations in which Sheila was found ??
-
Because I seem to remember that both JB and AE knew that Sheila had been found on the bed ?
Wouldn't this then have seemed confusing to state in court that she was found on the floor ? So why didn't the rellies question this ? Or did they just let it slide,knowing that if they'd have opened their mouths,all would have been lost so far as they were concerned.
This being the case,they'd know that there had been something underhanded going on,so surely they've got to have some doubt about Jeremys' guilt ??
-
As the saying goes," There's no honesty among thieves ",and between the lot of them,they've STOLEN Jeremys' life.
-
Haha, yeah okay. :D
The inference is that a body of a female was actually in the kitchen when the police entered. I don't believe for one second that you believe that to be the case.I do not believe that the claims of a female body being in the kitchen 'trouble you'.
As I said, I think you are playing around, if that is what you are now suggesting.
What I believe is that is possible that a body of a female was seen in the kitchen before the raid team entered and even possibly after they entered. I am not saying that is likely, I have accepted that the explanation may be that there was a mistake. It is nevertheless a possibility and it is one of several aspects of the case which concern me.
-
That's a dangerous practice,Caroline. Given that the police were " palsy-walsy " with the rellies and seemingly told the rellies everything to keep them up to speed,would the police have told the rellies the different locations in which Sheila was found ??
They didn't, one police officer told AE that Sheila was found on the left side of the bed. She was, AE assumed he meant ON THE BED as opposed to left OF the bed. No conspiracy.
-
They didn't, one police officer told AE that Sheila was found on the left side of the bed. She was, AE assumed he meant ON THE BED as opposed to left OF the bed. No conspiracy.
AE,in her statement said that she was told by an officer that Sheila was found on the bed with the Bible on her chest. AE was told this on the morning of the tragedy.
Though it still doesn't alter the fact that Sheilas' body was found,after Nevilles' to be in the kitchen. If that too was a mistake,why did it take so long in putting it right ? All of half an hour ??
-
What I believe is that is possible that a body of a female was seen in the kitchen before the raid team entered and even possibly after they entered. I am not saying that is likely, I have accepted that the explanation may be that there was a mistake. It is nevertheless a possibility and it is one of several aspects of the case which concern me.
As I said I don't believe you. The very idea is utterly preposterous, as I'm sure you know.
You rarely offer opinions unless they are based on fact or logic and your logic often appears to me to be quite sound.
You are deviating from your normal 'behaviour/style' with this assertion.
On this occasion I think there is a little gamesmanship going on. ;)
Perhaps you didn't appreciate me suggesting you were being naive yesterday. :-\
-
What I believe is that is possible that a body of a female was seen in the kitchen before the raid team entered and even possibly after they entered. I am not saying that is likely, I have accepted that the explanation may be that there was a mistake. It is nevertheless a possibility and it is one of several aspects of the case which concern me.
It appears to me that you are still insinuating tha ngb is lying? Ufortunately this kind of judgment appears to be a common affliction with you and probably is part of your nature, sadly.
However I think ngb's concerns are real. For he states that one of his concerns is that the statement over the radio that a body of a female was seen in the kitchen was not corrected when the team actually entered. Furthermore they compounded the error by stating on entry one male and one female dead.
The confusion unfortunately was created by them, the raid team. Therefore I think ngb is quite justified in expressing his concerns.
There seems to be some confusion over EXACTLY what is meant by "lies". You say it appears to you that Harters is insinuating that Neil is telling lies, but Neil CLEARLY states that whilst he believes it POSSIBLE that a female figure was seen...................., he is ALSO saying that it isn't likely. You can call it what you like, hedging bets, prevarication, but IMO, it can't possibly be seen as being a lie and I feel perfectly certain Harters would be aware of it.........................but I could be wrong.
-
They didn't, one police officer told AE that Sheila was found on the left side of the bed. She was, AE assumed he meant ON THE BED as opposed to left OF the bed. No conspiracy.
Hi Caroline. Here is Ann Eaton's testimony where she describes being told that both Sheila and June were on the bed with the bible on her chest and the rifle between them.
-
Thanks for that Mr Gee.
-
There seems to be some confusion over EXACTLY what is meant by "lies". You say it appears to you that Harters is insinuating that Neil is telling lies, but Neil CLEARLY states that whilst he believes it POSSIBLE that a female figure was seen...................., he is ALSO saying that it isn't likely. You can call it what you like, hedging bets, prevarication, but IMO, it can't possibly be seen as being a lie and I feel perfectly certain Harters would be aware of it.........................but I could be wrong.
This is what hartley said:
As I said I don't believe you. The very idea is utterly preposterous, as I'm sure you know.
This insinuates that ngb is deliberately misleading him and in fact lying.
-
There is an excellent interpretation of the logs on the thread 'Wireless Message Log'. Sorry,dont know how to link it to here.
-
There is an excellent interpretation of the logs on the thread 'Wireless Message Log'. Sorry,dont know how to link it to here.
is this it Tyler?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
-
The very idea is utterly preposterous
Of course it seems preposterous, but you imply that the evidence (which I accept) that Sheila was shot dead in the bedroom implies she wasn't found in the kitchen, and ask why she would have been carried upstairs. You haven't considered the possibility that she was alive in the kitchen. The police then made a huge initial blunder that they decided they couldn't admit to. Remember, you've never explained how come Jeapes saw a gun leaning against a window before the raid team went upstairs. What gun was that?
-
is this it Tyler?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
Yes! thank you Grahame.
-
You haven't considered the possibility that she was alive in the kitchen.
I have very much considered it. The very idea is as previously described.
-
This is what hartley said: This insinuates that ngb is deliberately misleading him and in fact lying.
I think that Harters could be the one to settle this. It's HE who would know if he was insinuating a lie or misleading OR simply disagreeing with Neil's view point.
-
is this it Tyler?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,380.0.html
Quite an eye-opener. Thanks for that.
-
Quite an eye-opener. Thanks for that.
There are just too many anomalies for me Lookout,with regards to the raid itself. Some discrepencies can be explained away and yet there there there are still some (as far as Im concerned) some that cant and no plausible explanation has ever been given for them. To believe the official version is to believe that too many experienced and highly trained officers made all those mistakes/errors. Sorry,but it doesnt wash with me.
-
tyler/lookout EP made a complete hash of the investigation and IMO tried to cover up their errors.
-
There are just too many anomalies for me Lookout,with regards to the raid itself. Some discrepencies can be explained away and yet there there there are still some (as far as Im concerned) some that cant and no plausible explanation has ever been given for them. To believe the official version is to believe that too many experienced and highly trained officers made all those mistakes/errors. Sorry,but it doesnt wash with me.
It doesn't wash with me either,tyler. Never did and never will.
-
tyler/lookout EP made a complete hash of the investigation and IMO tried to cover up their errors.
I completely agree Susan. But imo this included the raid also.
-
I wonder if each and every one of them enjoys their Christmas's ! Or their retirements for that matter.
-
I have very much considered it. The very idea is as previously described.
I meant that you didn't consider it in your post.
-
Hi Caroline. Here is Ann Eaton's testimony where she describes being told that both Sheila and June were on the bed with the bible on her chest and the rifle between them.
Good find Grahame. I too had thought that - was it Clarke? told AE that both June and Sheila had been found ON the bed. And clearly AE had passed this on to JM. AE certainly got flustered when questioned about this at the trial.
-
Good find Grahame. I too had thought that - was it Clarke? told AE that both June and Sheila had been found ON the bed. And clearly AE had passed this on to JM. AE certainly got flustered when questioned about this at the trial.
I'm not surprised AE was flustered. Why didn't they appear to be " squeaky clean " over this like they had been with everything else ? Writing down-----and reporting blooded cobwebs.
Surely they must have known that the police were pulling a fast one ? Kitchen,bed,floor ??
-
Hello tyler just reading Colin Caffells book and he states categorically HAD Sheila shot herself she would not have been in the same room as her Mother but with her twins that she loved :(
-
Hello tyler just reading Colin Caffells book and he states categorically HAD Sheila shot herself she would not have been in the same room as her Mother but with her twins that she loved :(
How could he know that Susan?
-
Susan,I'm sure Jeremy would have known that too ?,and she could well have been heading that way ?
-
Hello tyler just reading Colin Caffells book and he states categorically HAD Sheila shot herself she would not have been in the same room as her Mother but with her twins that she loved :(
Yes,I have his book Susan. But it is only his opinion,and although I agree with it,if Sheila did in fact commit suicide,no one can possibly know what was going on in her mind. Also,it is very possible that Sheila did not,in fact,commit suicide in the main bedroom at all.
-
Hello tyler it his just his opinion and really that is all we have at the moment. Not all that impressed with the book (sorry Colin if you read the forum) too much about himself.
-
Hello ngb how indeed could he know. I suspect because he was aware of the relationship between Sheila and her Mother he would think that was the last place she wished to meet her God. He said Sheila hated June (strong words but his not mine) she loved her boys and would have wished to die with them.
-
Yes,I have his book Susan. But it is only his opinion,and although I agree with it,if Sheila did in fact commit suicide,no one can possibly know what was going on in her mind. Also,it is very possible that Sheila did not,in fact,commit suicide in the main bedroom at all.
Quite right,tyler,and I have my own views as to what went on.
-
I think that Harters could be the one to settle this. It's HE who would know if he was insinuating a lie or misleading OR simply disagreeing with Neil's view point.
Then you likewise take your own advice and don't try to assume what hartley meant when in actual fact his post definitely says "I don't believe you". In other words its a pllite way of saying "you're lying" as he did with me. So instead of trying to defend him just butt out.
-
Hi Caroline. Here is Ann Eaton's testimony where she describes being told that both Sheila and June were on the bed with the bible on her chest and the rifle between them.
Cheers for that Grahame, she doesn't say who told her or if the person who told her saw the scene or if they were someone who heard it second hand. Whoever it was, was either mistaken or perhaps the bodies were moved onto the bed prior to being sent to the mortuary. They may have been placed on the bed after various photographs were taken. Who knows. The blood pool on the floor next to Sheila is indicative of where she died.
-
Cheers for that Grahame, she doesn't say who told her or if the person who told her saw the scene or if they were someone who heard it second hand. Whoever it was, was either mistaken or perhaps the bodies were moved onto the bed prior to being sent to the mortuary. They may have been placed on the bed after various photographs were taken. Who knows. The blood pool on the floor next to Sheila is indicative of where she died.
Well unfortunately all we have is her statement if words mean anything that is what she said. She of course may have been mistaken, or the person who told her was mistaken. But then again as I have constantly stressed since the beginning there are many anomalies in this case and some of them may never be solved?
-
What I believe is that is possible that a body of a female was seen in the kitchen before the raid team entered and even possibly after they entered. I am not saying that is likely, I have accepted that the explanation may be that there was a mistake. It is nevertheless a possibility and it is one of several aspects of the case which concern me.
Where Harters is coming from is why do you even consider it a possibility after considering the following:
1) the physical evidence, shell casings and blood evidence as well as other related issues to body positioning, establishes both women were killed in the master bedroom and that they were not significantly moved other than Sheila being moved flat from a seated position when shot
2) the police who entered all say there was only 1 body in the kitchen, the one slumped over the chair
3) all police who went in the master bedroom say there were 2 bodies
4) Dr Craig says both female bodies were in the bedroom
5) the photos show the bodies in the bedroom
6) There is no reason why police would immediately move a body from the kitchen to the bedroom
Police instantly thought Sheila was responsible, how could her body being in the kitchen take away from that view? Why would the raid team relocate her body from the kitchen to the bedroom before mos tother police coudl find out she had been in the kitchen? SUch would have to have taken place quite early on, obviously before Craig arrived and before the photos were taken.
That early on in the investigation why would someone do such? People do not do things for no reason.
The lack of amotivation is a big enough problem but even worse the bloodpool near Sheila's body in the bedroom proves that is where she was lying shortly after her death.
Not only would police have had to move her body but to have cleaned up dry blood that would have been in the kitchen and then relocated shell casings, all of this before many other police entered.
It is not as if the police could have changed her being found in the bedroom a month later. The change woudl have to have occurred very early on the first day of the investigation.
Why would police do such so early on?
This is why Harters is having trouble beliving in your sincerity.
I have to admit I wonder why you would give it any credence given these issues.
-
What I believe is that is possible that a body of a female was seen in the kitchen before the raid team entered and even possibly after they entered. I am not saying that is likely, I have accepted that the explanation may be that there was a mistake. It is nevertheless a possibility and it is one of several aspects of the case which concern me.
A female body in the kitchen? I'm somewhat shocked you still give this part of the case any support NGB.
-
Hi Caroline. Here is Ann Eaton's testimony where she describes being told that both Sheila and June were on the bed with the bible on her chest and the rifle between them.
It says rifle to the side not between them. So potentially the rifle could have been on Sheila's right side which means not adjacent to June.
In the meantime as Caroline pointed out we have no idea whether police actually told Ann they were on the bed or whether she just misconstrued their words as meaning on the bed. Indeed many people on this site have gotten mised up by the words far side of the bed and near side erroneously thinking that meant on the bed though it actually was referring to on the floor on each side of the bed.
It is possible the cop who told Ann misunderstood what other cops meant and erroenously thought she was on the bed but more likely is that Ann messed it up and misconstrued what they told her.
Since the error featured both women on the bed this demonstrates even more clearly that it was an honest misunderstanding. There is no way June's body was moved out of th ebed well after her death by police. Her blood was on the rug and other objects like the back of the door. She was shot in bed and then again while on the floor. Moreover she had been bleeding while standing upright- the blod staining on her dress proves it. Then there is the blood pool on the floor from Sheila proving she was not moved hours later by police.
-
Well unfortunately all we have is her statement if words mean anything that is what she said. She of course may have been mistaken, or the person who told her was mistaken. But then again as I have constantly stressed since the beginning there are many anomalies in this case and some of them may never be solved?
All an investigator can do in such an instance is try to find out WHO she spoke to on the day in question who potentially could have told her such and then to interview said peopelto see if they actually did tell her such and if so why.
She said she thought it was Clark but since she only spoke to 2 police officers that day it means it could only have been Clark or Stan Jones. Whether Clark was ever in the house is in question- he might not have even been in the bedroom to see thebodies. Jones did see the bodies in contrast.
Assuming Clark also saw the bodies before speaking to Ann, does anyone realistically think they are going to say they saw bodies in bed but lied in their notebookes and statements when they claiemd they saw the bodies on the floor?
I sure don't but tha tis at most what an investigator cna hope for. If you interview them and confront them and they say Ann made a mistake that's the end of the matter. You have hit a brick wall. If they say they lied because they wanted he truth kept a secret to see if Jeremy was the killer because he knew details not released that would again be a brick wall. Only their admission they saw bodies in the bed and were told to lie in their notebooks and statements would mean something ad then it would require further investigating to see whether they were lying now or lying in the past.
Jeremy supporters want to use Ann's hearsay as proof the bodies were in bed and thus were moved by police. They have no credible evidence so want to jsut use that though at best it is merely useful for investigative purposes.
-
It says rifle to the side not between them. So potentially the rifle could have been on Sheila's right side which means not adjacent to June.
In the meantime as Caroline pointed out we have no idea whether police actually told Ann they were on the bed or whether she just misconstrued their words as meaning on the bed. Indeed many people on this site have gotten mised up by the words far side of the bed and near side erroneously thinking that meant on the bed though it actually was referring to on the floor on each side of the bed.
It is possible the cop who told Ann misunderstood what other cops meant and erroenously thought she was on the bed but more likely is that Ann messed it up and misconstrued what they told her.
Since the error featured both women on the bed this demonstrates even more clearly that it was an honest misunderstanding. There is no way June's body was moved out of th ebed well after her death by police. Her blood was on the rug and other objects like the back of the door. She was shot in bed and then again while on the floor. Moreover she had been bleeding while standing upright- the blod staining on her dress proves it. Then there is the blood pool on the floor from Sheila proving she was not moved hours later by police.
Well all we have to go on is Ann Eaton's statement whatever twist we may like to put on it to suit our own theory. Caroline was referring to a different officer, not the one who told her that Sheila was found on the bed with June. It also mentions that the Bible was on her chest and the rifle "by the sideof her" and not on top of her body. There are differences. In any case I don't think that officer spoke to Ann Eaton?
-
Well all we have to go on is Ann Eaton's statement whatever twist we may like to put on it to suit our own theory. Caroline was referring to a different officer, not the one who told her that Sheila was found on the bed with June. It also mentions that the Bible was on her chest and the rifle "by the sideof her" and not on top of her body. There are differences. In any case I don't think that officer spoke to Ann Eaton?
From an evidentiary persepctive hearsay is not admissible. That is why it at best it can be used as a lead for further information.
The way it is a lead is you go to the person or persons who supposedly said something to someone else and follow the trail to a witness to see what the witnesses say. The testimony of a first hand witness is obviously admissible.
In this instance it leads to police to say they saw the bodies on the floor. The hope they will say they lied in their statements and actually saw the women on the bed is a pipe dream. They will say Ann was mistaken and in fact Ann makes clear that she was subsequently informed her impression they were on the bed was wrong and she thus acknowledged she was either misinformed or misunderstood initially.
The physcial evidence proves they were not in the bed and that the claim was false as well. So at the end of the day the trail leads no where.
But you have to follow all trials just in case. The problem is that someone are pretending we don't know the trail was a dead end and want to pretend that it is afact they were in bed though the evidence shows otherwise.
-
I have just read that apparently myself, April and Susan changed our view about Jeremy from innocent to guilty because of Scipio - with respect to Scipio, (and speaking for myself) it had nothing to do with him.
-
I have just read that apparently myself, April and Susan changed our view about Jeremy from innocent to guilty because of Scipio - with respect to Scipio, (and speaking for myself) it had nothing to do with him.
Ironically -perhaps, perversely- for me, it was a gradual realization which started NOT with those who believed him guilty, but with those who believed him innocent.
-
Ironically -perhaps, perversely- for me, it was a gradual realization which started NOT with those who believed him guilty, but with those who believed him innocent.
I agree April, I think too many myths are accepted and held onto for grim death even when it's blatant that they are myths but for me it was Jeremy himself that convinced me.
-
I agree April, I think too many myths are accepted and held onto for grim death even when it's blatant that they are myths but for me it was Jeremy himself that convinced me.
At least you can claim to have it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Trouble is, as long as people want to believe he's innocent, the myths are a very convenient crutch
-
At least you can claim to have it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Trouble is, as long as people want to believe he's innocent, the myths are a very convenient crutch
There are also myths from the opposite camp.
-
There are also myths from the opposite camp.
I'm sure there are and I'd say the silencer is the biggest (IMO) - but even that doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
-
I'm sure there are and I'd say the silencer is the biggest - but even that doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
That's right, Caroline. Nothing I'd previously clung to was proof of his innocence. Having said that, nothing will shake my belief that Sheila was VERY badly let down OR that the wider family had anything remotely like warm feelings towards either Sheila or Jeremy.
-
I'm sure there are and I'd say the silencer is the biggest (IMO) - but even that doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
I wasn´t saying that, Caroline.
-
I wasn´t saying that, Caroline.
I know.
-
Hello girls
I changed my stance on Jeremy to one of guilty over a period of time I was influenced by harters and Caroline's posts but the doubt was already in my head and I have spoken with others and they have more than convinced me think I was on the guilty stance before Scipio arrived but he does make some compelling points as does Adam he works very hard to provide information for which I am grateful.
-
If I had any doubts it would be that he looks too well. Paltrey,I know,but--------------------
Eddie Gilfoyle was locked up for 18 years,an innocent man,and was literally a shadow of his former self when he was released,having been wracked with nerves,and fretting.He looked like an old man and he's younger than Jeremy. If Eddie had been inside any longer he'd have died,as like Jeremy,he never stopped pleading his innocence.
However we're not all made of the same stuff,but personally it would kill me too and I count myself as a pretty strong person both physically and mentally.
-
Where Harters is coming from is why do you even consider it a possibility after considering the following:
1) the physical evidence, shell casings and blood evidence as well as other related issues to body positioning, establishes both women were killed in the master bedroom and that they were not significantly moved other than Sheila being moved flat from a seated position when shot
2) the police who entered all say there was only 1 body in the kitchen, the one slumped over the chair
3) all police who went in the master bedroom say there were 2 bodies
4) Dr Craig says both female bodies were in the bedroom
5) the photos show the bodies in the bedroom
6) There is no reason why police would immediately move a body from the kitchen to the bedroom
Police instantly thought Sheila was responsible, how could her body being in the kitchen take away from that view? Why would the raid team relocate her body from the kitchen to the bedroom before mos tother police coudl find out she had been in the kitchen? SUch would have to have taken place quite early on, obviously before Craig arrived and before the photos were taken.
That early on in the investigation why would someone do such? People do not do things for no reason.
The lack of amotivation is a big enough problem but even worse the bloodpool near Sheila's body in the bedroom proves that is where she was lying shortly after her death.
Not only would police have had to move her body but to have cleaned up dry blood that would have been in the kitchen and then relocated shell casings, all of this before many other police entered.
It is not as if the police could have changed her being found in the bedroom a month later. The change woudl have to have occurred very early on the first day of the investigation.
Why would police do such so early on?
This is why Harters is having trouble beliving in your sincerity.
I have to admit I wonder why you would give it any credence given these issues.
Yes that is about the size of it.
I think there is game playing, trickery and skullduggery being carried out by NGB, particularly since the mod/admin reshuffle.
This presents itself in his posts and his inaction towards certain misbehavers, in addition to feigned shock or disgust at others.
It is my opinion that he is not being entirely genuine and there is a certain amount of manipulation which has taken place to keep up appearances.
Whether he refuses to openly admit this or not is irrelevant.
He is quite welcome to disagree.
-
Yes that is about the size of it.
I think there is game playing, trickery and skullduggery being carried out by NGB, particularly since the mod/admin reshuffle.
This presents itself in his posts and his inaction towards certain misbehavers, in addition to feigned shock or disgust at others.
It is my opinion that he is not being entirely genuine and there is a certain amount of manipulation which has taken place to keep up appearances.
Whether he refuses to openly admit this or not is irrelevant.
He is quite welcome to disagree.
I not only disagree but I find your post thoroughly offensive Harters. I have not lied. On the other hand, if you want me to remind you of several serious whoppers you have told here in the past I will gladly do that.
I am really surprised at you posting in this way.
-
Hmm I don't think you like criticism. :-\
Nevertheless, what I've posted above appears the be the overwhelming consensus amongst unbiased forum members.
As I say:
Whether he refuses to openly admit this or not is irrelevant.
He is quite welcome to disagree.
-
Are there any " unbiased " forum members ? Not from where I'm sitting there aren't !
-
Which whoppers NGB?
I have played around a bit when folk were trying to identify me.
I think I was a former policeman at one stage, a survivor of the London 7/7 bombings, lived in Haiti, flew apache gunships, I was 54th in line to the throne. Oh and I invented the post - it pad. :-\
There's probably more, if there aren't then I can make some up. :D :D :D ?
-
I not only disagree but I find your post thoroughly offensive Harters. I have not lied. On the other hand, if you want me to remind you of several serious whoppers you have told here in the past I will gladly do that.
I am really surprised at you posting in this way.
ngb scipio and hartley are just baiting you. Ihn my opinion you are one of the most honest posters on this forum. Andthem not beilieving that you are not genuine or indeed not being honest could possibly bee that they are judging you from their own characters. That is what dishonest people do. I must also emphasise that you are possibly the only honest lawyer that I have had the pleasure to be acquainted with. Moreover although scipio is endeed very clever. Note I said "clever" I feel that he has a cunning way with words and is brilliant in covering his mistakes and making people think that he is basing his views entirely on the facts.
-
Which whoppers NGB?
I have played around a bit when folk were trying to identify me.
I think I was a former policeman at one stage, a survivor of the London 7/7 bombings, lived in Haiti, flew apache gunships, I was 54th in line to the throne. Oh and I invented the post - it pad. :-\
There's probably more, if there aren't then I can make some up. :D :D :D ?
Oh yeah, I also used to be on stage. :o
-
Are there any " unbiased " forum members ? Not from where I'm sitting there aren't !
Everyone is biased lookout, whether they acknowledge it or not. Whether they hold the truth or not is definitely another question.
-
Oh yeah, I also used to be on stage. :o
The landing stage,would that be.? ;D
-
Actually Hartley,you told us that your father died in the 7/7 bombings and I felt really sorry for you. Was this actually untrue?
-
Actually Hartley,you told us that your father died in the 7/7 bombings and I felt really sorry for you. Was this actually untrue?
I thought I said it was me (it was three years ago), but yes I'm afraid so, it was as untrue as the accusation at the time that I was actually David Boutflour.
However, the original point that was being made, is that NGB appears to be 'engineering' his position today. As stated above.
-
I thought I said it was me (it was three years ago), but yes I'm afraid so, it was as untrue as the accusation at the time that I was actually David Boutflour.
However, the original point that was being made, is that NGB appears to be 'engineering' his position today. As stated above.
You're definitely crackers then. >:(
-
Harters when I joined the forum at first I was told you were a busker and that is why you disappeared for weeks at a time. Hope you are not something quite boring like an Engineer or Architect or bus driver :'(
-
A garbologist,perhaps ?
-
You're definitely crackers then. >:(
That is very concise and to the point. lol ;D
-
Hmm I don't think you like criticism. :-\
Nevertheless, what I've posted above appears the be the overwhelming consensus amongst unbiased forum members.
As I say:
Whether he refuses to openly admit this or not is irrelevant.
He is quite welcome to disagree.
What utter rubbish. How would you know about the "overwhelming consensus"?
I don't like being accused of dishonesty. I am afraid you have plummeted in my estimation Harters. I knew you were a wind up merchant but this has gone beyond that.
-
Harters when I joined the forum at first I was told you were a busker and that is why you disappeared for weeks at a time. Hope you are not something quite boring like an Engineer or Architect or bus driver :'(
Hehe, busker sounds good. :D
-
H ( e )artless sounds even better !
-
Hartley is banned. I am sure that is what his aim was. I have removed several posts.
-
Good for you,ngb. His aura was catching and helped to inflame others,which was his intention.
-
Good for you,ngb. His aura was catching and helped to inflame others,which was his intention.
I agree Lookout.
-
ngb scipio and hartley are just baiting you. Ihn my opinion you are one of the most honest posters on this forum. Andthem not beilieving that you are not genuine or indeed not being honest could possibly bee that they are judging you from their own characters. That is what dishonest people do. I must also emphasise that you are possibly the only honest lawyer that I have had the pleasure to be acquainted with. Moreover although scipio is endeed very clever. Note I said "clever" I feel that he has a cunning way with words and is brilliant in covering his mistakes and making people think that he is basing his views entirely on the facts.
Baiting seems to imply that there is a trick afoot like baiting someone to make an admisison of guilt.
I wonder what is behind NGB's thinking to entertain the possiiblity given the laundry list I mentioned.
If he doesn't want to answer so be it but this is a discussion board and why you think something is more important than thinking it.
The clever thing many do is refuse to discuss the basis of their opinions because they know if they do such basis will be shredded. They would rather have an unproved opinion that is attacked than to set forth a basis that can be demolished.
I always set forth my basis so people can try to shred it all they want because if it is the truth it will survive scrutiny and if it is shredded that is fine because the truth all I care about anyway.
Most people do not lay all their cards on the table but I do.
-
1) the physical evidence, shell casings and blood evidence as well as other related issues to body positioning, establishes both women were killed in the master bedroom and that they were not significantly moved other than Sheila being moved flat from a seated position when shot
How does that rule out the possibility that Sheila was alive in the kitchen, not wounded?
2) the police who entered all say there was only 1 body in the kitchen, the one slumped over the chair
The few who entered early would say that now, wouldn't they? The point is that EP have been less than candid about releasing relevant police documentation, so what they permitted us to see can't be trusted.
3) all police who went in the master bedroom say there were 2 bodies
There were definitely two eventually, but for only one, namely Sheila, do we have photographs of her body in different positions - not just her arm moved, but all of her body.
4) Dr Craig says both female bodies were in the bedroom
He wasn't there at the relevant time. We know the two bodies were there eventually.
6) There is no reason why police would immediately move a body from the kitchen to the bedroom
They needn't have done so if Sheila was alive in the kitchen. There was no reason for the police to photograph Sheila's body in different positions, but admit only to moving her arm.
Police instantly thought Sheila was responsible, how could her body being in the kitchen take away from that view?
Because that would mean the police were concealing information. They held back who moved Sheila's body anyway between when the photographs mentioned above were taken.
That early on in the investigation why would someone do such? People do not do things for no reason.
Presumably because they had blundered so badly that they didn't want to admit it.
Why have the police been so keen not to release the full logs they made? Pc Saxby stated that he kept a log, but none of it has been disclosed. Some of the log pages we have seen were disclosed only because of a court order.
-
How does that rule out the possibility that Sheila was alive in the kitchen, not wounded?
The few who entered early would say that now, wouldn't they? The point is that EP have been less than candid about releasing relevant police documentation, so what they permitted us to see can't be trusted.
There were definitely two eventually, but for only one, namely Sheila, do we have photographs of her body in different positions - not just her arm moved, but all of her body.
He wasn't there at the relevant time. We know the two bodies were there eventually.
They needn't have done so if Sheila was alive in the kitchen. There was no reason for the police to photograph Sheila's body in different positions, but admit only to moving her arm.
Because that would mean the police were concealing information. They held back who moved Sheila's body anyway between when the photographs mentioned above were taken.
Presumably because they had blundered so badly that they didn't want to admit it.
Why have the police been so keen not to release the full logs they made? Pc Saxby stated that he kept a log, but none of it has been disclosed. Some of the log pages we have seen were disclosed only because of a court order.
What photographs are you talking about. Which pictures show that Sheila's whole body had been moved?
-
Baiting seems to imply that there is a trick afoot like baiting someone to make an admisison of guilt.
I wonder what is behind NGB's thinking to entertain the possiiblity given the laundry list I mentioned.
If he doesn't want to answer so be it but this is a discussion board and why you think something is more important than thinking it.
The clever thing many do is refuse to discuss the basis of their opinions because they know if they do such basis will be shredded. They would rather have an unproved opinion that is attacked than to set forth a basis that can be demolished.
I always set forth my basis so people can try to shred it all they want because if it is the truth it will survive scrutiny and if it is shredded that is fine because the truth all I care about anyway.
Most people do not lay all their cards on the table but I do.
I agree. But that is not what hartley was doing. He was implying and kept on implying that because ngb laied out clearly what he thought that he was lying. That is why ngb banned him.
-
What photographs are you talking about. Which pictures show that Sheila's whole body had been moved?
The pair of photographs that have been discussed on this site numerous times. There are at least two places where they are posted together, making it easy to spot the differences. To prove the difference in position of the body, note that its position in relation to spots (of blood presumably) on the carpet differs in the two photographs. Those spots cannot have moved, so the body has. The bible was moved as well.
-
The pair of photographs that have been discussed on this site numerous times. There are at least two places where they are posted together, making it easy to spot the differences. To prove the difference in position of the body, note that its position in relation to spots (of blood presumably) on the carpet differs in the two photographs. Those spots cannot have moved, so the body has. The bible was moved as well.
Yes, I remember the discussion now, but it is a matter of opinion as to whether Sheila was moved. The is no doubt that her hand was moved but what would be the point of moving her body only slightly?
-
How does that rule out the possibility that Sheila was alive in the kitchen, not wounded?
How does blood and shell casing evidence proving she was killed in the master bedroom and evidence that rigor set in before police entered prove she wasn't alive in the kitchen, killed in the kitchen and then later moved upstairs?
Isn't it self explanatory?
If instead you are suggesting she ran upstairs herself and was killed up there so that is why the blood evidence was there, the shell casings were there and why there was no blood evidence of her body being dragged from another room then you ignore:
1) the claim is there was a dead female body in the kitchen and a live person who ran upstairs won't fit
2) rigor began to set in befor epolice even entered so she was dea dbefore they entered
3) if they shot her shots would have been heard
4) if they shot her they would have no need to hide it, shooting an armed person is perfectly valid.
The few who entered early would say that now, wouldn't they? The point is that EP have been less than candid about releasing relevant police documentation, so what they permitted us to see can't be trusted.
Again they had no reason at all to conceal her being shot by them, people would have heard the shots and the documentation that would indicate such things was released.
There were definitely two eventually, but for only one, namely Sheila, do we have photographs of her body in different positions - not just her arm moved, but all of her body.
He wasn't there at the relevant time. We know the two bodies were there eventually.
They needn't have done so if Sheila was alive in the kitchen. There was no reason for the police to photograph Sheila's body in different positions, but admit only to moving her arm.
Because that would mean the police were concealing information. They held back who moved Sheila's body anyway between when the photographs mentioned above were taken.
Presumably because they had blundered so badly that they didn't want to admit it.
Why have the police been so keen not to release the full logs they made? Pc Saxby stated that he kept a log, but none of it has been disclosed. Some of the log pages we have seen were disclosed only because of a court order.
The photos don't demonstrate her body was moved for the photos beyond her arm and the gun and such movements have no impact at all on the allegations of her originally being in the kitchen.
There is no motive for them to move her to the bedroom from the kitchen and no evidence that such was done the evidence establishes she was killed in the bedroom.
If she had died in the kitchen it simply would have looked to them like she killed Nevill last and then killed herself. That would help their theory not hurt it.
-
What do you call a person who HAS to have the last word ??
-
Morning lookout ADAM ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Morning Susan. ;D ;D ;D ;D Hope you are well.x
Adam slops out early. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello lookout I am good hope you are too. What does Adam mean when he says Reader has firefighted ???
-
I've no idea,Susan. Sometimes he may as well speak in a foreign language for all the notice I take. ;D ;D
-
lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Funny how I mentioned slopping out-------------he's vanished. Now that's funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Maybe his pal Scipio is in a penitentiary. ;D ;D ;D
-
What do you call a person who HAS to have the last word ??
Determined? ;D ;)
-
Hmm I don't think you like criticism. :-\
Nevertheless, what I've posted above appears the be the overwhelming consensus amongst unbiased forum members.
As I say:
Whether he refuses to openly admit this or not is irrelevant.
He is quite welcome to disagree.
I don't know who you think you are speaking for - but 100% I disagree with you.
-
sorry that was a bit of a late post , but that comment annoyed me. >:(
-
I think,by 'unbiased forum members' he meant the guilters.
-
. . . it is a matter of opinion as to whether Sheila was moved. There is no doubt that her hand was moved, but what would be the point of moving her body only slightly?
The movement of Sheila's right leg is very obvious. Just compare its position in relation to marks (bloodspots) on the carpet in the photographs. I don't know the reason.
-
The movement of Sheila's right leg is very obvious. Just compare its position in relation to marks (bloodspots) on the carpet in the photographs. I don't know the reason.
Her leg didn't move, both photos were taken at different angles plus one shows more of her leg than the other. One is taken closer to her body the other further away so more of her body fits in the frame.
(http://i.imgur.com/LOvCi.jpg)
-
Look carefully at the pale area (a small rug apparently) which the socks partially cover. This pale area is identically positioned in the two images in relation to bloodspots on the adjacent carpet. Now consider the position of Sheila's right thigh in relation to that area. In particular, imagine a line drawn along the right edge of the pale area in each image. In the left image, the line would meet Sheila's leg just above the knee. In the right image, the line would meet Sheila's leg several inches further from the knee. It follows that Sheila's right thigh is several inches further to the left in the first image in relation to the carpet. It is impossible for Sheila's right thigh to have moved several inches without the rest of the body having moved as well. This can't be accounted for by the different camera position.
-
Quite a few differences about that pic.
-
It's time for closure on this.
And it's time for the people who clicked on 'yes' to retract. Although you are all perfectly entitled to still believe Bamber is innocent.
Even Bamber himself testified that Neville did not call the police. Changing his mind decades later.
It was impossible for either of them to make a 3.36am phone call. Read my thread on page 1.
Therefore there was one call made at 3.26am. Jeremy meeting the police at WHF 22 minutes later.
-
It's time for closure on this.
And it's time for the people who clicked on 'yes' to retract. Although you are all perfectly entitled to still believe Bamber is innocent.
Even Bamber himself testified that Neville did not call the police. Changing his mind decades later.
It was impossible for either of them to make a 3.36am phone call. Read my thread on page 1.
Therefore there was one call made at 3.26am. Jeremy meeting the police at WHF 22 minutes later.
Closure my eye.How do you think Jeremy feels ?
-
Closure my eye.How do you think Jeremy feels ?
Jeremy regrets making the mistake she did that got him busted and still hopes to find some claim that could fool a court into thinking he is innocent.
-
At one time he wouldn't have been convicted unless it was a majority vote 12/12.
Two people during the mass murder trial,thought he was innocent.Why do you think that was ?
-
At one time he wouldn't have been convicted unless it was a majority vote 12/12.
Two people during the mass murder trial,thought he was innocent.Why do you think that was ?
Lookout, would that not have been going back to the time when murder was a hanging offence? I know that you still favour this as a form -the ULTIMATE form- of punishment so I can understand how difficult it would be for you to take on board the possibility of Jeremy's guilt.
-
Lookout, would that not have been going back to the time when murder was a hanging offence? I know that you still favour this as a form -the ULTIMATE form- of punishment so I can understand how difficult it would be for you to take on board the possibility of Jeremy's guilt.
April, I'm really not sure when,or why this " unanimous decision " came about. It may possibly have been since the 60's when Mr Pierrepoint " retired ",I don't know.
-
No matter what,I can't accept that Jeremy is guilty. In my mind,there's absolutely nothing that pins it on him at all. I'm at an utter loss to even come up with anything like a hint of him having done it.
-
No matter what,I can't accept that Jeremy is guilty. In my mind,there's absolutely nothing that pins it on him at all. I'm at an utter loss to even come up with anything like a hint of him having done it.
I understand. I feel EXACTLY the same about JM...................in reverse, of course. I think she's ALMOST as guilty as Jeremy and I HATE that she's allowing him to do some of the time she, IMO, should be doing, but I DO have to ask myself if I'm being entirely fair in my assessment of her and looking at it from an entirely emotional stance. In which case, I may well have got it wrong..................but I hope I haven't.
-
April don't think you have it wrong about JM or Jeremy Bamber.
-
No matter what,I can't accept that Jeremy is guilty. In my mind,there's absolutely nothing that pins it on him at all. I'm at an utter loss to even come up with anything like a hint of him having done it.
Everytime the evidence is posted that proves his guilt it is criticized as being too long and dismissed by you for no vlaid reaosn. You can't refue the evidence and thus feel he is innocent for that reason you just refuse to face he is guilty because you do't want to.
-
I understand. I feel EXACTLY the same about JM...................in reverse, of course. I think she's ALMOST as guilty as Jeremy and I HATE that she's allowing him to do some of the time she, IMO, should be doing, but I DO have to ask myself if I'm being entirely fair in my assessment of her and looking at it from an entirely emotional stance. In which case, I may well have got it wrong..................but I hope I haven't.
At best one can suspect that after Jeremy told Julie of his intentionas that she encouraged him to go through with it. There is no evidence she actually helped plan it nor is it likely she did so. She might have encouraged him but then again might not we don't know for sure we just suspect she may have.
For sure we know that she initially tried to help cover for Jeremy by omitting information and not telling police things that they clearly would have liked to know right away. She certainly deserves scorn for that. She knew he was responsible but protected him anyway. A lot of people cover for loved ones but it still doesn't make it right.
-
What do you call a person who HAS to have the last word ??
Annoying. 8)
-
What do you call a person who HAS to have the last word ??
ADAM
-
ADAM
Wrong.
-
Wrong.
Adam wrong? Hmm, I can go with that.
-
Adam - your post said it is time to have closure on all this - but you have had closure.
You have not asked a single question that you yourself had not made up your mind what the answer is before you post.
So you already have closure - you know 100% in your mind that Jeremy is guilty - so your closure is the most simple of all.
Don't post anymore and find yourself another case to read about.
-
Adam - your post said it is time to have closure on all this - but you have had closure.
You have not asked a single question that you yourself had not made up your mind what the answer is before you post.
So you already have closure - you know 100% in your mind that Jeremy is guilty - so your closure is the most simple of all.
Don't post anymore and find yourself another case to read about.
I don´t quite understand the interest in a case where you agree with the verdit, the culprit has the maximum penalty possible, is behind bars. Everything is as you want it to be. Why use so much time on the case then?
I followed another possible MOJ case. I started out thinking the guys in prison were innocent, but I changed my stance and ended up believing them to be guilty. That made me lose interest in that partiular case.
Guess I was wrong changing my opinion from innocent to guilty, because the three men in question are now out of prison, one of them from death row; but that is irrelevant here.
-
Alias I hear what you say about Adam. Since I recently changed my stance to guilty I have always thought two people were involved and I am trying to work out how he set about committing the murders and with whom and this is why I still debate the case trying to figure out how.
-
Alias I hear what you say about Adam. Since I recently changed my stance to guilty I have always thought two people were involved and I am trying to work out how he set about committing the murders and with whom and this is why I still debate the case trying to figure out how.
OK, that makes sense, because to you, the case isn´t entirely solved.
-
Alias you got it too many unanswered questions and trying to make sense of it all is so difficult hoping I get some better idea by debating with other posters Nobody yet has posted how he carried out these murders on his own to convince me it was possible he must have had help.
-
I don´t quite understand the interest in a case where you agree with the verdit, the culprit has the maximum penalty possible, is behind bars. Everything is as you want it to be. Why use so much time on the case then?
I followed another possible MOJ case. I started out thinking the guys in prison were innocent, but I changed my stance and ended up believing them to be guilty. That made me lose interest in that partiular case.
Guess I was wrong changing my opinion from innocent to guilty, because the three men in question are now out of prison, one of them from death row; but that is irrelevant here.
What was the other case ?
-
Does anyone know if Jeremy knew that his father had been threatened ? I am sure it was not Jeremy he was worried about because he would not have let him have a gun in the house / gave him a 20% share in the business/ told the estate manager he was ready to take on more responsibility.
If Jeremy did know that, he could have staged the whole thing as a revenge attack.
So much easier - no worry about making it look like suicide - no making sure the house was locked up and no real motive to worry about.
It sounds like the man who made the threat was a nasty bit of work - so how much easier would that have been?
-
Alias you got it too many unanswered questions and trying to make sense of it all is so difficult hoping I get some better idea by debating with other posters Nobody yet has posted how he carried out these murders on his own to convince me it was possible he must have had help.
You know I agree with that. :)
-
What was the other case ?
The West Memphis Three, Arkansas, USA.
Three eight year old boys were brutally killed in 1993. Their naked, bound bodies were found in a drainage ditch.
Three West Memphis teenagers were arrested and convicted on dubious "evidence". Among other things, the testimony of a mail order "expert" on Satanic, ritual killings.
Very interesting case.
-
I don´t quite understand the interest in a case where you agree with the verdit, the culprit has the maximum penalty possible, is behind bars. Everything is as you want it to be. Why use so much time on the case then?
I followed another possible MOJ case. I started out thinking the guys in prison were innocent, but I changed my stance and ended up believing them to be guilty. That made me lose interest in that partiular case.
Guess I was wrong changing my opinion from innocent to guilty, because the three men in question are now out of prison, one of them from death row; but that is irrelevant here.
We aren't all the same - I haven't lost interest.
-
We aren't all the same - I haven't lost interest.
Why not?
-
Adam - your post said it is time to have closure on all this - but you have had closure.
You have not asked a single question that you yourself had not made up your mind what the answer is before you post.
So you already have closure - you know 100% in your mind that Jeremy is guilty - so your closure is the most simple of all.
Don't post anymore and find yourself another case to read about.
EXACTLY. You walked into that without any help, Adam.
-
Why not?
Because there are still things I'm not sure about.
-
Because there are still things I'm not sure about.
Fair enough. What things?
-
The thing I find frustrating is the things that matter are actually down to interpretation by "experts" and they all disagree with themselves!
The blood in the silencer even on the day Hayward changed his mind and if it was blood only possible by blood spatter by a contact shot - why would junes and nevilles blood possibly be in there and why on earth would Junes DNA be there?
One minute its a deadly weapon that Sheila could not possibly use - then someone says its no more that a slightly beefed up air rifle.
She would have broken her nails - then we learn the length of her nails was not even recorded.
The night dress - no other blood on it- but there is a document on here that may indicate otherwise.
The hand swabs - they were re-submitted -were they actually the originals or were they new ones? if so they would not have GSR on them.
The Dickinson report said there was no reason why Sheila would have blood from the victims on her - but everyone else said she would.
Nevilles injuries - most were cause by gun shot - and if he was slumped on a chair and could not fight back I cant see any reason why Sheila could not have then hit him.
She had been round guns all her life so I cant see any reason why she could not have fired the gun and there was no need to be a crack shot from that distance.
The moderator is the key and I bet everyone of us would fight to the bitter end to have such a vital piece of evidence removed if it had been - taken out of a box - put in a car boot where there were bloodied clothes , handled by family members , put in a wardrobe , handled in a tissue and put in a piece of cardboard tube.
It has also been written that the police at one stage tested the moderator on the end of the rifle by firing bullets through it to match LAN lines. Lets sincerely hope that was after al the blood tests had been done.
-
The thing I find frustrating is the things that matter are actually down to interpretation by "experts" and they all disagree with themselves!
The blood in the silencer even on the day Hayward changed his mind and if it was blood only possible by blood spatter by a contact shot - why would junes and nevilles blood possibly be in there and why on earth would Junes DNA be there?
One minute its a deadly weapon that Sheila could not possibly use - then someone says its no more that a slightly beefed up air rifle.
She would have broken her nails - then we learn the length of her nails was not even recorded.
The night dress - no other blood on it- but there is a document on here that may indicate otherwise.
The hand swabs - they were re-submitted -were they actually the originals or were they new ones? if so they would not have GSR on them.
The Dickinson report said there was no reason why Sheila would have blood from the victims on her - but everyone else said she would.
Nevilles injuries - most were cause by gun shot - and if he was slumped on a chair and could not fight back I cant see any reason why Sheila could not have then hit him.
She had been round guns all her life so I cant see any reason why she could not have fired the gun and there was no need to be a crack shot from that distance.
The moderator is the key and I bet everyone of us would fight to the bitter end to have such a vital piece of evidence removed if it had been - taken out of a box - put in a car boot where there were bloodied clothes , handled by family members , put in a wardrobe , handled in a tissue and put in a piece of cardboard tube.
It has also been written that the police at one stage tested the moderator on the end of the rifle by firing bullets through it to match LAN lines. Lets sincerely hope that was after al the blood tests had been done.
Excellent post Jansus. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The West Memphis Three, Arkansas, USA.
Three eight year old boys were brutally killed in 1993. Their naked, bound bodies were found in a drainage ditch.
Three West Memphis teenagers were arrested and convicted on dubious "evidence". Among other things, the testimony of a mail order "expert" on Satanic, ritual killings.
Very interesting case.
I don't know that case.
There are no doubt more people that incorrectly get 'not guilty' and are free. Good lawyers and lack of evidence means they get off.
I believe there are very few convicted criminals who are innocent. A lot have admitted their crime, due to overwhelming evidence. A few still protest their innocence. Such as Jeremy, who is the only lifer who still protests.
-
No wonder there's confusion. It's not what you'd call straightforward as it SHOULD have been,or WOULD have been had the right person/s been named !!
Yes,jansus,it is frustrating and wrong in a case of this magnitude.
-
Fair enough. What things?
There are lots of things, like everyone else, I have questions and things I'm not sure about. But there are other things I am quite sure about (as far as I can be for someone who wasn't there).
-
There are lots of things, like everyone else, I have questions and things I'm not sure about. But there are other things I am quite sure about (as far as I can be for someone who wasn't there).
You should create a thread on Jeremy's written answers to you're questions.
Would be interesting.
People were trying to interpret his WS to say he phoned Julie before the police the other day. Until you posted what he had recently told you.
-
You should create a thread on Jeremy's written answers to you're questions.
Would be interesting.
People were trying to interpret his WS to say he phoned Julie before the police the other day. Until you posted what he had recently told you.
The thing is Adam if he is innocent he does not know everything does he?
He did not know what the original notebooks from the officers said, he does not know what they heard inside the house , He does not know what they found when they went in the house and he did not know at the time what notes the relatives made or the fact that they hounded the police to change their direction.
He can only say what he knew or said - if the police embellished that to suit their scenario or moved things in the house he cant prove that the same that we can not.
-
The thing is Adam if he is innocent he does not know everything does he?
He did not know what the original notebooks from the officers said, he does not know what they heard inside the house , He does not know what they found when they went in the house and he did not know at the time what notes the relatives made or the fact that they hounded the police to change their direction.
He can only say what he knew or said - if the police embellished that to suit their scenario or moved things in the house he cant prove that the same that we can not.
If
-
If
Didn't Rudyard Kipling write that :D :D :D?
-
I have questions and things I'm not sure about.
If you were working in a police control room at night when, due to a call from a member of the public about a domestic incident at a farm, you were asked to drive to that farm, wouldn't you immediately want to know who it was that had called the police station to report the incident?
-
Of course. A few minutes are spent on the phone anyway,explaining who you are,etc,plus the nature of the crime.
-
The scenario is that you are on call to go on a shout if required, but someone else is answering the incoming calls.
-
If you were working in a police control room at night when, due to a call from a member of the public about a domestic incident at a farm, you were asked to drive to that farm, wouldn't you immediately want to know who it was that had called the police station to report the incident?
Reader, the one thing I am CERTAIN in my own mind about, is that the call from Neville never happened. I don't think there is anything suspicious about the logs or what occurred and it all fits in with what Jeremy originally claimed.
-
But if you were in the control room when Pc West took a call about WHF, wouldn't you want to know who had called Pc West before going there?
-
But if you were in the control room when Pc West took a call about WHF, wouldn't you want to know who had called Pc West before going there?
Not really, I'd want to know who was at the scene. West probably did mention who called but it didn't need to be written twice!
-
The thing I find frustrating is the things that matter are actually down to interpretation by "experts" and they all disagree with themselves!
The experts don't disagree about anything significant. You have not cited any expert testimony that refutes his guilt you have just recited a bunch of different claims from people here.
What is frustrating to you is that you don't want to believe Jeremy is guilty but the evidence all points to it and you are stuck ignoring it without any rational basis to do so.
The blood in the silencer even on the day Hayward changed his mind and if it was blood only possible by blood spatter by a contact shot - why would junes and nevilles blood possibly be in there and why on earth would Junes DNA be there?
1)Hayward didn't change his mind, his assessments are consistent.
2) If June and/or Nevill's blood were inside as well as Sheila's that means they also suffered contact shots. Each had a shot that could have been a contact shot but was viewed as more likely not being a contact shot. But the only blood determined to be inside was Sheila's.
3) The DNA found inside (June's DNA was found as well as Sheila's) was the result of contamination. Someone who handled something with June's DNA and Sheila's DNA on them also handled the inside of the moderator. The moderator tested negative for the presence of blood prior to being tested for DNA so the DNA found inside was not blood based.
4) You have not pointed to any conflicting expert testimony. You are ignoring the experts.
A) The experts on both sides agree that there was no way for Nevill and June's blood to intimately mix and yet be mistaken for Sheila's
B) The defense expert obtained by the trial defense team agreed there was no way the blood would not intimately mix and could thereby have been blood from multiple people without it being detected.
C) The defense expert obtained for the appeal could not establish it is possible for the blood of multiple victims killed within a short time of one another not intimately mixing in a moderator. He claimed he knew of an example where it happened on cloth (though he could not prove there was such a case because he could not provide the name of such case) and admitted testing woudl be necessary to prove it could happen in a moderator but he knew of no one who successfully acocmplished such a test. The prosecution expert tested that it would not get hot enough. He also admitted he had no way to know for sure if June and Nevlle's blood did mix together if it could mask the blood of the other. Nor could the expert explain how it would be possible for AK1, which is less stable than AK2-1, to outlive AK2-1 because in this instance AK1 was foudn but no AK2-1 and that is what differentiates June and Sheila's blood.
So you are going on allegations that the defens eexpert admitted were speculative and there was no way he could prove because he lacked the means to test the things he was suggesting in the lab.
D) Whether it was Sheila's blood or that of her parents makes not much difference either way the moderator was used. Jeremy claimed he left the gun out with no moderator attached and 48-50 bullets left int he kitchen. The notion Sheial went to the closet and got the moderator an dinstalled it herself and while she was there decided to get 5 more bullets instead of using all 25 fromt he supply left in the kitchen is absurd. That is what Jermey maintained at trial that she installed the moderator and used it to kill her parents and sons then she removed it and put it away before killing herself. Anyone who buy's that needs to see me about purchasing a bridge.
One minute its a deadly weapon that Sheila could not possibly use - then someone says its no more that a slightly beefed up air rifle.
There is no contradiction at all. They speak to 2 different issues. The claim it is a beefed up airgun merely speaks to the low power of the weapon.
No one suggested the recolil or weight of the wepaon would be too much for her to handle. The suggestion she would not be able to use it is because she would not know how. you and other Jeremy supporters suggest that just because shooting sometimes takes place on a farm tha tmeans she had to have witnessed it and that means she would know how to use the murder weapon. It is not asafe assumption that someone seeing another person shoot a shotgun will be able to shoot a shotgun. But it is even more foolish to claim that it would mean someone would know how to use a semi-automatic rifle. A shotgun and the murder weapon operate differently. To load the murder wepaon you had to not only load the magazine and insert it into the wepaon you then needed to manually feed a round into the chamber by working the bolt. She would not have known she needed to load a round manually first let alone how to do so. She would not learn either from watching people shoot shotguns.
She would have broken her nails - then we learn the length of her nails was not even recorded.
It is easy to tell if nails are broken but they were not. The photos show her nails were long. It is hard to load rounds into a magazine without breaking your nails unless you are very careful. As the spring in the magazine compresses it becoems harder and harde rot load the last round being quite difficult. The reason is because it was new and not used much and was not stored with bullets in it. If you leave bullets in a magazine constantly the spring loses tension. They didn't do that though.
Thanks to her illness she alreayd hand dexterity issues, even worse though her medicaiton would make that worse and she was not taking the medicaiton that would counter such effects thus woudl have shakes. That combined with being in a crazy frenzy makes it unlikely she would load the magazine slow and very carefully. She would have been in a rush and crash her nails on it trying to load it.
But the even greater dange rto her nails was during the struggle with Nevill. Especially as she was bashing him with the gun. Just wielding a bat against aball often results in women breaking nails let alone tightly gripping the gun and bashing it against his arm, into his face and bashing his head so hard the stock of the gun broke.
The night dress - no other blood on it- but there is a document on here that may indicate otherwise.
Post this document. It is one of Mike's fairytales. In the meantime blood on the back of her gown would not establish she was invovled in the murders anyway. Back spatter gets on the front of a perpetratorr not the back. You get blood on your back either by sitting in it, lying in it or having your back near someone who is being attacked by someone else.
The hand swabs - they were re-submitted -were they actually the originals or were they new ones? if so they would not have GSR on them.
The same ones were resubmitted. The defense has no evidence to the contrary.
The Dickinson report said there was no reason why Sheila would have blood from the victims on her - but everyone else said she would.
The Dickinson report deosn't say anything about the killer not being likely to get blood on him/her and his/her clothing. You as usual have no idea what you are talking about.
The experts at trial noted the blood that got on the gun while Nevill was being beaten and how blood would have gotten on the killer and his/her clothing as well during the course of such beating. Also that the killer would have gotten high velocity spatter of the adult victims during the firing of the gunshots. Also how the killer would have hag GSR on his/her clothing.
Nevilles injuries - most were cause by gun shot - and if he was slumped on a chair and could not fight back I cant see any reason why Sheila could not have then hit him.
Nevill became slumped over fromt he beating he wasn't beaten while slumped over. Nevill was knocked out and collapsed into the position he was found in. He was shot in that position not beaten while in that position.
The killer had no reaosn to beat Nevill if he ha dbeen passed out. he killer beat Nevill into unconscousness so that the killer could relaod the gun and shoot him.
She had been round guns all her life so I cant see any reason why she could not have fired the gun and there was no need to be a crack shot from that distance.
The tight grouping of shots is not easy. Hitting with all 25 shots would not be easy either not all shots were fired that close and some targets were moving. It would take expertise with the weapon to not miss at all and gorup the round tight. Not only did she lack expertise worse she had dexterity issues including problems caused by her medicaiton causing her to have tremors. That makes it evne less liekly than just her lack of expertise at being able to gorup the shots close and never miss.
worse yet having guns around the house your whole life doesn't mean you know how to load and fire those guns let alone a gun that operates differently than those that were owned by your family as you were growing up.
The murder weapon was the first semi-auto, there is no evidence it was used ever by Nevill or much by anyone else. Only around 100 rounds had been put through it prior to the murders (including Anthony's use little more than a week prior to the murders). Jeremy used it a few times to become proficient with it for target use but there is no evidence Sheila was visiting there when he did so. There is nothing at all to suggest Sheila would know how to operate the murder weapon. Ther eis evidence Jeremy tried to teahc her how to load the magazine but she refused to touch it. Maybe he was just trying to get her prints on it but she refused so that doesn't support her knowing how to use it rathe rit shows she had no interest in it. She thus had no way to know how to load the magazine, or to insert it, how to chamber a round (nor any evidence she would know she needed to manully chamber a round) or how to release the magazine to then be able to relaod it.
You just want to believe Jeremy is innocent so believe she would just know as if it is obvious and easy and as if it is easy to not miss even when suffering from problems that cause dexterity issues including poor hand eye coordination. .
The moderator is the key and I bet everyone of us would fight to the bitter end to have such a vital piece of evidence removed if it had been - taken out of a box - put in a car boot where there were bloodied clothes , handled by family members , put in a wardrobe , handled in a tissue and put in a piece of cardboard tube.
What bloody clothes you mean the stained panties that were in a trash can that Ann wa snot sure whether she brought home that day or instead on Sunday?
Even if that day there is no way for a bloodstain to jump from the panties out of the garbage bin into a box and then to result in blood drops on the first 6-8 baffles.
No experts claimed that blood could have been contaminated in the matter you suggest the experts say the opposite that is why such claim was not made at trial or on appeal.
Far from listeining to the experts you are running with nonsens emade up by Mike and others liek him.
It has also been written that the police at one stage tested the moderator on the end of the rifle by firing bullets through it to match LAN lines. Lets sincerely hope that was after al the blood tests had been done.
Bullets travel through the center of themoderator they don't hit the areas where the blood was lodged so would not be likely to dislodge said blood but if such did result in blood being removed all that would accoplish is to leave less evidence for the prosecution to use. It would deposit extra blood or somehow be able to change the blood type of the blood found inside.
-
There is no contradiction at all. They speak to 2 different issues. The claim it is a beefed up airgun merely speaks to the low power of the weapon.
No one suggested the recolil or weight of the wepaon would be too much for her to handle. The suggestion she would not be able to use it is because she would not know how.
Scipio that was not the suggestion at all. This is what he said:
Its frankly absurd to suggest that Sheila could have overpowered both Nevill and June with what was effectively an overrated airgun. It just wouldn't have happened and that is my professional opinion. Nevill could have dealt with her even if shot once, whoever fired those shots knew how to operate that rifle properly and it most certainly wasn't slender-built Sheila.
Where he clearly says that it was an overrated airgun and that was the reason Sheila couldn't have overpowered Nevill.
I sometimes have to laugh at some of these silly things put over by some guilters. If it was Sheila they reason she was so weak and short and it is implied "only a girl" and the gun was effectively only one step up from an airgun so Nevill who was so massive and strong that he would never be overpowered by such a person.
But if it was Jeremy suddenly Nevill becomes a very weak old man who had just been beaten half to death by massively strong Jeremy and then shot to death with his .22 powerful semi automatic. Why he becomes some character like Rambo against this poor sick old man.
Surely even you can see this trickery with words by some? ;D ;D ;D
-
Scipio that was not the suggestion at all. This is what he said:Where he clearly says that it was an overrated airgun and that was the reason Sheila couldn't have overpowered Nevill.
I sometimes have to laugh at some of these silly things put over by some guilters. If it was Sheila they reason she was so weak and short and it is implied "only a girl" and the gun was effectively only one step up from an airgun so Nevill who was so massive and strong that he would never be overpowered by such a person.
But if it was Jeremy suddenly Nevill becomes a very weak old man who had just been beaten half to death by massively strong Jeremy and then shot to death with his .22 powerful semi automatic. Why he becomes some character like Rambo against this poor sick old man.
Surely even you can see this trickery with words by some? ;D ;D ;D
John suggested that Nevill was strong enough that even though shot he still would have overcome Sheila. Far from suggested Nevill was a weak man if the killer were Jeremy but strong if the killer were
Sheial the claim is his strenth did not chang in either cas ebut in one case the attacker was physically stronger.
In meantime Jansus wrote:
"One minute its a deadly weapon that Sheila could not possibly use - then someone says its no more that a slightly beefed up air rifle."
Jansus is either suggesting that a beefed up air rifle would be easy to know how to use or alternatively it would be easy to physically use and suggesting someone said it would be too heavy or strong for her to physically use it. I interpret it as meaning the latter because the former makes little sense. The recoil and weight has nothing at all to do with whether she would know how to use it though.
John didn't suggest the weapon was too heavy and had too much of a recoil for her to use nor did anyone else here suggest such so it is a strawman argument.
-
John suggested that Nevill was strong enough that even though shot he still would have overcome Sheila. Far from suggested Nevill was a weak man if the killer were Jeremy but strong if the killer were
Sheial the claim is his strenth did not chang in either cas ebut in one case the attacker was physically stronger.
In meantime Jansus wrote:
"One minute its a deadly weapon that Sheila could not possibly use - then someone says its no more that a slightly beefed up air rifle."
Jansus is either suggesting that a beefed up air rifle would be easy to know how to use or alternatively it would be easy to physically use and suggesting someone said it would be too heavy or strong for her to physically use it. I interpret it as meaning the latter because the former makes little sense. The recoil and weight has nothing at all to do with whether she would know how to use it though.
John didn't suggest the weapon was too heavy and had too much of a recoil for her to use nor did anyone else here suggest such so it is a strawman argument.
We in that case why emphasise that the gun was nothing more than a glorified airgun if that is not what he meant? In other words he is making the weapon something that was easily overcome. Personally as someone who has been shot with a glorified airgun I can tell you at once that my instinct was to turn away and het out of the way rather than try to tackle the assailant.
-
John suggested that Nevill was strong enough that even though shot he still would have overcome Sheila. Far from suggested Nevill was a weak man if the killer were Jeremy but strong if the killer were
Sheial the claim is his strenth did not chang in either cas ebut in one case the attacker was physically stronger.
In meantime Jansus wrote:
"One minute its a deadly weapon that Sheila could not possibly use - then someone says its no more that a slightly beefed up air rifle."
Jansus is either suggesting that a beefed up air rifle would be easy to know how to use or alternatively it would be easy to physically use and suggesting someone said it would be too heavy or strong for her to physically use it. I interpret it as meaning the latter because the former makes little sense. The recoil and weight has nothing at all to do with whether she would know how to use it though.
John didn't suggest the weapon was too heavy and had too much of a recoil for her to use nor did anyone else here suggest such so it is a strawman argument.
According to the experts a child could have used rifle (18) the recoil was so small.
Talking about women overpowering men. I watched this crime about a 29 year old woman 4ft 11 inches who stabbed her lover 28 times and killed him. He was 6ft tall and quite a hefty chap, but he could not defend himself against this small framed woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84iBjhTLLI
-
We in that case why emphasise that the gun was nothing more than a glorified airgun if that is not what he meant? In other words he is making the weapon something that was easily overcome. Personally as someone who has been shot with a glorified airgun I can tell you at once that my instinct was to turn away and het out of the way rather than try to tackle the assailant.
John is saying glorified airgun to say:
1) Nevill would not be scared to try to disarm her because it was a low powered gun
and
2) Nevill still would have been able to overpower Sheial because the gun would not have caused wounds significant enough to have enabled little Sheila to have previaled in a life or death struggle with Nevill
He never said anything about the gun being too heavy or recoil too much for Sheila to handle. Nor did anyone else that I ever saw.
-
Not really, I'd want to know who was at the scene. West probably did mention who called but it didn't need to be written twice!
A list of the people at the scene wasn't noted by Pc West or Malcolm Bonnett, so it seems nobody could have told you even if you'd asked.
Surely Pc West would mention potential danger, though. Do you agree?
-
A list of the people at the scene wasn't noted by Pc West or Malcolm Bonnett, so it seems nobody could have told you even if you'd asked.
Surely Pc West would mention potential danger, though. Do you agree?
They knew there was at least two people - Neville and Sheila, we don't know that they weren't alerted to potential danger?
-
According to the experts a child could have used rifle (18) the recoil was so small.
Talking about women overpowering men. I watched this crime about a 29 year old woman 4ft 11 inches who stabbed her lover 28 times and killed him. He was 6ft tall and quite a hefty chap, but he could not defend himself against this small framed woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84iBjhTLLI
Even small recoil is enough to make you not aim well on subsequent shots. People all too often thing about recoil as in getting knocked on you arse instead of thinking about it messing up shots if you continue to fire. A gun with large recoil that you never fired before it one likely to give big problems.
A .357 magnum can fire 38 special rounds or .357 magnum rounds. As a joke someone put a 357 round in when I was shooting 38 special rounds. I never fired a 357 before nor was prepared. It was the 5th round in the gun. I shot the first 4 without incident and then it jumped and my last round I missed the target completely. The .44 magnum is beast I was ready for that and it still was something.
Her good shooting is just one of the many things that don't add up it is not by any stretch the only thing. It is just one of the building blocks.
There are multitudes of incidents of female cops being overpowered by men and their weapons being taken away. Did you hear about the fence jumper at the US White House? He overpowered a female secret service member before being subdued by males.
There are women who can hold their own against men but that is when the men are are not that big or strong in comparison to the women. Women who are not only tall but powerful is actually rare. Some lift weights and such and are strong but most are not.
One nurse who I know always bragged about how tough and strong she was and how she could handle all men with no problem. A patient who she tried to manhandle on her own because she needs no help ended up doing a number on her. Her ego took a big hit not just her body. She liked the idea of thinking of herself as a badass.
My favorite line from the Dirty Harry movies is not what one would think- it is, "A man's got to know his limitations". Overconfidence always causes unecessary harm.
If someone is attacked by surprise with a knife they can be overpowered by someone smaller. In fact in some instances a smaller person can be a real challenge with a knife because they are closer to your vulnerable areas. There are a lot of variables though.
A rifle is far easier to take away from someone than a knife or even a handgun. It is rather easy to knock a rifle away so it is not pointing at you and then you have plenty of opportunity to wrest it away. You need to keep someone at a distance to be able to prevent such. That is why walking up to Nevill as he was on the phone and trying to grab the phone or push the buttons down would be so disasterous, only one hand would be on the gun and he would be able to grab it easily because you owuld hve to be close to him.
It's relatively hard to get in grasping distance of a handgun without being shot. A knife depends on how the person is holding it and using it. Practices always feature people mugging you close up and those moves you can get down pat. If someone is smart and keeps their distance then it is not so easy.
In real life people who decide to kill don't usually pause. It is the people not sure what they want to do who pause and are easy to try to disarm. The people who decide to kill just open fire before you can react. Or they start slashing and stabbing before you know what is going on.
Nevill was pretty damn strong, if his left arm had not been broken Jeremy might not have come out on top of that one. Given the broken arm Sheila could potentially have prevailed but might not have been strong enough to we don't know. All we know is that she would have harmed herself in the precess at minimum by scratching her hand when the stock broke, cut her feet and chip if not break some nails. More importantly she would have been covered in blood.
We are not being asked for one unlikely thing to happen, for Sheila to be guilty there has to be a whole series of unlikely things from top to bottom and some impossible things. That is why Jeremy has no chance of ever seeing the light of day.
-
John is saying glorified airgun to say:
1) Nevill would not be scared to try to disarm her because it was a low powered gun
and
2) Nevill still would have been able to overpower Sheial because the gun would not have caused wounds significant enough to have enabled little Sheila to have previaled in a life or death struggle with Nevill
He never said anything about the gun being too heavy or recoil too much for Sheila to handle. Nor did anyone else that I ever saw.
So why didn't he do that with Bamber since it was a low powered gun? Well when that bullet hit me I certainly wouldn't have said it was a low powered gun, it certainly put me out of action and that only hit my arm.
-
Even small recoil is enough to make you not aim well on subsequent shots. People all too often thing about recoil as in getting knocked on you arse instead of thinking about it messing up shots if you continue to fire. A gun with large recoil that you never fired before it one likely to give big problems.
A .357 magnum can fire 38 special rounds or .357 magnum rounds. As a joke someone put a 357 round in when I was shooting 38 special rounds. I never fired a 357 before nor was prepared. It was the 5th round in the gun. I shot the first 4 without incident and then it jumped and my last round I missed the target completely. The .44 magnum is beast I was ready for that and it still was something.
Her good shooting is just one of the many things that don't add up it is not by any stretch the only thing. It is just one of the building blocks.
There are multitudes of incidents of female cops being overpowered by men and their weapons being taken away. Did you hear about the fence jumper at the US White House? He overpowered a female secret service member before being subdued by males.
There are women who can hold their own against men but that is when the men are are not that big or strong in comparison to the women. Women who are not only tall but powerful is actually rare. Some lift weights and such and are strong but most are not.
One nurse who I know always bragged about how tough and strong she was and how she could handle all men with no problem. A patient who she tried to manhandle on her own because she needs no help ended up doing a number on her. Her ego took a big hit not just her body. She liked the idea of thinking of herself as a badass.
My favorite line from the Dirty Harry movies is not what one would think- it is, "A man's got to know his limitations". Overconfidence always causes unecessary harm.
If someone is attacked by surprise with a knife they can be overpowered by someone smaller. In fact in some instances a smaller person can be a real challenge with a knife because they are closer to your vulnerable areas. There are a lot of variables though.
A rifle is far easier to take away from someone than a knife or even a handgun. It is rather easy to knock a rifle away so it is not pointing at you and then you have plenty of opportunity to wrest it away. You need to keep someone at a distance to be able to prevent such. That is why walking up to Nevill as he was on the phone and trying to grab the phone or push the buttons down would be so disasterous, only one hand would be on the gun and he would be able to grab it easily because you owuld hve to be close to him.
It's relatively hard to get in grasping distance of a handgun without being shot. A knife depends on how the person is holding it and using it. Practices always feature people mugging you close up and those moves you can get down pat. If someone is smart and keeps their distance then it is not so easy.
In real life people who decide to kill don't usually pause. It is the people not sure what they want to do who pause and are easy to try to disarm. The people who decide to kill just open fire before you can react. Or they start slashing and stabbing before you know what is going on.
Nevill was pretty damn strong, if his left arm had not been broken Jeremy might not have come out on top of that one. Given the broken arm Sheila could potentially have prevailed but might not have been strong enough to we don't know. All we know is that she would have harmed herself in the precess at minimum by scratching her hand when the stock broke, cut her feet and chip if not break some nails. More importantly she would have been covered in blood.
We are not being asked for one unlikely thing to happen, for Sheila to be guilty there has to be a whole series of unlikely things from top to bottom and some impossible things. That is why Jeremy has no chance of ever seeing the light of day.
I've fired one (bolt action) years ago and I can't remember any recoil at all from a .22.
-
I've fired one (bolt action) years ago and I can't remember any recoil at all from a .22.
Working the bolt alone to load a new round into the chamber results in movement of the weapon unless quite skilled and takes additional time that is not needed with a semi-auto. That is why Jerey wanted a semi-auto to commit the murders with.
Sheila had numerous things working against her in terms of dexterity ranging from her natural problems to ones caused by her medication and that would have resulted from rapid movement in a crazy rage. More significantly she never fired the weapon before which alone would result in a learning curve. That is if she figured out how to use it. There is nothing to suggest she would be able to figure out she needed to chamber a round manually or how before she could be disarmed.
For Jeremy to be innocent there had to be a whole long series of unlikely events that occurred and some that are not even possible.
That is why Jeremy supporters want to address each independently because if you try arguing 30 extremely unlikely things all occurred in succession you look like a fool. In the meantime they also ignore many of the most daning things because they have no real way to refute them.
Then they whine and say he should be released though they failed miserably at presenting any evidence that refutes the evidence that convicted him and thus have not in the least demonstrateed he is innocent and should be released.
Deciding they will ignore reality and pretend Sheial would not have gotten GSR and blood on her clothing or alternatively pretend that she changed and that the GSR/blood stained clothing was hidden at WHF but never found by anyone though everything was gone through amounts to denial simply not proof or evidence.
Deciding to pretend she did not suffer from a contact wound as the experts assert and was not shot with the moderator on the gun but rather that the parents were shot with the moderator at contact range and somehow Nevill's less stable AK1 survived while June's AK2-1 did not and somehow in some mysterious manner the blood failed to intimately mix though there is no explanation as to how that could have occurred amounts to denial. It is further denial to believe Sheila went into a crazy rage, found the gun in the kitchen where Jeremy left it then decided to go to the close to get the moderator to place on it, used it with the moderator attached, removed the moderator after killing everyone then put it away in the closet to hide it so no one would know it was used. Why would she get it out let alone put it away to conceal its use? Also live in denial by pretending that Sheila would use 20 rounds from the batch of bullets he left in the kitchen but then go to the closet to get 5 more instead of continuing to use the kitchen supply even though 30 remained in that supply.
There is nothing to suggest these things are credibile, People just decide they want to beleive Jeremy is innocent no matter what and are willing to ignore anything and everything against him for no rational reason but instead for the biased reaosn they don't want to face his guilt.
In fact they are so biased they even revise Jerey's claims and statements. They know what Jeremy said was harful to his position so they make up different testimony for him or ignore his testimony. Alias et al spent many days insisting that even though Jeremy himself admitted he climbed through the kitchen window that a human can't fit and thus Jeremy was just lying about being able to do so. Why would he lie to admit something unfavorable to his position? You lie to say something favorable to your position.
The thing about living in denial is that living in denial only impacts your own personal views. It doesn't provide any basis upon which to argue from.
When arguing before a court or even just informally saying you refuse to face that Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound and thus can't have resulted in drawback into the weapon doesn't cut the mustard. You need strong evidence that proves the experts who asserted it was a contact wound were wrong. Choosing to believe that because it is necessary for Jeremy to be innocent and you want to believe Jeremy is innocent amounts to blind faith simply.
That is where we find ourselves today.
We have on one side those who have blind faith in Jeremy who live in denial as a result and then those who don't and who thus face the evidence against Jeremy and consequently believe he is guilty.
That is why there is a stalemate. Adam thinks he can convince such people to abandon their blind faither not understanding they intentionally have decided to reject and and all evidence against Jeremy no matter what and instead to have blind faith.
There are some unscrupulous Jeremy supporters who don't want to admit they are operating on blind faith so they distort and pretend that there is evidence to establish someone was inside alive while police were at the scene, that Nevill had phoned police, that blood was planted in the moderator and things of that sort though they in fact have no evidence at all to establish such occurred.
If such unscrupulous posts stopped popping up and Adam stopped trying to waste his time convincing them to give up their blind faih the site would largely come to a halt. Most posts are either a reaction tot he distortions posted by Jeremy supporters or reactions by supporters to Adams posts.
So it is just a vicious circle with no progress being made.
-
Working the bolt alone to load a new round into the chamber results in movement of the weapon unless quite skilled and takes additional time that is not needed with a semi-auto. That is why Jerey wanted a semi-auto to commit the murders with.
Sheila had numerous things working against her in terms of dexterity ranging from her natural problems to ones caused by her medication and that would have resulted from rapid movement in a crazy rage. More significantly she never fired the weapon before which alone would result in a learning curve. That is if she figured out how to use it. There is nothing to suggest she would be able to figure out she needed to chamber a round manually or how before she could be disarmed.
For Jeremy to be innocent there had to be a whole long series of unlikely events that occurred and some that are not even possible.
That is why Jeremy supporters want to address each independently because if you try arguing 30 extremely unlikely things all occurred in succession you look like a fool. In the meantime they also ignore many of the most daning things because they have no real way to refute them.
Then they whine and say he should be released though they failed miserably at presenting any evidence that refutes the evidence that convicted him and thus have not in the least demonstrateed he is innocent and should be released.
Deciding they will ignore reality and pretend Sheial would not have gotten GSR and blood on her clothing or alternatively pretend that she changed and that the GSR/blood stained clothing was hidden at WHF but never found by anyone though everything was gone through amounts to denial simply not proof or evidence.
Deciding to pretend she did not suffer from a contact wound as the experts assert and was not shot with the moderator on the gun but rather that the parents were shot with the moderator at contact range and somehow Nevill's less stable AK1 survived while June's AK2-1 did not and somehow in some mysterious manner the blood failed to intimately mix though there is no explanation as to how that could have occurred amounts to denial. It is further denial to believe Sheila went into a crazy rage, found the gun in the kitchen where Jeremy left it then decided to go to the close to get the moderator to place on it, used it with the moderator attached, removed the moderator after killing everyone then put it away in the closet to hide it so no one would know it was used. Why would she get it out let alone put it away to conceal its use? Also live in denial by pretending that Sheila would use 20 rounds from the batch of bullets he left in the kitchen but then go to the closet to get 5 more instead of continuing to use the kitchen supply even though 30 remained in that supply.
There is nothing to suggest these things are credibile, People just decide they want to beleive Jeremy is innocent no matter what and are willing to ignore anything and everything against him for no rational reason but instead for the biased reaosn they don't want to face his guilt.
In fact they are so biased they even revise Jerey's claims and statements. They know what Jeremy said was harful to his position so they make up different testimony for him or ignore his testimony. Alias et al spent many days insisting that even though Jeremy himself admitted he climbed through the kitchen window that a human can't fit and thus Jeremy was just lying about being able to do so. Why would he lie to admit something unfavorable to his position? You lie to say something favorable to your position.
The thing about living in denial is that living in denial only impacts your own personal views. It doesn't provide any basis upon which to argue from.
When arguing before a court or even just informally saying you refuse to face that Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound and thus can't have resulted in drawback into the weapon doesn't cut the mustard. You need strong evidence that proves the experts who asserted it was a contact wound were wrong. Choosing to believe that because it is necessary for Jeremy to be innocent and you want to believe Jeremy is innocent amounts to blind faith simply.
That is where we find ourselves today.
We have on one side those who have blind faith in Jeremy who live in denial as a result and then those who don't and who thus face the evidence against Jeremy and consequently believe he is guilty.
That is why there is a stalemate. Adam thinks he can convince such people to abandon their blind faither not understanding they intentionally have decided to reject and and all evidence against Jeremy no matter what and instead to have blind faith.
There are some unscrupulous Jeremy supporters who don't want to admit they are operating on blind faith so they distort and pretend that there is evidence to establish someone was inside alive while police were at the scene, that Nevill had phoned police, that blood was planted in the moderator and things of that sort though they in fact have no evidence at all to establish such occurred.
If such unscrupulous posts stopped popping up and Adam stopped trying to waste his time convincing them to give up their blind faih the site would largely come to a halt. Most posts are either a reaction tot he distortions posted by Jeremy supporters or reactions by supporters to Adams posts.
So it is just a vicious circle with no progress being made.
People have gone from innocent to guilty since I joined. Susan saying my posts and sources helped convince her.
There is no way Caroline, Alias and April will admit that my posts have convinced them to change. Caroline giving a strange reason about a wallet and a letter. April has not given a reason. Alias saying she is now unsure.
Although I have received several PM's from people in the guilty camp saying they agree with my posts. And people on Red have also praised me.
Grahame admittted defeat and left. Before returning. Probably due to retirement boredom.
Even Reader has resorted to proving Jeremy is innocent by saying his own WS is wrong !
Lookout, Jackie and Jansus are refusing to budge.
-
The only unscrupulous poster here is YOU,Scipio, with your reams of hatred and propaganda !!
-
People have gone from innocent to guilty since I joined. Susan saying my posts and sources helped convince her.
There is no way Caroline, Alias and April will admit that my posts have convinced them to change. Caroline giving a strange reason about a wallet and a letter. April has not given a reason. Alias saying she is now unsure.
Although I have received several PM's from people in the guilty camp saying they agree with my posts. And people on Red have also commented on me.
Grahame admittted defeat and left. Before returning. Probably due to retirement boredom.
Even Reader has resorted to proving Jeremy is innocent by saying his own WS is wrong !
Lookout, Jackie and Jansus are refusing to budge.
Is that ALL you're here for Adam. To be "commented on"? My!! HOW big an ego is that?
It would be GROSSLY unfair if I failed to say that, IMO, you HAVE made some excellent points but, again, and only in my opinion, you probably, HAVE done, and still do, MORE to prevent posters changing their minds from innocent to guilty, than anyone else. You throw out accusations about people focusing on you but you appear to relish the attention.
-
People have gone from innocent to guilty since I joined. Susan saying my posts and sources helped convince her.
There is no way Caroline, Alias and April will admit that my posts have convinced them to change. Caroline giving a strange reason about a wallet and a letter. April has not given a reason. Alias saying she is now unsure.
Although I have received several PM's from people in the guilty camp saying they agree with my posts. And people on Red have also praised me.
Grahame admittted defeat and left. Before returning. Probably due to retirement boredom.
Even Reader has resorted to proving Jeremy is innocent by saying his own WS is wrong !
Lookout, Jackie and Jansus are refusing to budge.
You're right because if I said it had ANYTHING to do with you, it would make me a liar.
-
And Scipio is here purely and simply to win the propaganda war ! He thinks ! His aim is to deliberately mislead.Makes plenty of assertions,but no arguments to back them up.
-
Is that ALL you're here for Adam. To be "commented on"? My!! HOW big an ego is that?
It would be GROSSLY unfair if I failed to say that, IMO, you HAVE made some excellent points but, again, and only in my opinion, you probably, HAVE done, and still do, MORE to prevent posters changing their minds from innocent to guilty, than anyone else. You throw out accusations about people focusing on you but you appear to relish the attention.
You're right because if I said it had ANYTHING to do with you, it would make me a liar.
Adam, I think the above outlines what I should have clarified in my post.
-
People have gone from innocent to guilty since I joined. Susan saying my posts and sources helped convince her.
There is no way Caroline, Alias and April will admit that my posts have convinced them to change. Caroline giving a strange reason about a wallet and a letter. April has not given a reason. Alias saying she is now unsure.
Although I have received several PM's from people in the guilty camp saying they agree with my posts. And people on Red have also praised me.
Grahame admittted defeat and left. Before returning. Probably due to retirement boredom.
Even Reader has resorted to proving Jeremy is innocent by saying his own WS is wrong !
Lookout, Jackie and Jansus are refusing to budge.
Adam, you keep this up! Read back, I have always said I am on the fence, I am not sure Sheila did it, I am not sure Jeremy did it (alone).
I have been on this board for years before you came here and have always said I am not sure. Don´t take credit where there is none to take. This is just silly, Adam!
-
People have gone from innocent to guilty since I joined. Susan saying my posts and sources helped convince her.
There is no way Caroline, Alias and April will admit that my posts have convinced them to change. Caroline giving a strange reason about a wallet and a letter. April has not given a reason. Alias saying she is now unsure.
Although I have received several PM's from people in the guilty camp saying they agree with my posts. And people on Red have also praised me.
Grahame admittted defeat and left. Before returning. Probably due to retirement boredom.
Even Reader has resorted to proving Jeremy is innocent by saying his own WS is wrong !
Lookout, Jackie and Jansus are refusing to budge.
Caroline is right - quite often your posts make me even more sure he is innocent.
When I see something that convinces me I will change my mind -I have absolutely NO personal agenda whatsoever.
I have just as yet seen nothing that has not been disputed by one expert or another.
I am not wining or being deceiptful I am just being honest.
I do not blindly accept some of the theories on here because I know there have been lies told - but I have also seen the most incredible assumptions by people who believe he is guilty as well.
-
. . . we don't know that they weren't alerted to potential danger?
Don't we? If you were told of potential danger, would you ignore that danger and proceed as though some minor domestic incident had been reported?
-
And Scipio is here purely and simply to win the propaganda war ! He thinks ! His aim is to deliberately mislead.Makes plenty of assertions,but no arguments to back them up.
I don't rely on propaganda I rely on facts and evidence. You are the one relying on propaganda because the facts are against Jeremy and thus are of no interest to you.
I have laid out the evidence agains tJerey many times it is evidence so potent tha the wa socnvicted and his conviction upheld repeatedly. You have nothing at all to refute that evidence you jus tchildishly say you don't care you refuse to believe it.
All you do is repeatedly admit you live in denial nothing more.
-
Fact: Jeremy stated he telephoned Julie at about 3:25am. Fact: Julie initially stated she received his call at about 3:30am. Fact: you prefer to believe someone who claimed they saw just one digit of the time! Fact: Jeremy is innocent and you know it.
-
Fact: Jeremy stated he telephoned Julie at about 3:25am. Fact: Julie initially stated she received his call at about 3:30am. Fact: you prefer to believe someone who claimed they saw just one digit of the time! Fact: Jeremy is innocent and you know it.
Fact: Julie later said she wa ssure the time was actually earlier.
Fact Julie admitted her first statement was deceptive to help Jeremy avoid liability.
Fact: The roomates say they looked at their clocks while Julie didn't.
Fact: Jeremy claims he called police before her but he lied he called her before police though he had no reaosn to do so and if he had actually received an emeregency call from Nevill he would have either rushed over or diaed 999.
-
Fact: Julie later said she was sure the time was actually earlier.
So she contradicted herself, proving she lied.
Fact Julie admitted her first statement was deceptive to help Jeremy avoid liability.
So she certainly lied, whereas you merely suspect that Jeremy lied.
Fact: The roommates say they looked at their clocks while Julie didn't.
But they claimed different times, and you crazily put most faith in the one who claimed to have seen only one digit of the time!
Fact: Jeremy claims he called police before her.He specifically said when interviewed that he called Julie before calling the police. Ds Jones then badgered him into offering the opposite order by making false claims that he'd given the opposite order originally.
he called her before police though he had no reason to do so
He said he called her at about 3:25, which was before he called the police. No lie there.
-
So she contradicted herself, proving she lied.
So she certainly lied, whereas you merely suspect that Jeremy lied.
But they claimed different times, and you crazily put most faith in the one who claimed to have seen only one digit of the time!
He said he called her at about 3:25, which was before he called the police. No lie there.
The digit seen was the hour which was 2AM. Dale said 3AM Susan said 3:15 but her clock was 10 minutes fast. So that means either they were all wrong and it was before 3AM or the clock was afew minutes slow and it was close to 3 on the clock.
Jeremy clearly was on the phone with west at 3:25 so lied about the call to Julie being at that time.
He assumed he called police earlier than he remembered so made up 3:25 thinking it would be after he called police.
-
The digit seen was the hour which was 2AM. Dale said 3AM Susan said 3:15 but her clock was 10 minutes fast. So that means either they were all wrong and it was before 3AM or the clock was afew minutes slow and it was close to 3 on the clock.
Jeremy clearly was on the phone with west at 3:25 so lied about the call to Julie being at that time.
He assumed he called police earlier than he remembered so made up 3:25 thinking it would be after he called police.
Remember Dale was not the one who woke her up on the earlier call. She said he woke her up on the 5am call.
-
If Reader is saying Jeremy phoned the police at 3.25am. Then he is disputing the new direction Bamber's 'campaign for freedom' is going.
Which is saying Neville called the police at 3.26am and Jeremy called them at 3.36am.
It may not be a bad idea for Reader to do this. It is impossible for either of them to phone the police at 3.36am. Thread already created.
-
I don't rely on propaganda I rely on facts and evidence. You are the one relying on propaganda because the facts are against Jeremy and thus are of no interest to you.
I have laid out the evidence agains tJerey many times it is evidence so potent tha the wa socnvicted and his conviction upheld repeatedly. You have nothing at all to refute that evidence you jus tchildishly say you don't care you refuse to believe it.
All you do is repeatedly admit you live in denial nothing more.
NOBODY can rely on facts unless they were present at the scene of the crime,and even then facts can be changed,so don't tell me about your facts and evidence.What evidence anyway ? Is it concrete ? Because it's the first I've heard if it is !
All you do is repeat your spin and try to blind everyone with science,but guess what ? It doesn't work with me and that's why you're constantly pulling whatever I say,to pieces because it doesn't fit your own agenda.
It's YOU who's in denial,not me.Why should it bother you what I post ? Because your posts certainly don't bother me-----------I don't read them,apart from the childish abuse that you constantly dish out !!
Then that would only encourage me MORE to remain with him being innocent. I would go as far as to say that with someone like you arguing the toss and if I happened to think on the lines of guilt,I'd say innocent just to be bloody-minded. Your sort get on my wick !!
-
NOBODY can rely on facts unless they were present at the scene of the crime,and even then facts can be changed,so don't tell me about your facts and evidence.What evidence anyway ? Is it concrete ? Because it's the first I've heard if it is !
All you do is repeat your spin and try to blind everyone with science,but guess what ? It doesn't work with me and that's why you're constantly pulling whatever I say,to pieces because it doesn't fit your own agenda.
It's YOU who's in denial,not me.Why should it bother you what I post ? Because your posts certainly don't bother me-----------I don't read them,apart from the childish abuse that you constantly dish out !!
Then that would only encourage me MORE to remain with him being innocent. I would go as far as to say that with someone like you arguing the toss and if I happened to think on the lines of guilt,I'd say innocent just to be bloody-minded. Your sort get on my wick !!
I don't need to spin the facts and evidence are on my side. I followed the facts and evidence in order to make up my mind of who committed the crimes.
In contrast you didn't review any of the evidence you just decided that you will believe Jeremy is innocent no matter what and that Sheila did it. You already said many times you will never believe a non-insane person would commit the murders Sheila had to do it while in a crazy rage. You also say you will never believe he would make the errors attributed to him as if he were infallible and that there was no motive because he would only have had to shared the land property 50/50 he would have owned 60% of everything else. You say that there is no way he would have killed Sheila and the twins for a lousy 40% and 50% of the land property. But all that amounts to is you living in denial when you say ther ei sno way he would make mistakes or kill for money. Your attempt to say there is nothing he could have gained fail miserably.
You don't want to believe he is guilty so you insist either Sheila did it or June or Nevill did it.What evidence do you have that any of them could have committed suicide let alone killed anyone else? None at all. That is the big problem it is impossible for any of them to have committed suicide they were murdered. You ignore substantial evidence tha tproves they coudl not have killed themselves and assert one of the killed everyone else and then committed suicide becuase you don't want to believe Jeremy did it and are thus willing to ignore the evidence.
You live in denial the same way someone asserting the Earth is flat would be living in denial. He too could say he rejects photos of the Earth from space showing it to be spherical, evidence one can sail around the Earth and fly around the Earth, orbit around the Earth and so forth. His denials only mean he is too biased to face the truth nothing more. That is exactly what you are do in this case.
You ignore that sane people commit murder all the time
-
Fact: Julie later said she wa ssure the time was actually earlier.
Fact Julie admitted her first statement was deceptive to help Jeremy avoid liability. FACT she could have been telling lies in the second statement in order to help the police with their noble cause.
she is the only one who knows the truth
Fact: The roomates say they looked at their clocks while Julie didn't. - So ? she had plenty of time to collude with them by September?Anyway they all said different times - so no help there.
Fact: Jeremy claims he called police before her but he lied he called her before police though he had no reaosn to do so and if he had actually received an emeregency call from Nevill he would have either rushed over or diaed 999. - He did not consider it an emergency - he had no idea what was about to happen personally I think he may have phoned Julie inbetween calls and then thought it made him look bad - if he was going to set up the proper Siege situation to stop the police going in he could have said she had fired a shot - but as he had not they culd have just gone over seen it was all quiet and knocked on the door :)
-
I don't need to spin the facts and evidence are on my side. I followed the facts and evidence in order to make up my mind of who committed the crimes.
In contrast you didn't review any of the evidence you just decided that you will believe Jeremy is innocent no matter what and that Sheila did it. You already said many times you will never believe a non-insane person would commit the murders Sheila had to do it while in a crazy rage. You also say you will never believe he would make the errors attributed to him as if he were infallible and that there was no motive because he would only have had to shared the land property 50/50 he would have owned 60% of everything else. You say that there is no way he would have killed Sheila and the twins for a lousy 40% and 50% of the land property. But all that amounts to is you living in denial when you say ther ei sno way he would make mistakes or kill for money. Your attempt to say there is nothing he could have gained fail miserably.
You don't want to believe he is guilty so you insist either Sheila did it or June or Nevill did it.What evidence do you have that any of them could have committed suicide let alone killed anyone else? None at all. That is the big problem it is impossible for any of them to have committed suicide they were murdered. You ignore substantial evidence tha tproves they coudl not have killed themselves and assert one of the killed everyone else and then committed suicide becuase you don't want to believe Jeremy did it and are thus willing to ignore the evidence.
You live in denial the same way someone asserting the Earth is flat would be living in denial. He too could say he rejects photos of the Earth from space showing it to be spherical, evidence one can sail around the Earth and fly around the Earth, orbit around the Earth and so forth. His denials only mean he is too biased to face the truth nothing more. That is exactly what you are do in this case.
You ignore that sane people commit murder all the time
I DON'T ignore the fact that sane people don't kill. Sheila WASN'T insane,in fact she was very SANE !!
Sane or insane,ANY person can kill. Stop making things up that I'd said when I didn't !
You've got NO facts whatsoever !
I've never been in denial. It's not my style.
There is NO evidence that Jeremy killed anyone. You talk in riddles.
-
You're fine with those of whom think Jeremy guilty,but singling me out every time by belittling my posts.. Mmmmm.
-
FACT she could have been telling lies in the second statement in order to help the police with their noble cause. she is the only one who knows the truth
This is a perfect example of how you ignore reality constantly.
Her first stoy of why he phoned made no sense. The acocutn where she came clean placed the call in persepctive and makes sense. Moreover, the claims are corroborated by the evidence which proves Sheila didn't kill her self or anyone else.
The first account is the one that has no credence. Receiving a call from his father saying his sister was in a crazy rage with a gun come quick to help imports an emergency. Someone receiving that call would either rush over or phone police. They would not call their girlfriend to ask for advice of what to do or for consolation as opposed to trying to do something to help.
Of course there is considerable evidence the clal from nevill couldn't have happened, his supposed reaciton not comporting with how someone receiving suhc a call would act just adds more evidence to the pile.
So ? she had plenty of time to collude with them by September?Anyway they all said different times - so no help there.
Why would the roomates have a reason to collude against Jeremy? If they colluded they would all say the same thing moreover. The times they gave ruled out the chance of the call being after Jeremy had phoned police. That is extremely helpful in proving he called her before police.
He did not consider it an emergency - he had no idea what was about to happen personally I think he may have phoned Julie inbetween calls and then thought it made him look bad - if he was going to set up the proper Siege situation to stop the police going in he could have said she had fired a shot - but as he had not they culd have just gone over seen it was all quiet and knocked on the door
If shots had already been fired that would suggest they were already killed and there would be less of a neeed to wait to try to save the hostages.
In the meantime there is no question he called Julie before police. Your admission he didn't consider it an emeregency is fatal because it proves he didn't receive the call he claimed. No rational person woudl consider it not an emergency if their father claims a crazy person had a gun and that they needed you to come help disarm such person. It makes no sense at all.
Since Sheila can't have killed herself or anyone else that means there is no reason Nevill would make such a call. Nor would he have had the opportunity to make such a call because the shooting started in a room where there was no phone. It is alreayd quite clear no such phone call ever came from Nevill Jeremy's alleged reaction just shows even more it never happened and that he made it up.
-
I DON'T ignore the fact that sane people don't kill. Sheila WASN'T insane,in fact she was very SANE !!
Sane or insane,ANY person can kill. Stop making things up that I'd said when I didn't !
You've got NO facts whatsoever !
deep breath lookout. Just put him on ignore for a while and have a rest.
He is just trying to wind you up. :)
I've never been in denial. It's not my style.
There is NO evidence that Jeremy killed anyone. You talk in riddles.
-
If Reader is saying Jeremy phoned the police at 3.25am.
Don't be silly. I suggested that about 3:25am was when Nevill, not Jeremy, called the police (Pc West) , and that Pc West called HQIR at about 3:26am as a consequence.
-
Don't be silly. I suggested that about 3:25am was when Nevill, not Jeremy, called the police (Pc West) , and that Pc West called HQIR at about 3:26am as a consequence.
Any you have not a shred of evidence at all to suggest Nevill calle dpolice himself. The claim makes no sense, he was already dead at the time quite clearly and not only were the first responders told they were to go because of a call received from Jeremy the armed officer received the same information when briefed. You have no leg to stand on you mad eup a load of horseshit from thin air.
(http://s29.postimg.org/3v7q13iuv/mannersguns.jpg)
-
It was DB who FIRST coached Sheila on how to use a gun !! In the days when he used to take her to local dances.
-
It was DB who FIRST coached Sheila on how to use a gun !! In the days when he used to take her to local dances.
Dare I ask where you came up with that...
-
Dare I ask where you came up with that...
In an anti-Bamber book.
-
In an anti-Bamber book.
Which one and what page and what source was cited?
Most people here including me go to the horse's mouth. We actually read the statements authors and the like try to twist and lie about. In contrast you like to rely on things by authors who don't have any basis for their claims such as the claim there was a pool of blood in the kitchen apart from the blood under Nevill.
No witness saw such blood, nor photo recorded such blood it was simply made up. Maybe one day you will learn to try to verify claims in books before repeating them because No statement by DB or any other family member asserts DB taught her to shoot.
-
You have to give Jeremy credit.
One digit was jumped on by him after decades of justifying why Neville called him rather than the police.
It got front page news in The Mirror, who uncritically reported the potential sensational development.
Even now it is being discussed on this forum.
It is ludicrous to suggest Neville called the police.
-
Which one and what page and what source was cited?
Most people here including me go to the horse's mouth. We actually read the statements authors and the like try to twist and lie about. In contrast you like to rely on things by authors who don't have any basis for their claims such as the claim there was a pool of blood in the kitchen apart from the blood under Nevill.
No witness saw such blood, nor photo recorded such blood it was simply made up. Maybe one day you will learn to try to verify claims in books before repeating them because No statement by DB or any other family member asserts DB taught her to shoot.
It's actually in Scott Lomax's book where he states that while on a shooting holiday in Scotland,David Boutflour taught Sheila about guns,i.e,loading,firing,etc.
He,of course tried to deny that Sheila knew anything about guns,and even had the brass-neck to say he remembered a " woman " being with them in Scotland,but hadn't known it was Sheila ! ::) :o
-
It's actually in Scott Lomax's book where he states that while on a shooting holiday in Scotland,David Boutflour taught Sheila about guns,i.e,loading,firing,etc.
He,of course tried to deny that Sheila knew anything about guns,and even had the brass-neck to say he remembered a " woman " being with them in Scotland,but hadn't known it was Sheila ! ::) :o
Lomax's book is very biased.
Just go by Jeremy's court testimony - 'Sheila had limited experience with guns'.
-
Lomax's book is very biased.
Just go by Jeremy's court testimony - 'Sheila had limited experience with guns'.
A bit like your posts then ? Biased.
-
Hello Adam Colin in his book said Sheila knew nothing about guns. His words not mine.
-
'Limited'.
That could mean she picked up a gun once. To she went on a shooting party and made the teas.
She was also sent to boarding school at a young age. Before getting married and spending most of her time in London. Which is where she was based when she died.
What Jeremy means by limited is she lived in a house with guns, but never picked one up.
-
Hello Adam Colin in his book said Sheila knew nothing about guns. His words not mine.
Thank you. That's it then.
There is no way she could have reloaded. Or been so accurate.
And there is no way Neville would be so scared. It was not a powerful rifle which was being held by a novice.
-
Lomax's book is very biased.
Just go by Jeremy's court testimony - 'Sheila had limited experience with guns'.
I found that Scott Lomax was a very fair and thorough investigative journalist who has several books under his belt. When I spoke to him I found him to be a very upright and honest man.
-
If Neville was so scared of a novice holding a not very powerful gun, why put his son in danger ?
Jeremy said to the police 'Sheila would not be pleased to see him'.
-
Thank you. That's it then.
There is no way she could have reloaded. Or been so accurate.
And there is no way Neville would be so scared. It was not a powerful rifle which was being held by a novice.
Sorry Adam, IMO that theory doesn't equate. I'd be far more concerned if the person holding the gun didn't know what they were doing. The weapon's power is irrelevant as what comes out of the business end is still going to do damage to something OR someone.
-
Sorry Adam, IMO that theory doesn't equate. I'd be far more concerned if the person holding the gun didn't know what they were doing. The weapon's power is irrelevant as what comes out of the business end is still going to do damage to something OR someone.
Best to phone Jeremy and the police than tackle Sheila.
-
If Neville was so scared of a novice holding a not very powerful gun, why put his son in danger ?
Jeremy said to the police 'Sheila would not be pleased to see him'.
Well we don't actually know if he was scared or not do we, because he isn't here to tell us. But when someone pointed and shot a "not very powerful" weapon at me I can inform you that I wasn't actually staying around to discover as to whether I was scared or not. I hotfooted it out of there soas not to be his target again. It's all very well talking about being brave and not scared of someone holding even an airgun and pointing it at you at this distance. But I can tell you from personal experience that there is a distinct feeling of helplessness in such a situation.
-
Well we don't actually know if he was scared or not do we, because he isn't here to tell us. But when someone pointed and shot a "not very powerful" weapon at me I can inform you that I wasn't actually staying around to discover as to whether I was scared or not. I hotfooted it out of there soas not to be his target again. It's all very well talking about being brave and not scared of someone holding even an airgun and pointing it at you at this distance. But I can tell you from personal experience that there is a distinct feeling of helplessness in such a situation.
Sheila must have been having a coffee break when Neville phoned Jeremy and the police. June still sleeping. Zzzz
-
Sheila must have been having a coffee break when Neville phoned Jeremy and the police. June still sleeping. Zzzz
Adam. Give up making the conjectures. Your imagination is not the extent of possibilities in this case. We just don't know, so it is pointless making any kind of suggestion.
-
Best to phone Jeremy and the police than tackle Sheila.
If you say so ??? ??? ???
-
Sheila must have been having a coffee break when Neville phoned Jeremy and the police. June still sleeping. Zzzz
Personally I don't think it is funny to trivialise this Adam.
-
he was already dead at the time quite clearly
It's certainly not the case that it was quite clear that he was already dead by 3:26am.
. . . the first responders told they were to go because of a call received from Jeremy
They weren't told that originally. Pc West didn't ask Jeremy to go there until after car CA7 was on its way.
-
It's certainly not the case that it was quite clear that he was already dead by 3:26am.
They weren't told that originally. Pc West didn't ask Jeremy to go there until after car CA7 was on its way.
It is extremely clear that Nevill was dead at 3:26AM and neve rmade any call to Jeremy prior. SHeila could not have killed everyone else without getting blood of the victims and GSR on her body and clothing. SHe had none on her clothing and even if she changed such clothing would have been found at the scene. There is no way she coudl have shot herself without getting GSR on her gown. Nor coudl she have done the following 3 things after she was dead:
1) lied down flat and then put the gun on her body
2) go put the moderator away
3) put the bible in a pool of her blood that formed after her death.
There is no way she lkilled anyone els eor herself. This Jeremy had to have done it and thus Nevill never phoned him and was dead alreayd when he phoned police. You have no evidence to counter this you just ignore it because you don't want to face the truth.
The police were told Jeremy called and woudl meet them there. After telling the police they would be met by Jeremy he got back on the phone and told Jeremy to go meet the police he dispatched.
Your efforts to pretend they were not told they were going because of Jeremy's call fails. The armed personnel were also briefed that Jeremy caleld and that is why they were to respond not because of a call from Nevill.
I noticed you had no balls to respond to my refutation of your ridiculous allegation I lied and made up the claim Jeremy told police sheil had fired the weapons in the house. You said I made it up but I posted numerous statements from police asserting such which is why the Appeal Court decision asserted:
"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made."
Your efforts to paint me a liar flopped but you on the other hand have made up one lie after another to try to pretend there is evidence to suggest Nevill called the police and in the process all you have done is harm your credibility.
-
It is extremely clear that Nevill was dead at 3:26AM and neve rmade any call to Jeremy prior. SHeila could not have killed everyone else without getting blood of the victims and GSR on her body and clothing. SHe had none on her clothing and even if she changed such clothing would have been found at the scene. There is no way she coudl have shot herself without getting GSR on her gown. Nor coudl she have done the following 3 things after she was dead:
1) lied down flat and then put the gun on her body
2) go put the moderator away
3) put the bible in a pool of her blood that formed after her death.
There is no way she lkilled anyone els eor herself. This Jeremy had to have done it and thus Nevill never phoned him and was dead alreayd when he phoned police. You have no evidence to counter this you just ignore it because you don't want to face the truth.
The police were told Jeremy called and woudl meet them there. After telling the police they would be met by Jeremy he got back on the phone and told Jeremy to go meet the police he dispatched.
Your efforts to pretend they were not told they were going because of Jeremy's call fails. The armed personnel were also briefed that Jeremy caleld and that is why they were to respond not because of a call from Nevill.
I noticed you had no balls to respond to my refutation of your ridiculous allegation I lied and made up the claim Jeremy told police sheil had fired the weapons in the house. You said I made it up but I posted numerous statements from police asserting such which is why the Appeal Court decision asserted:
"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made."
Your efforts to paint me a liar flopped but you on the other hand have made up one lie after another to try to pretend there is evidence to suggest Nevill called the police and in the process all you have done is harm your credibility.
It's points like this that really make me wonder why in 2014 Bamber still has supporters. :-\
-
If you believe that,you'll believe anything.
It was Neville who'd told police what type of guns which were in the farmhouse,not Jeremy. Which would mean that Neville spoke to the police ? Yes ?
Jeremy had already stated that were guns at the farmhouse,but he hadn't stated what type.
Jeremy could NOT have made both calls in 8 minutes and I defy anyone who can run over fields from WHF to Goldhanger in 8 minutes.
-
If you believe that,you'll believe anything.
It was Neville who'd told police what type of guns which were in the farmhouse,not Jeremy. Which would mean that Neville spoke to the police ? Yes ?
Jeremy had already stated that were guns at the farmhouse,but he hadn't stated what type.
Jeremy could NOT have made both calls in 8 minutes and I defy anyone who can run over fields from WHF to Goldhanger in 8 minutes.
This post is laughable! Based on NOTHING. And full of untruths. He doesn't need to have run over ANY fields in 8 minutes.
-
If you believe that,you'll believe anything.
It was Neville who'd told police what type of guns which were in the farmhouse,not Jeremy. Which would mean that Neville spoke to the police ? Yes ?
Jeremy had already stated that were guns at the farmhouse,but he hadn't stated what type.
Jeremy could NOT have made both calls in 8 minutes and I defy anyone who can run over fields from WHF to Goldhanger in 8 minutes.
No.
-
If you believe that,you'll believe anything.
It was Neville who'd told police what type of guns which were in the farmhouse,not Jeremy. Which would mean that Neville spoke to the police ? Yes ?
Jeremy had already stated that were guns at the farmhouse,but he hadn't stated what type.
Jeremy could NOT have made both calls in 8 minutes and I defy anyone who can run over fields from WHF to Goldhanger in 8 minutes.
Lookout, could you please tell us when Nevill had a discussion with the police regarding the type of guns he kept at the farmhouse. Could you also tell us from where comes the suggestion that Jeremy phones the police twice, in an interval of 8 minutes and a walk back to Goldhanger.
-
Lookout, could you please tell us when Nevill had a discussion with the police regarding the type of guns he kept at the farmhouse. Could you also tell us from where comes the suggestion that Jeremy phones the police twice, in an interval of 8 minutes and a walk back to Goldhanger.
Neville had said that there were a number of shotguns and 410's,and then after Jeremy had rang,the message received was " passed to CD from the son of Mr Bamber ".
I didn't say that Jeremy had rang twice. That was the misconception that everyone got when they said that Jeremy had enough time to leg-it back to Goldhanger with his own call ? Is that what you mean ?
-
Neville had said that there were a number of shotguns and 410's,and then after Jeremy had rang,the message received was " passed to CD from the son of Mr Bamber ".
I didn't say that Jeremy had rang twice. That was the misconception that everyone got when they said that Jeremy had enough time to leg-it back to Goldhanger with his own call ? Is that what you mean ?
Neville didn't say that Lookout, it was Jeremy.
-
It's actually in Scott Lomax's book where he states that while on a shooting holiday in Scotland,David Boutflour taught Sheila about guns,i.e,loading,firing,etc.
He,of course tried to deny that Sheila knew anything about guns,and even had the brass-neck to say he remembered a " woman " being with them in Scotland,but hadn't known it was Sheila ! ::) :o
He made the claim but offered no evidence at all to back his claims up.
You ignore the actual evidence in this case time after time after time and instead cite allegations supported by zero evidence which you misrepresent as being facts.
It makes it all the more absurd when you try telling others they are gullible and naive. You post bogus claim after bogus claim insisting they are true. You don't get one thing right about the facts of this case.
You most recently claimed Nevill is the one who told West what kinds of guns were at the house. Even Jeremy himself admits he was asked about such by West and told him what guns were there. Not only did you post the whopper of a lie that Jeremy wasn't asked about the guns and that Nevill was you even suggested anyone who believes Jeremy was asked would believe anything.
You are the one who will believe anything. You will believe anything favorable to Jeremy regardless of whether there is a shred of evidence to support the claim. You proved that crystal clear when you said it makes no sense for Nevill to call Jeremy and then immediately call police after and spoke against such a call being received but once you understood such a call was favorable to Jeremy you changed to asserting Nevill made a call to police. What evidence did you rely upon to change your mind? None you just decided to believe it because if true it would help Jeremy.
Neither David Boutflour nor anyone else says he taught her to shoot. In fact Boutflour said he wasn't sure whether she was even in Scotland he acknowledged she might have gone to Scotland during one of the vacations there. He said if she did she certianly did not shoot. That is a far cry from Lomax's claim she shot while there and it was David who taught her how to do so.
It's bad enough you never read the statements on this site and instead prefer a filter. You prefer to read the spin biased Jeremy supports place on the statements and evidence to actually reading it yourself. Worse though, the truth has been discussed here many times and you responded to such posts so you are on notice already you are relying on bogus claims. That never stops you from asserting them though because far from being intereste din th etruth you are biased to the core in favor of Jeremy and one of his staunchest supporters. You will say anything favorable to him regardless of whether it is the truh or not.
-
I found that Scott Lomax was a very fair and thorough investigative journalist who has several books under his belt. When I spoke to him I found him to be a very upright and honest man.
His book was a biased propaganda piece. He thoroughly distorted a great number of things. Part of what he distorted were the facts of the case. He took liberty to revise the testimony of people to suit his interests. What Lookout raised was a perfect example. He isrepresented that she went shooting in Scotland and Boutflour taught her how to shoot while there thouh there was no testimony at all to that effect by anyone. Boutflour said she might have gone with them on one vacation but if she did so she certainly didn't shoot a gun and said nothing at all about teaching her how to use a gun.
He also grossly misrepresented on the legal issues of what proof was necessary to convict Bamber. He distorted to try to pretend they failed to meet their burden of proving Jeremy entered the house. He insisted they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which window or door he used to enter and leave through. That is a whopper of a lie though. he told this whopper because he decided to argue in his book that the prosecution failed to prove Jeremy guilty. He tried to suggest Jeremy was innocent but had little fodder to work with, not even his distortions could help much in that regard, so spent most of the book arguing they didn't have enough evidence against Jeremy as opposed to establish Jeremy was innocent.
Only someone staunchly pro-Jeremy would find his work to be fair and balanced.
-
Neville had said that there were a number of shotguns and 410's,and then after Jeremy had rang,the message received was " passed to CD from the son of Mr Bamber ".
I didn't say that Jeremy had rang twice. That was the misconception that everyone got when they said that Jeremy had enough time to leg-it back to Goldhanger with his own call ? Is that what you mean ?
West says Jeremy told him about he guns, Bonnett wrote down on his log that West told him that Jeremy had told West about the guns and Jeremy himself admits it. Your clai is nonsense liek all your claims.
In the meantime who has suggested Jeremy called twice? Jeremy was placed on hold. He spoke to West before he was placed on hold and then after. Such has not been represented by anyone as 2 separate calls.
You don't have a firm grasp on the facts of this case or the claims.
-
Jeremy told them about guns, only..Neville told them there were shotguns and 410's !!
You're so fking nasty,you can't even get your words out properly !!
-
Jeremy told them about guns, only..Neville told them there were shotguns and 410's !!
Wrong as usual. :-\ Post the evidence for this? Even Bamber supporters won't believe this rubbish, Lookout.
-
Jeremy told them about guns, only..Neville told them there were shotguns and 410's !!
You're so fking nasty,you can't even get your words out properly !!
Lookout, WHEN did Neville tell them about shotguns and 410's and from where did this information come?
-
Wrong as usual. :-\ Post the evidence for this? Even Bamber supporters won't believe this rubbish, Lookout.
That's actually from Bamber supporters !
-
Jeremy told them about guns, only..Neville told them there were shotguns and 410's !!
You're so fking nasty,you can't even get your words out properly !!
Jeremy admitted he told West about the shotguns as well as the rifles. In turn West told Bonnett what Jeremy stated about his father having a collection of shotguns.
Reader tried to use this as part of his deceptive effort to pretend that Bonnett's log was only asserting that Jeremy told West about the shotguns and that the part about Sheila going crazy with a rifle came from Nevill himself not from Jeremy. You kept sticking your nose in that debate. We not only discussed the sentence about the shotguns repeatedly but posted the snippet.
In fact the logs of both are available in the archives and were discussed extensivly and posted here and you responded to such posts.
Here is where West recorded that Jeremy told him about the shotguns and rifles:
(http://s4.postimg.org/obun2nodp/westcollection.jpg)
Here is Bonnet's logs where he mentions how Jeremy told West about the collection of shotguns:
(http://s7.postimg.org/wt04ie1bv/bonnetcollection.jpg)
You keep saying I am so nasty. You constantly call me a liar and distorter when the one distorting is in your mirror. I can back up my assertions while you never can. At best you can in some instances post that you are asserting a lie made up by someone else and suggest that as long as someone makes a claim it is ok to claim it is the truth. The relaity is that you should check the veracity of the claim before asserting it.
How can someone post here daily for years and yet not know the most basic facts of the case? You have no idea what each side maintains even let alone any command of the documents posted on this site which form the foundation of the evidence in the case.
The fact you take part daily and yet don't even know the most basic things about this case is astonishing but at the same time your intentional ignorance explains why you are willing to believe Jeremy is innocent and such ignorance is in fact necessary in order for you to believe he is innocent.
If you faced the evidence that exists in this case you would have no way to say you believe he is innocent. Since you can't refute the evidence you just won't read the evidence, pretend it doesn't exist and maintain a warped alternate reality.
If you were new to the case it would be one thing. Then not knowing what Jeremy told West and what wa srecorded on the logs could be an credible excuse. But not to be here for years commenting on posts that discuss such matters. There is no way to be unaware of the log contents and arguments in such case.
-
Lookout, WHEN did Neville tell them about shotguns and 410's and from where did this information come?
For what it's worth,it's documented evidence on the " horror of horrors " Official Web Site,which I'd believe over this one.
-
For what it's worth,it's documented evidence on the " horror of horrors " Official Web Site,which I'd believe over this one.
Well, that's your prerogative Lookout but it wasn't Neville who gave the description of the guns, it was Jeremy.
-
For what it's worth,it's documented evidence on the " horror of horrors " Official Web Site,which I'd believe over this one.
Translation:
"I don't give a crap what Jeremy admitted in his statemen, what West and Bonnett told one another, wrote in their logs, wrote in their notes, wrote in their statements or what anyone testified to in court.
I choose to disregard anything that doesn't support what I want to pretend happened and want to pretend is the truth and instead will believe what I feel like regardless of what the evidence actually demonstrates.
Thus no matter how much evidence is posted here to prove my claims to be wrong I will desregard same and will not change my stances"
-
Well, that's your prerogative Lookout but it wasn't Neville who gave the description of the guns, it was Jeremy.
As you say,it's your prerogative. :)
-
As you say,it's your prerogative. :)
OK, I'll prove it to you! Watch this space! ;)
-
To be fair on lookout this has been posted on this forum so I am sure there is no deliberate intention to deceive .
-
To be fair on lookout this has been posted on this forum so I am sure there is no deliberate intention to deceive .
Yes, I know and I wouldn't suggest that Lookout is trying to deceive anyone but it just shows you how things can get confused. The OS is deceptive whether intentional or not.
-
Yes, I know and I wouldn't suggest that Lookout is trying to deceive anyone but it just shows you how things can get confused. The OS is deceptive whether intentional or not.
That is fair enough - it just shows how certain things stick in peoples minds.
-
To be fair on lookout this has been posted on this forum so I am sure there is no deliberate intention to deceive .
If lookout were new to this only saw the claims you posted and decided to just believe them without making any effort to validate the claims then she is just guilty of not making an effort to investigate the claims and just believe them without question.
But Lookout has intentionally decided to believe such despite being exposed to a great deal of evidence that proves such claims to be false.
Lookout participated in a debate over the issue of the shotguns only days ago. Reader was swearing up and down that Jeremy told West about the shotguns but the other part of Bonnett's log came from Nevill. The language about the shotguns was quoted and even a snippet posted showing that it said Jeremy told him Nevill had a collection of shotguns.
Lookout has also commented on threads that posted the actual logs in question and debated the logs.
So either lookout doesn't read or attempt to understnad anything she comments on or she intentionally chose to disregard the facts and believe the chart you listed anyway.
That chart is inaccurate in so many ways starting with it asserts the caller on Bonnett's log was listed as Nevill though it was listed as West. Nevill's name and address is not listed as the caller. That alone should clue Lookout to a problem.
Lookout, like many Jeremy supporters, intentionally closes her eyes to the facts and just regurgitates claims she witnessed being taken apart on this this very forum. She said momement ago she chooses to believe what the campaign team and other propagandists post over what she reads here.
When you intentionally choose to believe something that was refuted because of bias there is little defense possible.
Saying well in their defense they are choosing to believe lies posted by others even though such lies were proven to be lies, isn't really a defense at all. It is merely an explanation.
-
His book was a biased propaganda piece. He thoroughly distorted a great number of things. Part of what he distorted were the facts of the case. He took liberty to revise the testimony of people to suit his interests. What Lookout raised was a perfect example. He isrepresented that she went shooting in Scotland and Boutflour taught her how to shoot while there thouh there was no testimony at all to that effect by anyone. Boutflour said she might have gone with them on one vacation but if she did so she certainly didn't shoot a gun and said nothing at all about teaching her how to use a gun.
He also grossly misrepresented on the legal issues of what proof was necessary to convict Bamber. He distorted to try to pretend they failed to meet their burden of proving Jeremy entered the house. He insisted they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which window or door he used to enter and leave through. That is a whopper of a lie though. he told this whopper because he decided to argue in his book that the prosecution failed to prove Jeremy guilty. He tried to suggest Jeremy was innocent but had little fodder to work with, not even his distortions could help much in that regard, so spent most of the book arguing they didn't have enough evidence against Jeremy as opposed to establish Jeremy was innocent.
Only someone staunchly pro-Jeremy would find his work to be fair and balanced.
I will ask him where he got the information from concerning Sheila, David Boutflour and guns.
-
If lookout were new to this only saw the claims you posted and decided to just believe them without making any effort to validate the claims then she is just guilty of not making an effort to investigate the claims and just believe them without question.
But Lookout has intentionally decided to believe such despite being exposed to a great deal of evidence that proves such claims to be false.
Lookout participated in a debate over the issue of the shotguns only days ago. Reader was swearing up and down that Jeremy told West about the shotguns but the other part of Bonnett's log came from Nevill. The language about the shotguns was quoted and even a snippet posted showing that it said Jeremy told him Nevill had a collection of shotguns.
Lookout has also commented on threads that posted the actual logs in question and debated the logs.
So either lookout doesn't read or attempt to understnad anything she comments on or she intentionally chose to disregard the facts and believe the chart you listed anyway.
That chart is inaccurate in so many ways starting with it asserts the caller on Bonnett's log was listed as Nevill though it was listed as West. Nevill's name and address is not listed as the caller. That alone should clue Lookout to a problem.
Lookout, like many Jeremy supporters, intentionally closes her eyes to the facts and just regurgitates claims she witnessed being taken apart on this this very forum. She said momement ago she chooses to believe what the campaign team and other propagandists post over what she reads here.
When you intentionally choose to believe something that was refuted because of bias there is little defense possible.
Saying well in their defense they are choosing to believe lies posted by others even though such lies were proven to be lies, isn't really a defense at all. It is merely an explanation.
Having known Lookout for over 2 years now, I don't think she would be intentionally deceptive. If your are pro Jeremy, it can be easy to get drawn to some of the claims from the OS. But if anyone is confused about which log was shown to the jury then this video explains it. Reader thought the OS made a mistake - I think this clears up that notion. It also contains some twaddle about Neville calling but I'm sure you'll all see through that ;D ;D ;D ;D :D ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6L4Kvql9s#t=120
-
Having known Lookout for over 2 years now, I don't think she would be intentionally deceptive. If your are pro Jeremy, it can be easy to get drawn to some of the claims from the OS. But if anyone is confused about which log was shown to the jury then this video explains it. Reader thought the OS made a mistake - I think this clears up that notion. It also contains some twaddle about Neville calling but I'm sure you'll all see through that ;D ;D ;D ;D :D ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6L4Kvql9s#t=120
Yes I do not believe that lookout is deceptive or dishonest in any way. I also have seen discrepances on the official website. The problem is they don't seem to take criticism very well?
-
So with Caroline's video & Scipios explanation. This should be the last times those involved bring this up, right? Because I have a feeling next week these sames mistruths will be posted.
-
Yes I do not believe that lookout is deceptive or dishonest in any way. I also have seen discrepances on the official website. The problem is they don't seem to take criticism very well?
I did complain about something over a year ago and they removed it - but can't remember what it was. However, they are running with Neville's call and they are really on a highway to nowhere.
-
So with Caroline's video & Scipios explanation. This should be the last times those involved bring this up, right? Because I have a feeling next week these sames mistruths will be posted.
People have always thought that it was the log with Neville's details that was rediscovered (neither of them were ever lost) but it wasn't. They don't make this clear enough (IMO).
-
If lookout were new to this only saw the claims you posted and decided to just believe them without making any effort to validate the claims then she is just guilty of not making an effort to investigate the claims and just believe them without question.
But Lookout has intentionally decided to believe such despite being exposed to a great deal of evidence that proves such claims to be false.
Lookout participated in a debate over the issue of the shotguns only days ago. Reader was swearing up and down that Jeremy told West about the shotguns but the other part of Bonnett's log came from Nevill. The language about the shotguns was quoted and even a snippet posted showing that it said Jeremy told him Nevill had a collection of shotguns.
Lookout has also commented on threads that posted the actual logs in question and debated the logs.
So either lookout doesn't read or attempt to understnad anything she comments on or she intentionally chose to disregard the facts and believe the chart you listed anyway.
That chart is inaccurate in so many ways starting with it asserts the caller on Bonnett's log was listed as Nevill though it was listed as West. Nevill's name and address is not listed as the caller. That alone should clue Lookout to a problem.
Lookout, like many Jeremy supporters, intentionally closes her eyes to the facts and just regurgitates claims she witnessed being taken apart on this this very forum. She said momement ago she chooses to believe what the campaign team and other propagandists post over what she reads here.
When you intentionally choose to believe something that was refuted because of bias there is little defense possible.
Saying well in their defense they are choosing to believe lies posted by others even though such lies were proven to be lies, isn't really a defense at all. It is merely an explanation.
Scipio, I sometimes find myself wondering how much hair you have. You frequently come over as being so stressed and wound up that I feel you might spend a long time pulling it out. Do you perhaps feel that it's your mission in life to "cure" those who believe Jeremy innocent OR perhaps it's that, MUCH as you love to argue, you hate being disagreed with. I'm not sure that you can exercise one without inviting the other.
Lookout has made her choice. Having you hurling accusations at her ISN'T going to change that. YOU may see Lookout as a "sad character" -I see her as a very tough and determined lady. Sure, her beliefs irritate me from time to time and I'd quite like for her to see things my way, but she doesn't and for the most part, I'm cool with it. C'est la vie. Just one more thing, though Scipio. If I was in ANY kind of jam, I'd feel a HELL of a lot better knowing she was on MY side, believing in ME, rather than the evidence, coz there's always the chance that the evidence is going to be wrong.
-
Mr Gee/Caroline lookout is one of the most honest posters on this forum and would never deliberately tell lies she could get mixed up as we all do from time to time but lies NO.
-
Personally I think Scipio should post some new threads
these threads should cover - ONE ITEM at a time that PROVES that JEREMY is guilty.
The THREAD should not cover any other subject and we can then when we see both sides of the argument decide what we think.
We can all agree to be civil if he is .
I would like him to start with the ammunition that was left out and why he thinks it is so obvious that it PROVES Jeremys guilt
-
Personally I think Scipio should post some new threads
these threads should cover - ONE ITEM at a time that PROVES that JEREMY is guilty.
The THREAD should not cover any other subject and we can then when we see both sides of the argument decide what we think.
We can all agree to be civil if he is .
I would like him to start with the ammunition that was left out and why he thinks it is so obvious that it PROVES Jeremys guilt
I hesitate to say this, because I can't be certain, but I feel that much of what he's arrived at MAY be by process of elimination, ie, if the possibility of it being anyone else is ruled out, there is only Jeremy.
-
Scipio, I sometimes find myself wondering how much hair you have. You frequently come over as being so stressed and wound up that I feel you might spend a long time pulling it out. Do you perhaps feel that it's your mission in life to "cure" those who believe Jeremy innocent OR perhaps it's that, MUCH as you love to argue, you hate being disagreed with. I'm not sure that you can exercise one without inviting the other.
Lookout has made her choice. Having you hurling accusations at her ISN'T going to change that. YOU may see Lookout as a "sad character" -I see her as a very tough and determined lady. Sure, her beliefs irritate me from time to time and I'd quite like for her to see things my way, but she doesn't and for the most part, I'm cool with it. C'est la vie. Just one more thing, though Scipio. If I was in ANY kind of jam, I'd feel a HELL of a lot better knowing she was on MY side, believing in ME, rather than the evidence, coz there's always the chance that the evidence is going to be wrong.
Did skippy really call a fellow poster "a sad character"?
That is plain evil.
Can´t imagine what kind of a sad life he must have to sit all day writing long, typo-ridden posts about a thirty year old murder case, where the person he thinks is guilty is actually behind bars, and in the proces bashing and bullying perfect strangers in a far away country! 8)
-
I locked this thread to evaluate what has happened and I have read all the post concerned. I have not edited any posts or removed them.
Firstly, please do not try to bully people in changing what they believe in. I will give you following examples:
You don't want to face the truth.
You have no balls
You post bogus claims
You ignore everything
You misrepresent
You don't get one thing right
You tell lies
You believe anything
You talk nonsense
You don't research the facts
You don't have a grasp on any of the facts
You don't understand
You don't grasp the facts
You are a sad character.
You, you, you you.
Above is is from Scipio
Lookout's post were she attempted to swear will stay.
If this behavior does not stop I will ask for a warning to be given.
This thread will be closed till tomorrow to allow a cooling off period.
Thank you.
Please read April's post # 626
-
Personally I think Scipio should post some new threads
these threads should cover - ONE ITEM at a time that PROVES that JEREMY is guilty.
The THREAD should not cover any other subject and we can then when we see both sides of the argument decide what we think.
We can all agree to be civil if he is .
I would like him to start with the ammunition that was left out and why he thinks it is so obvious that it PROVES Jeremys guilt
I have posted the evidence many times. It is inter-related though. There is no way to just view each prong in isolation.
For instance, the fact Sheila could not have killed herself not only proves someone else committed the crime it means the call from Nevill never happened. Why would Nevill call Jeremy and blame the wrong person? Short of someone holding agun on Nevill and forcig him to finger the wrong perosn he would not do it and he would have reaosn to know they were going to kill him anyway so would be better off telling the truth in such circumstance so the person responsible can be arrested. Even the defense at trial admitted that if Sheila didn't kill everyone that means Jeremy lied about receiving a call fro Nevill and committed the murders himself.
There are other things as well that prove the call from Nevill never happened.
1) Julie said Jeremy planned to kill his family, frame Sheila and say he received a phone call from WHF. Thus the claim he received a phone call was something he made up in advance as part of a preconceived plan to kill everyone.
2) Nevill and June were shot together in the master bedroom. Jeremy made sure the phone was removed prior to the murders thus even if the killer walked in and held them at gunpoint for a while before shooting them Nevill could not have used the phone to call for help. The notion June would stay in bed as Sheila were running around crazy with a gun is bad enough. But to suggest Nevill left June alone with Sheila to call Jeremy and that Sheila disconnected the call after he got his message off, then took the phone off the hook so no one could call back and then marched him upstairs so she could shoot the parents together instead of shooting him in the kitchen when she found him on the phone is not credible.
3) Nevill had no reason to call Jeremy to ask for help. He had a better physical ability to disarm Sheila than Jeremy did, he would have had the need to disarm her immediately as to waiting 15-20 minutes for Jeremy to come even (if Jeremy even answered the phone) and she didn't even know how to use the weapon so it would be extremely unlikely she chambered a round which is a prerequisite to being able to fire the gun. In the meantime the kitchen was loaded with guns, knives and other potential weapons he coudl have used to disarm her so he would no have needed to use his bare hands just to disarm her. If he too worried to try anything himself he would have called 999 not requested an additional family member to come place his life at risk.
4) Jeremy's reactions were not the reactions of someone receiving such a call. Someone receiving such a call would either get dressed and rush over or to call 999. He did neither. He called Julie and told her he had not been to bed yet and that his plan, tha the told her in a previous call that night that he was going to implement that night, was working well. Calling Julie period makes no sense but callin gher before police demonstrates even more that he had not received and emergency call and was not worried about the safety of his family. If he actually received a call and were worried about the safety of his family he would have either rushed over or dialed 999. Even after speaking to Julie he did not dial 999. Instead he wasted time looking up the numbers of police stations. He said no one answered the phone at the local station it just rang and rang. Surely at that point he would call 999. No he looke dup another station further away instead and not only wasted more time looking it up he risked again no one being there to man the phones. Quite clearly he knew there was no emergency.
5) After calling police and going to WHF at their request he drove slowly and not only let police pass him, he drove the last mile of the trip quite slowly so that police could arrive first and see him arrive. Worse yet, after arriving he didn't tell police he could get in through the windows, nor did he press them to go knock at the door. The police questioned him about the guns in the house, whether SHeila coudl use them and whether Sheila would be likely to shoot at police if they went to the door and Jeremy was with them. They wanted to know if he could calm her and keep her from shooting them. Jeremy lied and told them she knew how to use/had fired every weapon in the house. He also told them that he did not get along well with her and they did not like eachother. As a result instead of going to knock at the door and risk being shot if she opened it, they called for armed assistance. Jerey in the meantime was very calm and talked about cars and guy stuff in between hamming it up about how crazy his sister was. Jeremy's lies and behavior was not that of someone concerned for his family.
6) Around 5:45AM Jeremy asked to call Julie and far from telling her he was worried about his family he told her not to go to work because she would need to talk to police and confirm he called her to express concern after receiving a call from Nevill. He wanted her to talk to police and help buttress his fictional alibi he received a call from Nevill.
7) Jeremy did other things to frame Sheila beyond just lie about receiving a call from Nevill fingering her. He made up the claim that he had taken the gun out to shoot rabbits and left the gun and bullets in the kitchen. He suggested Sheila found and used the weapon as a result of him leaving it out. He clearly made this tale up though because:
A) He staged the bullets after the murders to support his story but staged too many bullets. He staged a box that could hold 50 bullets max, claimed it was full or near full when he took it out and that the fact it was not full or near full anymore shows the killer used this supply to commit the murders. But if the killer had used it to fire the 25 shots then no more than 25 would have remained. There were 30 remaining he staged too many and in the process revealed he staged them. her eis no way the killer would have used 20 bullets form this supply and with 30 still remaining then decide to go to the closet to get another 5 bullets.
B) He was never known to use the gun to shoot a rabbits he used it only to shoot targets. He was opposed to shooting animals. So his account of getting it out to shoot rabbits is highly suspicious.
C) His account of hearing the rabbits or seeing them far away as it was getting dark (he kept changign hsi story of how he knew about the rabbits) is even less credible.
D) His account that the rifle had been stored without the moderator and scope attached at not credible at all either. There wa sno reaosn to remove either and someome would not want to remove them they would want to leave them attached to use anytime the gun was used. The only reason to reove the scope would be for close quarter shooting like the murders. Jeremy even lied initially and claimed the gun could not be stored with the scope and moderator attached to try to make it seem plausible he would find the gun like that. These lies were because he didn't want them to know the moderator was used in the commission of the crimes and he didn't want them to know he removed the scope in anticipation of committing the murders.
E) Had he actually gotten the gun to shoot rabbits he would have wanted the moderator and scope attached.
F) June was on the phone and would have seen the pile of spilled bullets next to it, she would nto have left them there. Nor woudl she or Nevill have left the gun and loaded magazine in the kitchen before going to bed. Even when the boys were not there, he was careful with his weapons according to witnesses so surely with the boys staying would not have left it out.
G) Jeremy would have had survivors guilt if his family were actually murdered. He also would have had even more severe guilt if he really did leave the gun and bullets out and it such were used in the crime because it means he was partially responsible. That is even stronger than just ordinary survivor guilt. Yet he expressed no such feelings to anyone after the bodies were found.
All of these things together combined establish Jeremy's tale of receiving a call from Nevill were false. Viewing each thing in isolation is improper and what Jeremy supporters want to do because the weight of the evidence combined is so overwhelming. Jeremy supporters would like to deal with one little thing at a time in isolation because it is far easier to attack that way than it is to try attacking the evidenc ein full.
I didn't present the entire case. I just presented all the issues that should be evaluated and looked at to assess Jeremy's claim he received a call from Nevill.
-
I have posted the evidence many times. It is inter-related though. There is no way to just view each prong in isolation.
For instance, the fact Sheila could not have killed herself not only proves someone else committed the crime it means the call from Nevill never happened. Why would Nevill call Jeremy and blame the wrong person? Short of someone holding agun on Nevill and forcig him to finger the wrong perosn he would not do it and he would have reaosn to know they were going to kill him anyway so would be better off telling the truth in such circumstance so the person responsible can be arrested. Even the defense at trial admitted that if Sheila didn't kill everyone that means Jeremy lied about receiving a call fro Nevill and committed the murders himself.
There are other things as well that prove the call from Nevill never happened.
1) Julie said Jeremy planned to kill his family, frame Sheila and say he received a phone call from WHF. Thus the claim he received a phone call was something he made up in advance as part of a preconceived plan to kill everyone.
2) Nevill and June were shot together in the master bedroom. Jeremy made sure the phone was removed prior to the murders thus even if the killer walked in and held them at gunpoint for a while before shooting them Nevill could not have used the phone to call for help. The notion June would stay in bed as Sheila were running around crazy with a gun is bad enough. But to suggest Nevill left June alone with Sheila to call Jeremy and that Sheila disconnected the call after he got his message off, then took the phone off the hook so no one could call back and then marched him upstairs so she could shoot the parents together instead of shooting him in the kitchen when she found him on the phone is not credible.
3) Nevill had no reason to call Jeremy to ask for help. He had a better physical ability to disarm Sheila than Jeremy did, he would have had the need to disarm her immediately as to waiting 15-20 minutes for Jeremy to come even (if Jeremy even answered the phone) and she didn't even know how to use the weapon so it would be extremely unlikely she chambered a round which is a prerequisite to being able to fire the gun. In the meantime the kitchen was loaded with guns, knives and other potential weapons he coudl have used to disarm her so he would no have needed to use his bare hands just to disarm her. If he too worried to try anything himself he would have called 999 not requested an additional family member to come place his life at risk.
4) Jeremy's reactions were not the reactions of someone receiving such a call. Someone receiving such a call would either get dressed and rush over or to call 999. He did neither. He called Julie and told her he had not been to bed yet and that his plan, tha the told her in a previous call that night that he was going to implement that night, was working well. Calling Julie period makes no sense but callin gher before police demonstrates even more that he had not received and emergency call and was not worried about the safety of his family. If he actually received a call and were worried about the safety of his family he would have either rushed over or dialed 999. Even after speaking to Julie he did not dial 999. Instead he wasted time looking up the numbers of police stations. He said no one answered the phone at the local station it just rang and rang. Surely at that point he would call 999. No he looke dup another station further away instead and not only wasted more time looking it up he risked again no one being there to man the phones. Quite clearly he knew there was no emergency.
5) After calling police and going to WHF at their request he drove slowly and not only let police pass him, he drove the last mile of the trip quite slowly so that police could arrive first and see him arrive. Worse yet, after arriving he didn't tell police he could get in through the windows, nor did he press them to go knock at the door. The police questioned him about the guns in the house, whether SHeila coudl use them and whether Sheila would be likely to shoot at police if they went to the door and Jeremy was with them. They wanted to know if he could calm her and keep her from shooting them. Jeremy lied and told them she knew how to use/had fired every weapon in the house. He also told them that he did not get along well with her and they did not like eachother. As a result instead of going to knock at the door and risk being shot if she opened it, they called for armed assistance. Jerey in the meantime was very calm and talked about cars and guy stuff in between hamming it up about how crazy his sister was. Jeremy's lies and behavior was not that of someone concerned for his family.
6) Around 5:45AM Jeremy asked to call Julie and far from telling her he was worried about his family he told her not to go to work because she would need to talk to police and confirm he called her to express concern after receiving a call from Nevill. He wanted her to talk to police and help buttress his fictional alibi he received a call from Nevill.
7) Jeremy did other things to frame Sheila beyond just lie about receiving a call from Nevill fingering her. He made up the claim that he had taken the gun out to shoot rabbits and left the gun and bullets in the kitchen. He suggested Sheila found and used the weapon as a result of him leaving it out. He clearly made this tale up though because:
A) He staged the bullets after the murders to support his story but staged too many bullets. He staged a box that could hold 50 bullets max, claimed it was full or near full when he took it out and that the fact it was not full or near full anymore shows the killer used this supply to commit the murders. But if the killer had used it to fire the 25 shots then no more than 25 would have remained. There were 30 remaining he staged too many and in the process revealed he staged them. her eis no way the killer would have used 20 bullets form this supply and with 30 still remaining then decide to go to the closet to get another 5 bullets.
B) He was never known to use the gun to shoot a rabbits he used it only to shoot targets. He was opposed to shooting animals. So his account of getting it out to shoot rabbits is highly suspicious.
C) His account of hearing the rabbits or seeing them far away as it was getting dark (he kept changign hsi story of how he knew about the rabbits) is even less credible.
D) His account that the rifle had been stored without the moderator and scope attached at not credible at all either. There wa sno reaosn to remove either and someome would not want to remove them they would want to leave them attached to use anytime the gun was used. The only reason to reove the scope would be for close quarter shooting like the murders. Jeremy even lied initially and claimed the gun could not be stored with the scope and moderator attached to try to make it seem plausible he would find the gun like that. These lies were because he didn't want them to know the moderator was used in the commission of the crimes and he didn't want them to know he removed the scope in anticipation of committing the murders.
E) Had he actually gotten the gun to shoot rabbits he would have wanted the moderator and scope attached.
F) June was on the phone and would have seen the pile of spilled bullets next to it, she would nto have left them there. Nor woudl she or Nevill have left the gun and loaded magazine in the kitchen before going to bed. Even when the boys were not there, he was careful with his weapons according to witnesses so surely with the boys staying would not have left it out.
G) Jeremy would have had survivors guilt if his family were actually murdered. He also would have had even more severe guilt if he really did leave the gun and bullets out and it such were used in the crime because it means he was partially responsible. That is even stronger than just ordinary survivor guilt. Yet he expressed no such feelings to anyone after the bodies were found.
All of these things together combined establish Jeremy's tale of receiving a call from Nevill were false. Viewing each thing in isolation is improper and what Jeremy supporters want to do because the weight of the evidence combined is so overwhelming. Jeremy supporters would like to deal with one little thing at a time in isolation because it is far easier to attack that way than it is to try attacking the evidenc ein full.
I didn't present the entire case. I just presented all the issues that should be evaluated and looked at to assess Jeremy's claim he received a call from Nevill.
All I can say scipio that if I am every in trouble with the law and am innocent then I will think about calling you. ;D But heaven knows what I'll do if the case is like this one and I'm still innocent?
-
Scipio.
Of course they are inter-related - but the reason you have posted like that is it forms your "bigger picture"
If individual scenarios can be discussed and there are "other possibilities" it weakens your argument .
So that is why I don't think you want to "discuss" them one at a time. Which you could easily do.
-
"Julie said Jeremy planned to kill his family, frame Sheila and say he received a phone call from WHF. Thus the claim he received a phone call was something he made up in advance as part of a preconceived plan to kill everyone."
For example if you take this in isolation - you are relying on the assumption that Julie was 100% telling the truth - and not in her 32 interviews been coached to aid the police in their conviction. As you are well aware someone was telling lies . It could have been Julie it could have been Jeremy .Both of them swore on oath . So one of them was not. If she was not telling the truth but thought by saying this to make the crime fit because she was helping the police " get their guilty man" then it is a POSSIBILTY if Jeremy is innocent that the call from WHF did happen. You or the police could not prove that it did NOT happen.
Also remember she quite neatly covered herself in her interview with the N.O. W - saying that he never admitted to her that he had done it . NEVER.
-
"
E)" Had he actually gotten the gun to shoot rabbits he would have wanted the moderator and scope attached."
if they were not attached, by the time he had gone to get them and sorted it out they would have gone?
He was not going out on a days serious shooting - this was an opportunist quick trip into the garden. If he is innocent it is perfectly POSSIBLE that this could have happened.
-
"Julie said Jeremy planned to kill his family, frame Sheila and say he received a phone call from WHF. Thus the claim he received a phone call was something he made up in advance as part of a preconceived plan to kill everyone."
For example if you take this in isolation - you are relying on the assumption that Julie was 100% telling the truth - and not in her 32 interviews been coached to aid the police in their conviction. As you are well aware someone was telling lies . It could have been Julie it could have been Jeremy .Both of them swore on oath . So one of them was not. If she was not telling the truth but thought by saying this to make the crime fit because she was helping the police " get their guilty man" then it is a POSSIBILTY if Jeremy is innocent that the call from WHF did happen. You or the police could not prove that it did NOT happen.
Also remember she quite neatly covered herself in her interview with the N.O. W - saying that he never admitted to her that he had done it . NEVER.
My only problem with that of course is that it puts paid to his "perfect" murder which was suppose to be his intention? I simply cannot see that he would have been such a fool as to tell her every part of his plan?
-
"C) His account of hearing the rabbits or seeing them far away as it was getting dark (he kept changign hsi story of how he knew about the rabbits) is even less credible
Sorry but did he say it was dark ? It can be very light in the evenings here at that time of night - and early in the mornings . I would say it might be a bit silly to try and shoot them when it was perhaps not good light - but it is possible - perfectly possible.
-
what time was this ive heard nothing about it being dark before.
-
All I can say scipio that if I am every in trouble with the law and am innocent then I will think about calling you. ;D But heaven knows what I'll do if the case is like this one and I'm still innocent?
In a case like this where the accussed is innocent and someone really did kill everyone else then commit suicide there would have to be evidence of some sort that proves the person did it. The evidence that proves she can't have killed herself would not exist if he were innocent.
That being the case my job would be much easier. The job is hard when the person is really guilty and thus there is so little to work with.
With the evidence proving she could not have killed herself or the others out of the way, it is easy. I would have Jeremy tell the truth about how he didn't get along with his family or like them so he was not willing to go rush there to risk his life for them and only worried about them sufficiently to call police. Perhaps even admit he did on occasions say to Julie he wanted his family dead but it was just talk and he never acted on it.
Without the evidence proving that Sheila could not have killed herself or anyone else hanging over your head you can get in front of arguments the prosecution will make and try to blunt them. It is harder for me to try to think up something to blunt the evidence he wasn't known to shoot rabbits and staged the 30 bullets. The best I can do is suggest the killer didn't see the bullets, got 5 after beating Nevill unconscious firing 4 into Nevill then noticed them by the phone so had no need to go to the closet to get more and from that point on used those. Why would the killer only load 5 from the closet and not take a box out because clearly 5 would not be enough to kill Nevill then the boys and herself. I have no answer to that the things I make up can only go so far. But things I make up are all useless if Sheila can't have killed herself. So that is what hads to be refuted first and foremost in this case. All the evidence ties in to that in some way. It is the foundation that has to be undermined.
Suppose police planted evidence. The chances of them doing it flawlessly is not liekly. They would have planted blood with a preservative agent and/or plane dit in a manner that ende dup not being fully consistent with drawback. there would be something I coudl find somewhere to prove it. The chances of a perfect plant without leaving any evidence at all of it is unlikely. So even in the case of you being actively framed there is a good chance of helping you.
The most intelligent of Jeremy supporters believe either such information was never found and that it still might one day be found or that he was perfectly framed and thus his iccoence can never be established. Obviously if it were the best frame job ever that is true there is little hope. Other Jeremy supporters distort and pretend there already is evidence that proves he was framed/is innocent which is simply not the case.
It is clear Jeremy is guilty and that is why I cna't find anythign to use to establish otherwise as opposed to the most perfect frame job featuring many unusual things that would not be present in a frame job such as police waiting to have the blood they planted analyzed for typing by the lab in September. They would have had the blood tested right away instead of bothering with fingerprinting the moderator for so long. The fact the police thought Sheila did it at the time they woul dhave bneed to plant the evidence also cautions against them having a reason to plant it. That is a problem on top of the lack of any evidence of planting.
When there are materials to work with a defense attorney can do wonders. When such materials are lacking a defense attorney can't do nearly as much.
In this case the defense was stuck suggesting that:
1) Sheila got the moderator out herself and installed it then removed it before killing herself and put it away
2) June and Nevill were killed with the moderator attached and though the expert thought it unlikely either had a contact would they nonetheless did and their blood got inside through drawback
3) Somehow their blood failed to intimately mix though no one can establish it is possible for that to happen or explain how unless they were shot a good deal of time apart and the blood thus had time to fully dry before the blood of the other victim entered and some other odd things
4) Though not a ritualistic killing Sheila nothethless went through a ritualistic cleaning process to clean off all blood of the victims and her blood and GSR stained clothing was somehow never found by anyone
5) She somehow managed to not get any GSR on her gown when she killed herself
6) Hope the jury would ignore she could not have moved her blody flat afte rkilling herself or opened and closes the bible in her own blood.
7) believe that Julie lied in full
Essentially the defense was hoping to get astupid jury because that is what it takes to win a case like this.
In contrast when the defense has more to work with they can convince a rational jury to acquit and would only lose if the jury is stupid and biased in the opposite manner of the stupid jury that would acquit.
-
In a case like this where the accussed is innocent and someone really did kill everyone else then commit suicide there would have to be evidence of some sort that proves the person did it. The evidence that proves she can't have killed herself would not exist if he were innocent.
That being the case my job would be much easier. The job is hard when the person is really guilty and thus there is so little to work with.
With the evidence proving she could not have killed herself or the others out of the way, it is easy. I would have Jeremy tell the truth about how he didn't get along with his family or like them so he was not willing to go rush there to risk his life for them and only worried about them sufficiently to call police. Perhaps even admit he did on occasions say to Julie he wanted his family dead but it was just talk and he never acted on it.
Without the evidence proving that Sheila could not have killed herself or anyone else hanging over your head you can get in front of arguments the prosecution will make and try to blunt them. It is harder for me to try to think up something to blunt the evidence he wasn't known to shoot rabbits and staged the 30 bullets. The best I can do is suggest the killer didn't see the bullets, got 5 after beating Nevill unconscious firing 4 into Nevill then noticed them by the phone so had no need to go to the closet to get more and from that point on used those. Why would the killer only load 5 from the closet and not take a box out because clearly 5 would not be enough to kill Nevill then the boys and herself. I have no answer to that the things I make up can only go so far. But things I make up are all useless if Sheila can't have killed herself. So that is what hads to be refuted first and foremost in this case. All the evidence ties in to that in some way. It is the foundation that has to be undermined.
Suppose police planted evidence. The chances of them doing it flawlessly is not liekly. They would have planted blood with a preservative agent and/or plane dit in a manner that ende dup not being fully consistent with drawback. there would be something I coudl find somewhere to prove it. The chances of a perfect plant without leaving any evidence at all of it is unlikely. So even in the case of you being actively framed there is a good chance of helping you.
The most intelligent of Jeremy supporters believe either such information was never found and that it still might one day be found or that he was perfectly framed and thus his iccoence can never be established. Obviously if it were the best frame job ever that is true there is little hope. Other Jeremy supporters distort and pretend there already is evidence that proves he was framed/is innocent which is simply not the case.
It is clear Jeremy is guilty and that is why I cna't find anythign to use to establish otherwise as opposed to the most perfect frame job featuring many unusual things that would not be present in a frame job such as police waiting to have the blood they planted analyzed for typing by the lab in September. They would have had the blood tested right away instead of bothering with fingerprinting the moderator for so long. The fact the police thought Sheila did it at the time they woul dhave bneed to plant the evidence also cautions against them having a reason to plant it. That is a problem on top of the lack of any evidence of planting.
When there are materials to work with a defense attorney can do wonders. When such materials are lacking a defense attorney can't do nearly as much.
In this case the defense was stuck suggesting that:
1) Sheila got the moderator out herself and installed it then removed it before killing herself and put it away
2) June and Nevill were killed with the moderator attached and though the expert thought it unlikely either had a contact would they nonetheless did and their blood got inside through drawback
3) Somehow their blood failed to intimately mix though no one can establish it is possible for that to happen or explain how unless they were shot a good deal of time apart and the blood thus had time to fully dry before the blood of the other victim entered and some other odd things
4) Though not a ritualistic killing Sheila nothethless went through a ritualistic cleaning process to clean off all blood of the victims and her blood and GSR stained clothing was somehow never found by anyone
5) She somehow managed to not get any GSR on her gown when she killed herself
6) Hope the jury would ignore she could not have moved her blody flat afte rkilling herself or opened and closes the bible in her own blood.
7) believe that Julie lied in full
Essentially the defense was hoping to get astupid jury because that is what it takes to win a case like this.
In contrast when the defense has more to work with they can convince a rational jury to acquit and would only lose if the jury is stupid and biased in the opposite manner of the stupid jury that would acquit.
Thank you for that explanation. Tell me, if Jeremy had sufficient funds (ie a millionaire) would you yourself be prepared to take on his case, or do you think it too hopeless?
-
No answer came the firm reply. ;D
-
hang on this was the middel of summer it wouldent of been dark at that time.
-
"C) His account of hearing the rabbits or seeing them far away as it was getting dark (he kept changign hsi story of how he knew about the rabbits) is even less credible
Sorry but did he say it was dark ? It can be very light in the evenings here at that time of night - and early in the mornings . I would say it might be a bit silly to try and shoot them when it was perhaps not good light - but it is possible - perfectly possible.
According to an almanac sunset that day was around 8:30. He supposedly got the gun out to shoot rabbits shortly before he left. He left between 9:30 and 9:45.
You are so busy trying to defend Jeremy instead of looking for the truth.
-
it doesnt get dark untill 10 at that time of year.
-
What is your problem about people defending Jeremy.? You're quite paranoid about it and it's ridiculous.
-
when he left it would of still been light.
-
"Julie said Jeremy planned to kill his family, frame Sheila and say he received a phone call from WHF. Thus the claim he received a phone call was something he made up in advance as part of a preconceived plan to kill everyone."
For example if you take this in isolation - you are relying on the assumption that Julie was 100% telling the truth - and not in her 32 interviews been coached to aid the police in their conviction. As you are well aware someone was telling lies . It could have been Julie it could have been Jeremy .Both of them swore on oath . So one of them was not. If she was not telling the truth but thought by saying this to make the crime fit because she was helping the police " get their guilty man" then it is a POSSIBILTY if Jeremy is innocent that the call from WHF did happen. You or the police could not prove that it did NOT happen.
Also remember she quite neatly covered herself in her interview with the N.O. W - saying that he never admitted to her that he had done it . NEVER.
The 32 supposed interviews featured at least 10 times she had to just go review and sign statements that were typed up. Some others were when they searched her house and before she even told them the truth about Jeremy. The number makes no difference at all. Tryig to pretend it does and means she was coached into lying is a worthless claim that shows bias merely not reasining skills.
The fact she didn't ever say Jeremy told her straight out he perosnally committed the crimes is a big problem for someone claiming she wa sjust lying and making things up because if she were just lying and making things up instead of trying to tell the truth she would have had no problem saying he told her he personally killed everyone.
You can't come up with anything to suggest she went through great effort to make up a detailed lie blaming Jeremy and worse that she decided the best lie would be a hitman tale that could easily be proven false. Suggesting police would want her to identify a hitman who woudl be able to clear himself is especially stupid.
But your owrthless attacks on her story are even less valuable of course when the evidence corroborating her story is taken into account and all the evidence as a whole viewed. Then your attack on her flops even more which of course is why you want to take it in isolation and not muddly up the works with other facts and the truth.
-
it doesnt get dark untill 10 at that time of year.
Not according to the almanac.
-
According to an almanac sunset that day was around 8:30. He supposedly got the gun out to shoot rabbits shortly before he left. He left between 9:30 and 9:45.
You are so busy trying to defend Jeremy instead of looking for the truth.
where did you get that almanac from.
-
What is your problem about people defending Jeremy.? You're quite paranoid about it and it's ridiculous.
I have no problem as long as they don't lie, post false claims and provide some rational basis and evidence for their positions. When they post from a position of bias but lie and pretend they are just being objective and then post lies or no rationale at all just unsupported opinion which they misrepresent as fact I will take issue and challenge such.
-
like posting false cliams that it was dark when it wasnt.
-
where did you get that almanac from.
Our library. But I just found an online one which is interesting because it is from this year.
http://intl.weather.com/climate/sunRiseSunSet/Chelmsford+ESS+United+Kingdom+UKXX0031:1:UK?month=8
It said this year sunset on August 6, 2014 was at 8:38PM a far cry from your 10PM. It is only a few minues off from what the almanac listed from 1985.
-
well its completly wrong as anyone who lives in the area will tell you
why do you think in all the reconstructions its still daylight.
why do you think the proscution dident say it was to dark to shoot rabbits why do you think the police dident.
-
I have no problem as long as they don't lie, post false claims and provide some rational basis and evidence for their positions. When they post from a position of bias but lie and pretend they are just being objective and then post lies or no rationale at all just unsupported opinion which they misrepresent as fact I will take issue and challenge such.
So everyone's wrong except you ! And what are you doing if you're not lying ?
Do you have a vested interest in keeping Jeremy where he is,or something ??
-
well its completly wrong as anyone who lives in the area will tell you
why do you think in all the reconstructions its still daylight.
why do you think the proscution dident say it was to dark to shoot rabbits why do you think the police dident.
Because they didn't need to bother stressing it was too dark, his claim already makes no sense on so many other levels.
-
Because they didn't need to bother stressing it was too dark, his claim already makes no sense on so many other levels.
To be fair Scip, in August it;s still daylight at 9pm - even in the north where I live so Essex would be almost daylight.
-
I have no problem as long as they don't lie, post false claims and provide some rational basis and evidence for their positions. When they post from a position of bias but lie and pretend they are just being objective and then post lies or no rationale at all just unsupported opinion which they misrepresent as fact I will take issue and challenge such.
I am not telling lies and I am not posting false claims. I am trying to discuss and in my posts all I am doing is showing possibilities the same as you are. I am not expecting you to agree - and there are some points that I do not yet know what my answer will be . But I will work on it :)
I will be back to deal with your other points . And nug nug is correct - we were outside in the evenings this year in August at about that time and it was still light. Not daylight - but still light - so I am sorry on this one you are incorrect.
-
Because they didn't need to bother stressing it was too dark, his claim already makes no sense on so many other levels.
becouse they couldent becouse they knew it wasnt dark and they knew a jury would know that.
-
becouse they couldent becouse they knew it wasnt dark and they knew a jury would know that.
I will believe the acocunt of the almanacs over your claim is well lighted at 9PM and thus the claim he would notice rabbits far away through the window sound credible and his reaction of deciding to go shoot them be credible in light of not doing so in the past. Unless he had a habit of shooting at rabbits anytime they were seen it doesn't comport that at 9PM he would grab the gun to rush out after hem.
-
do honestly he wouldent of been pulled up in the police interviews about it.
if it was true.
-
I will believe the acocunt of the almanacs over your claim is well lighted at 9PM and thus the claim he would notice rabbits far away through the window sound credible and his reaction of deciding to go shoot them be credible in light of not doing so in the past. Unless he had a habit of shooting at rabbits anytime they were seen it doesn't comport that at 9PM he would grab the gun to rush out after hem.
thank you scipio - at least you are contributing to the discussion without being rude.
Perhaps also he felt he was not wanting to be involved in the discussion that was taking place after all it was not really his concern and it was a good excuse just to get out of the situation for a few minutes.
How long had he had the gun? perhaps it was a bit of a novelty? also Rabbits and rats are vermin when you have veg or barns with supplies - so they are fair game as far as farmers are concerned.
I cant say for certain because I am not sure but I don't think it is impossible that he did what he said.
-
Our library. But I just found an online one which is interesting because it is from this year.
http://intl.weather.com/climate/sunRiseSunSet/Chelmsford+ESS+United+Kingdom+UKXX0031:1:UK?month=8
It said this year sunset on August 6, 2014 was at 8:38PM a far cry from your 10PM. It is only a few minues off from what the almanac listed from 1985.
Sunset is not the same as darkness. It ain't the tropics here. It remains light sometimes for quite a while after sunset. Although 10 o'clock it probably was dark in August. When the nights draw in they do so pretty fast as a rule. It will mean of course that if Jeremy did want to shoot rabbits he probably didn't need the rifle sights because they wouldn't do him any good anyway?
-
Sunset is not the same as darkness. It ain't the tropics here. It remains light sometimes for quite a while after sunset. Although 10 o'clock it probably was dark in August. When the nights draw in they do so pretty fast as a rule. It will mean of course that if Jeremy did want to shoot rabbits he probably didn't need the rifle sights because they wouldn't do him any good anyway?
It doesn't have to be pitch black out to make his claim ridiculous. His claim he heard them was outright absurd. But seeing them by the barn form the window as the sun was going down isn't that much better. Even if he saw them he would have to get the gun fast to have any chance of aiming at them. If he was not known to do such at normal hours of the day why would he for the first time in his life decide to grab a gun to go try to shoot at them then?
He assumed police would never learn he didn't shoot rabbits and just believe it was habit for him. But we know better. We also know his claim Nevill offten removed the scope and moderator were nonsense, in fact there is no evidence Nevill even used it Jeremy wanted the gun Nevill was no longer interested in target shooting and used .410s to shoot vermin. Other than Jeremy using the gun to shoot targets to get proficient with it and Anthony using it when he visited there is no evidence of use which would explain why it looked brand new to Anthony.
He also clearly staged the 30 bullets, the notion the killer got 5 bullets from the closet to use instead of using all 25 bullets from the supply in the kitchen is not credible.
He clearly lied about the gun not fitting in the closet with the scope and moderator attached to come up with a bogus reason why the moderator was not on the gun when he claimed he took it to shoot the rabbit. That ended up being proved false and worse the last known user said the gun had been put away with the moderator and scope attached. The police did the classic setup. They got Jeremy to go on record. Jeremy went on record and stated he had last used the gun more than a week prior. They they said well the last known user Anthony said it fits with th emoderator in the closet and that he both found it with the scope and moderator attached and put it away with them attached so you should have foudn it with the moderator attached. He promptly changed his story and claimed he and Nevill repeatedly using the gun the week before the murders and that Nevill sometimes would take the scope and moderator off before putting it in the closet but at other times would not.
It makes no sese for Nevill to keep taking the moderator and scope on and off and there is no evidence he did so. There is no evidence to suggest he used the weapon ever let alone daily as Jeremy was suggesting. If they used it daily and kept taking the scope on and off it would not look brand new it would have scratches and if he used it daily why did he tell police initially he had not used it up to a fornight before the murders?
Jeremy used the gun with the moderator attached and then put it away to conceal he had done so. That is the only reason who would make up the lie the gun did not fit with he moderator attached so lacked it when he got it to shoot rabbits and left it out without the moderator. Once that lie failed he changed to claiming Nevill frequently removed it after use and frequently removed the scope as well.
Why did he avoid telling the truth about the moderator and scope being left attached always? Obviously because he didn't want the to know the moderator had been used and once admitting he removed the scope right before the murders would look extremely suspicious since the only reason to remove it was for close quarter shooting.
-
Sunset and moonrise on 6/8/85 were at about 8:41pm and 10:52pm.
-
Sunset and moonrise on 6/8/85 were at about 8:41pm and 10:52pm.
Moonrise is when the moon is above the horizon not when it is becomes dark.
It was totally dark here by 6:30 today. It was well on it way to dark before that. The moonrise was not until after 8PM. Twilight is dark enough to make it hard to see rabbit far away through a window let alone to think you will be able to load a gun in time to go get them.
I don't know why so many people are so desperate to try to pretend Jeremy's claims are credible when there are so many different problems with each claim.
His claim of getting the gun out and leaving it and th ebullets out have so many problems that only the most biased of peopel would ignore such and decide to support him anyway. Not evne his family was biased enough to believe his crap. It amazes me there are so many peopel who don't know him personalyl who have decided to ignore common sense and evidence to pretend he is innocent.
-
On 6th August 1985,sunset was at 20.43,dusk at 21.23 and nightfall was at 22.16
-
Where did you get the time for "nightfall" from and what exactly does it mean?
-
I got the times from a site called explorebritain.info sorry can't link it as am on my phone. It does explain what 'night fall' is if you are interested.
-
It doesn't have to be pitch black out to make his claim ridiculous. His claim he heard them was outright absurd. But seeing them by the barn form the window as the sun was going down isn't that much better. Even if he saw them he would have to get the gun fast to have any chance of aiming at them. If he was not known to do such at normal hours of the day why would he for the first time in his life decide to grab a gun to go try to shoot at them then?
He assumed police would never learn he didn't shoot rabbits and just believe it was habit for him. But we know better. We also know his claim Nevill offten removed the scope and moderator were nonsense, in fact there is no evidence Nevill even used it Jeremy wanted the gun Nevill was no longer interested in target shooting and used .410s to shoot vermin. Other than Jeremy using the gun to shoot targets to get proficient with it and Anthony using it when he visited there is no evidence of use which would explain why it looked brand new to Anthony.
He also clearly staged the 30 bullets, the notion the killer got 5 bullets from the closet to use instead of using all 25 bullets from the supply in the kitchen is not credible.
He clearly lied about the gun not fitting in the closet with the scope and moderator attached to come up with a bogus reason why the moderator was not on the gun when he claimed he took it to shoot the rabbit. That ended up being proved false and worse the last known user said the gun had been put away with the moderator and scope attached. The police did the classic setup. They got Jeremy to go on record. Jeremy went on record and stated he had last used the gun more than a week prior. They they said well the last known user Anthony said it fits with th emoderator in the closet and that he both found it with the scope and moderator attached and put it away with them attached so you should have foudn it with the moderator attached. He promptly changed his story and claimed he and Nevill repeatedly using the gun the week before the murders and that Nevill sometimes would take the scope and moderator off before putting it in the closet but at other times would not.
It makes no sese for Nevill to keep taking the moderator and scope on and off and there is no evidence he did so. There is no evidence to suggest he used the weapon ever let alone daily as Jeremy was suggesting. If they used it daily and kept taking the scope on and off it would not look brand new it would have scratches and if he used it daily why did he tell police initially he had not used it up to a fornight before the murders?
Jeremy used the gun with the moderator attached and then put it away to conceal he had done so. That is the only reason who would make up the lie the gun did not fit with he moderator attached so lacked it when he got it to shoot rabbits and left it out without the moderator. Once that lie failed he changed to claiming Nevill frequently removed it after use and frequently removed the scope as well.
Why did he avoid telling the truth about the moderator and scope being left attached always? Obviously because he didn't want the to know the moderator had been used and once admitting he removed the scope right before the murders would look extremely suspicious since the only reason to remove it was for close quarter shooting.
All I said was it was probably dark. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused009.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Where did you get the time for "nightfall" from and what exactly does it mean?
I saw nightfall in a Popeye cartoon once. A big black shutter slammed down to the ground with a bang.
-
I have posted the evidence many times. It is inter-related though. There is no way to just view each prong in isolation.
For instance, the fact Sheila could not have killed herself not only proves someone else committed the crime it means the call from Nevill never happened. Why would Nevill call Jeremy and blame the wrong person? Short of someone holding agun on Nevill and forcig him to finger the wrong perosn he would not do it and he would have reaosn to know they were going to kill him anyway so would be better off telling the truth in such circumstance so the person responsible can be arrested. Even the defense at trial admitted that if Sheila didn't kill everyone that means Jeremy lied about receiving a call fro Nevill and committed the murders himself.
There are other things as well that prove the call from Nevill never happened.
1) Julie said Jeremy planned to kill his family, frame Sheila and say he received a phone call from WHF. Thus the claim he received a phone call was something he made up in advance as part of a preconceived plan to kill everyone. DONE
2) Nevill and June were shot together in the master bedroom. Jeremy made sure the phone was removed prior to the murders thus even if the killer walked in and held them at gunpoint for a while before shooting them Nevill could not have used the phone to call for help. The notion June would stay in bed as Sheila were running around crazy with a gun is bad enough. But to suggest Nevill left June alone with Sheila to call Jeremy and that Sheila disconnected the call after he got his message off, then took the phone off the hook so no one could call back and then marched him upstairs so she could shoot the parents together instead of shooting him in the kitchen when she found him on the phone is not credible. THE HOUSEKEEPER SAID IN HER STATEMENT THAT THE PHONES WERE ALWAYS BEING MOVED ABOUT AND I DONT BELIEVE JB KNEW ABOUT THE VISIT FROM THE ENGINEER SO HE DID NOT KNOW WHT PHONES WERE WHERE AT THE TIME - I DONT BELIEVE ANY SHOTS HAD BEEN FIREED WHEN NEVILLE CALLED SO THE TWINS AND JUNE COULD HAVE STILL BEEN ASLEEP IT IS POSSIBLE . sO AGAIN YOUR SCENARIO COULD BE CORRECT - OR IF HE IS INNOCENT THE ABOVE COULD HAVE HAPPENED.
3) Nevill had no reason to call Jeremy to ask for help. He had a better physical ability to disarm Sheila than Jeremy did, he would have had the need to disarm her immediately as to waiting 15-20 minutes for Jeremy to come even (if Jeremy even answered the phone) and she didn't even know how to use the weapon so it would be extremely unlikely she chambered a round which is a prerequisite to being able to fire the gun. In the meantime the kitchen was loaded with guns, knives and other potential weapons he coudl have used to disarm her so he would no have needed to use his bare hands just to disarm her. If he too worried to try anything himself he would have called 999 not requested an additional family member to come place his life at risk. /THAT IS EASY TO SAY - BUT NOT SO EASY IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE IN FRONT OF YOU POINTING A GUN AT YOU - EVEN A 12 YEAR OLD CHILD COULD PULL THE TRIGGER. bECAUSE HE HAD BEEN KNOWN TO CALM HER IN THE PAST I DONT THINK HE THOUGHT SHE WOULD FIRE THE GUN , HE JUST THOUGHT HE NEEDED SOME HELP - BUT THE SITUATION UNFOLDED TOO FAST - SO AGAIN YOU COULD BE RIGHT - BUT YOU ARE ASSUMING YOU KNOW WHAT NEVILLE WOULD THINK - SO THE CALL WAS NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
4) Jeremy's reactions were not the reactions of someone receiving such a call. Someone receiving such a call would either get dressed and rush over or to call 999. He did neither. He called Julie and told her he had not been to bed yet and that his plan, tha the told her in a previous call that night that he was going to implement that night, was working well. Calling Julie period makes no sense but callin gher before police demonstrates even more that he had not received and emergency call and was not worried about the safety of his family. If he actually received a call and were worried about the safety of his family he would have either rushed over or dialed 999. Even after speaking to Julie he did not dial 999. Instead he wasted time looking up the numbers of police stations. He said no one answered the phone at the local station it just rang and rang. Surely at that point he would call 999. No he looke dup another station further away instead and not only wasted more time looking it up he risked again no one being there to man the phones. Quite clearly he knew there was no emergency.-??? BUT EVERYONE IS SAYING HE PURPOSELY CREATED A SEIGE SITUATION - YOUR SCENARIO IS THE OPPOSITE. ALSO EVERY EXCUSE UNDER THE SUN IS MADE FOR JM BEING HALF ASLEEP AND MISING HIS WORDS ETC - BUT ALTHOUGH HE WAS HALF ASLEEP AND ONLY HEARD A FEW WORDS NONE OF WHICH INDICATED A SHOT HAD BEEN FIRED HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE A BIT CONFUSED? IT WAS TRUE HS FATHER HAD KEPT SHEILAS CONDITION PRIVATE AND NEVILLE NEVER ASKED HIM TO CALL THE POLICE . if HE IS INNOCENT HIS ACTIONS IN RETROSPECT SEEM BADLY CALCULATED - BUT THEY COULD HAVE GOT THERE AND WITH THE HELP OF THE POLICE CALMED SHEILA DOWN AND SAVED THE FAMILY - IF HE IS INNOCENT WHY WOULD HE THINK SHE WOULD ACTUALLY FIRE THE GUN?
5) After calling police and going to WHF at their request he drove slowly and not only let police pass him, he drove the last mile of the trip quite slowly so that police could arrive first and see him arrive. Worse yet, after arriving he didn't tell police he could get in through the windows, nor did he press them to go knock at the door. The police questioned him about the guns in the house, whether SHeila coudl use them and whether Sheila would be likely to shoot at police if they went to the door and Jeremy was with them. They wanted to know if he could calm her and keep her from shooting them. Jeremy lied and told them she knew how to use/had fired every weapon in the house. He also told them that he did not get along well with her and they did not like eachother. As a result instead of going to knock at the door and risk being shot if she opened it, they called for armed assistance. Jerey in the meantime was very calm and talked about cars and guy stuff in between hamming it up about how crazy his sister was. Jeremy's lies and behavior was not that of someone concerned for his family.AS I SAID BEFORE THE POLICE ATTRIBUTED WORDS TO JEREMY THAT HE DENIED SAYING AND EVEN IN COURT THEY WERE TRYING TO DISTORT THE "CAR CONVERSATION" ALSO THE POLICE THEMSELVES WERE VERY WORRIED ABOUT JEREMY AND IN SOME STATEMENTS SAID HE WAS CRYING AND DISTRAUGHT AND ASKED THE DOCTOR TO WALK WITH HIME TO MAKE SURE HE WAS OK . THE CONVERSATIONS WERE TO TRY AND CALM HIM DOWN AND INSTIGATED BY THE POLICE . AS FAR AS HE WAS CONCERNED FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS THEY WERE TRYING TO TALK TO SHEILA , HE DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE ALL DEAD INSIDE .IF GUILTY HE WAS A VERY GOOD ACTOR TO CONVINCE ALL THE OFFICERS ON THE NIGHT ,IF INNOCENT IT IS ALL POSSIBLE.
6) Around 5:45AM Jeremy asked to call Julie and far from telling her he was worried about his family he told her not to go to work because she would need to talk to police and confirm he called her to express concern after receiving a call from Nevill. He wanted her to talk to police and help buttress his fictional alibi he received a call from Nevill. THAT IS ASSUMPTION AND DOES NOT TIE UP WITH ALL THE POLICE SATEMENTS
7) Jeremy did other things to frame Sheila beyond just lie about receiving a call from Nevill fingering her. He made up the claim that he had taken the gun out to shoot rabbits and left the gun and bullets in the kitchen. He suggested Sheila found and used the weapon as a result of him leaving it out. He clearly made this tale up though because: DISCUSSED ALREADY
A) He staged the bullets after the murders to support his story but staged too many bullets. He staged a box that could hold 50 bullets max, claimed it was full or near full when he took it out and that the fact it was not full or near full anymore shows the killer used this supply to commit the murders. But if the killer had used it to fire the 25 shots then no more than 25 would have remained. There were 30 remaining he staged too many and in the process revealed he staged them. her eis no way the killer would have used 20 bullets form this supply and with 30 still remaining then decide to go to the closet to get another 5 bullets. ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS THERE WAS OTHER AMMUNITION IN THE HOUSE AND IT WAS NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER TO HAVE GOT TO THAT? AND IF YOU HAD PLANNED IT FOR MONTHS DONT YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE GOT THAT RIGHT? ALSO IF HE HAD TO USE MORE BULLETS THAT HE PLANNED AND SHOT HER TWICE , NOT PLANNED, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN CRAPPING HIMSELF WHEN STANDING NEXT TO ALL THOSE EXPERIENCED OFFICERS BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE SUSSED IT OUT AS SOON AS THEY WENT IN? THAT DOES NOT TIE UP WITH YOUR EXPLANATIOON OF HIS DEMEANOR ABOVE . I ADMIT THIS IS ODD AND IT WAS BOUGHT UP AT THE TRIAL BUT IT DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING.
B) He was never known to use the gun to shoot a rabbits he used it only to shoot targets. He was opposed to shooting animals. So his account of getting it out to shoot rabbits is highly suspicious- SORRY ALL FARMERS CAN BE ANIMAL LOVERS BUT THEY ALL CONSIDER RABBITS AND RATS AS VERMIN . I DONT FIND THAT SUSPICIOUS AT ALL.
C) His account of hearing the rabbits or seeing them far away as it was getting dark (he kept changign hsi story of how he knew about the rabbits) is even less credible. COVERED
D) His account that the rifle had been stored without the moderator and scope attached at not credible at all either. There wa sno reaosn to remove either and someome would not want to remove them they would want to leave them attached to use anytime the gun was used. The only reason to reove the scope would be for close quarter shooting like the murders. Jeremy even lied initially and claimed the gun could not be stored with the scope and moderator attached to try to make it seem plausible he would find the gun like that. These lies were because he didn't want them to know the moderator was used in the commission of the crimes and he didn't want them to know he removed the scope in anticipation of committing the murders. WILL COME BACK TO THIS ONE . I THOUGHT NEVILLE WOULD HAVE PUT THE GUN AWY AT THE END OF THE DAY SO WHO KNOWS WHAT STATE IT WAS IN ? I STIL DONT GET WHY IFF THE MODERATOR WAS ON THE GUN AND JEREMY KNOWS THAT WHY HE HAS CONCENTRATED ON IT SO MUCH IN HIS APPEALS - TO ME THE WHOLE MODERaTOR THING IS THE MOST "STICKY" AREA.
E) Had he actually gotten the gun to shoot rabbits he would have wanted the moderator and scope attached.COVERED
F) June was on the phone and would have seen the pile of spilled bullets next to it, she would nto have left them there. Nor woudl she or Nevill have left the gun and loaded magazine in the kitchen before going to bed. Even when the boys were not there, he was careful with his weapons according to witnesses so surely with the boys staying would not have left it out. NOT SURE WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS HERE . YOU ARE SAYING WHOEVER COMMITTED THE CRIME HAD TO GO TO THE GUN CUPBOARD AND GET THE GUNS AND THE AMMUNTION? DOES THAT NOT EXPLAIN WHY THERE WERE MORE THAN 50 BULLETS THEN ?AND IT ALSO PROVES THAT WE CAN NOT BE SURE WHAT NEVILLE HAD SONE TO THE GUN BEFORE HE PUT IT AWAY?
G) Jeremy would have had survivors guilt if his family were actually murdered. He also would have had even more severe guilt if he really did leave the gun and bullets out and it such were used in the crime because it means he was partially responsible. That is even stronger than just ordinary survivor guilt. Yet he expressed no such feelings to anyone after the bodies were found. I THINK YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT WE ARE PRIVIY TO EVERYTHIG THAT HAPPENED IN EVERY HOUR AFTER THE MURDERS .THE DOCTOR ALSO PUT HIM ON VALIUM . THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT REACTIONS TO SHOCK AND GUILT SO I DONT THINK THIS PROVES ANYTHING .TBH I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IF GUILTY HE WOULD HAVE MADE MUCH MORE EFFORT TO PROMOTE THE REEACTIONS EVERYONE WOUD EXPECT?
All of these things together combined establish Jeremy's tale of receiving a call from Nevill were false. Viewing each thing in isolation is improper and what Jeremy supporters want to do because the weight of the evidence combined is so overwhelming. Jeremy supporters would like to deal with one little thing at a time in isolation because it is far easier to attack that way than it is to try attacking the evidenc ein full. THEY ESTABLISH THEM IN SOME RESPECTS BUT THERE ARE OTHER ASPECTS THAT ALSO TOGETHER COULD SHOW A DIFFERENT "PICTURE" I HAVE NEVER ATTACKED BTW . I ONLY ASKED YOU TO PRESENT IN ISOLATION BECAUSE I LOSE INTEREST HALF WAY THROUGH LONG POSTS.
I didn't present the entire case. I just presented all the issues that should be evaluated and looked at to assess Jeremy's claim he received a call from Nevill. FAIR ENOUGH - SO HAVE I.
-
It is called twilight. Even though the sun sets at a certain time, it doesn´t mean that it turns dark right away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight
-
I got the times from a site called explorebritain.info. It does explain what 'night fall' is if you are interested.
I couldn't find the site's explanation of 'nightfall', but it seems to be giving for nightfall what other sites call the time when nautical twilight ends. The time when twilight (without the nautical qualification) ends is called 'dusk', although 'dusk' is also in use as a synonym for twilight. Dusk tends to be about 35 to 40 minutes after sunset, depending on location and date. I don't think explorebritain's times are always precise, as it seems to ignore seconds instead of rounding to the nearest minute.
-
I couldn't find the site's explanation of 'nightfall', but it seems to be giving for nightfall what other sites call the time when nautical twilight ends. The time when twilight (without the nautical qualification) ends is called 'dusk', although 'dusk' is also in use as a synonym for twilight. Dusk tends to be about 35 to 40 minutes after sunset, depending on location and date. I don't think explorebritain's times are always precise, as it seems to ignore seconds instead of rounding to the nearest minute.
Their "nightfall" is when astronomical twilight ends. It's already totally dark during astronomical twilight but the atmosphere will still have glare that makes it hard to see certaon objects using a telescope.
During civil twilight you can still see sufficiently for most ordinary tasks. Some task will be more difficult. For instance it is harder to avoid seeing dog poop if you either want to avoid stepping in it or to clean it up. Normally lights are on in the house and the combo of lights and lack of light ends up making it more difficult to see to much detial outside.
Nautical twilight is darker and more problemmatic all the way around. While it is considered fully dark at the end of nautical twilight some use astronomical twilight as the beginning of night or the beginning of light. There is an astronomical, nautical, and civil twilight in the morning.
During
-
For instance it is harder to avoid seeing dog poop
That doesn't make sense. As it gets darker, it's more likely that you won't notice dog poop.
During
During what?
-
That doesn't make sense. As it gets darker, it's more likely that you won't notice dog poop.
During what?
I meant to typer harder to see so harder to avoid stepping in it. My niece took her dog for a walk then had to go cleanup the poop but becase it was getting dark she ended up finding it by stepping in it...
-
I'm still waiting, scipio_usmc, for your explanation of the movement of Sheila's body inbetween photographs being taken, as proved here (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5797.msg263178.html#msg263178).
-
I'm still waiting, scipio_usmc, for your explanation of the movement of Sheila's body inbetween photographs being taken, as proved here (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5797.msg263178.html#msg263178).
It doesn't need any explanation because the picture is taken from a slightly different angle. Look at the bible in both pictures, you can see the pages on the right picture but not on the left. Other than her hand (to photograph the blood stain), it doesn't look as though the body has been moved at all.
-
I'm still waiting, scipio_usmc, for your explanation of the movement of Sheila's body inbetween photographs being taken, as proved here (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5797.msg263178.html#msg263178).
As Caroline explained there is simply different angles.
That was already pointed out by me each time you make th eclaim. You then refuse to repsond to pretend you didn't get an answer and rereaise the same nonsense later.
It is especially nonsense since them moving her body after taking the first photo to demonstrate her exact position is FULLY appropriate and expected. It is unknown whether they lifted her body a bit to get the casing underneath it before or after the second photo. The second photo was quite a bit after the first because they already removed the bedding and did other things before taking that 2nd photo.
Even if they moved not only her arm but her whole body to look underneath for the casings before taking the second photo it makes no difference.
Trying to pretend it is wrong of them to move her body after taking the initial photos fails. Nor could moving her body at that late point in time in any way explain away the fact she was shot seated and yet found flat with the gun on her, the fact the moderator was put away in the closet after it being used to shoot her and her pool of blood that formed after her death that the bible was lying in.
This is one of your worthless red herrings.
-
As Caroline explained there is simply different angles.
That was already pointed out by me each time you make th eclaim. You then refuse to repsond to pretend you didn't get an answer and rereaise the same nonsense later.
It is especially nonsense since them moving her body after taking the first photo to demonstrate her exact position is FULLY appropriate and expected. It is unknown whether they lifted her body a bit to get the casing underneath it before or after the second photo. The second photo was quite a bit after the first because they already removed the bedding and did other things before taking that 2nd photo.
Even if they moved not only her arm but her whole body to look underneath for the casings before taking the second photo it makes no difference.
Trying to pretend it is wrong of them to move her body after taking the initial photos fails. Nor could moving her body at that late point in time in any way explain away the fact she was shot seated and yet found flat with the gun on her, the fact the moderator was put away in the closet after it being used to shoot her and her pool of blood that formed after her death that the bible was lying in.
This is one of your worthless red herrings.
I do not think that it is different angles? Ih one picture Sheila's arm is bent, but in the other it is straight. In one the Bible is closer to her elbow than the other. There are several points where there are differences.
Also the police continually said they didn't move the body, but when it was demonstrated that they did they confessed a little by saying that they only moved her arm a bit to take pictures
You can also see that her hand is in a different position and yet the socks stay at the same position, proving that her arm was indeed moved. Whether her whole body was moved to another place or not is debatable as it would be extremely difficult without another photo as a reference to get the position correct?
ps: you will also notice that the bloodied bedclothes are missing in one photo and present in the other. Why I wonder would there be bloodied bedclothes? Would it be that Sheila was dragged from the bed onto the floor in order to giver her CPR?
-
Mr Gee
I am confused was it Cook or bird that admitted moving her for the photos ?and also said the rifle had not been checked at the time - not really into H&S then were they - or wearing gloves
-
Mr Gee
I am confused was it Cook or bird that admitted moving her for the photos ?and also said the rifle had not been checked at the time - not really into H&S then were they - or wearing gloves
I don't think they were wearing gloves? That is why I an sceptical about there being no fingerprints on the gun. I can't remember who admitted moving her arm?
-
Mr Gee
I am confused was it Cook or bird that admitted moving her for the photos ?and also said the rifle had not been checked at the time - not really into H&S then were they - or wearing gloves
I remember Bews saying that they moved her arm. It is in an interview in a video. Too tired to find it now...
-
in the video on here the other day it was cook SCO - but the video was full of inaccuracies.
-
I do not think that it is different angles? Ih one picture Sheila's arm is bent, but in the other it is straight. In one the Bible is closer to her elbow than the other. There are several points where there are differences.
Also the police continually said they didn't move the body, but when it was demonstrated that they did they confessed a little by saying that they only moved her arm a bit to take pictures
You can also see that her hand is in a different position and yet the socks stay at the same position, proving that her arm was indeed moved. Whether her whole body was moved to another place or not is debatable as it would be extremely difficult without another photo as a reference to get the position correct?
ps: you will also notice that the bloodied bedclothes are missing in one photo and present in the other. Why I wonder would there be bloodied bedclothes? Would it be that Sheila was dragged from the bed onto the floor in order to giver her CPR?
The angle of the photos is different. One is not only a slightly different angle it was taken closer to Sheila than the other. That is why one shows more of her legs than the other. SLightly mor eof her fit in the frame because it was taken further way.
The only difference to her body is the gun and her arm were moved to show the blood on her gown where her hand had been.
The second photo was taken after they alreayd removed the sheets and quilting from the bed so was obviously some time later.
-
It doesn't need any explanation because the picture is taken from a slightly different angle. Look at the bible in both pictures, you can see the pages on the right picture but not on the left. Other than her hand (to photograph the blood stain), it doesn't look as though the body has been moved at all.
Taking a casual look at the position of the body doesn't suffice. You need to relate it to the position of the rug and the spots on the carpet, and I described precisely how to do that. The differences I referred to can't be accounted for by the slightly different camera position.
-
There should by rights have been visible pools of blood,not little drops ? It was a " massacre " !
-
Taking a casual look at the position of the body doesn't suffice. You need to relate it to the position of the rug and the spots on the carpet, and I described precisely how to do that. The differences I referred to can't be accounted for by the slightly different camera position.
The difference you claim exist do not. The blood drops are the same locations in comparison to the body. The photo which fits more of her body in the frame show addiitonal drops of blood because more of the floor fits in the frame in that photo. Your claims fell apart like always.
-
The bloodspots have nothing to do with my point except to show that the rug hadn't moved. Sheila's body is differently positioned in relation to that rug.
-
The bloodspots have nothing to do with my point except to show that the rug hadn't moved. Sheila's body is differently positioned in relation to that rug.
Her body didn't move they just pulled her dress down a little more to make sure her privates were covered and they were taken at different angles and different dinstances. That is why the underneath of the bible is visible in one photo but not th eother. The second took the vantage form more above the bible intead of to the side.
-
You're still ignoring the observation I made about the rug in relation to Sheila's right leg.
-
You're still ignoring the observation I made about the rug in relation to Sheila's right leg.
Her leg did not move her gown was pulled down more simply, That along with the different angle and photo being from further away gives the false impression her leg moved.
-
You're ignoring what I said. Her nightgown had nothing to do with the point I was making, and what I drew attention to would not have been affected by the slight difference in camera position.
-
You're ignoring what I said. Her nightgown had nothing to do with the point I was making, and what I drew attention to would not have been affected by the slight difference in camera position.
Hee leg doesn't look as if it has been moved but What would be the point of moving it a couple of centimeters? And how does it make Jeremy innocent?
-
Hee leg doesn't look as if it has been moved but What would be the point of moving it a couple of centimeters? And how does it make Jeremy innocent?
The whole argument about whether Sheila's body was moved or not was crucial to the defence's argument. For if they could prove that she was moved then that would disprove that Jeremy staged the scene.
-
Sheila HAD been moved. Of that there's no doubt when you study the pics.
Claire Powell had described Sheilas' arms having been by her side.!? Rifle one side,Bible the other.
-
Sheila HAD been moved. Of that there's no doubt when you study the pics.
Claire Powell had described Sheilas' arms having been by her side.!? Rifle one side,Bible the other.
How would Claire Powell know that?
-
The whole argument about whether Sheila's body was moved or not was crucial to the defence's argument. For if they could prove that she was moved then that would disprove that Jeremy staged the scene.
Sorry Grahame, we're talking centimeters not from one side of the room to the other and I see nothing to suggest that she was moved - other than her hand. The pictures posted by Reader are from a different angle, proven by how much of the bible pages you can see.
-
Sheila HAD been moved. Of that there's no doubt when you study the pics.
Claire Powell had described Sheilas' arms having been by her side.!? Rifle one side,Bible the other.
Of course I have studied the pictures and there is nothing to suggest she was moved at all (see above). If you want to believe she was moved then that's fine but certainly is doubt - a lot of it.
Now is this the same Claire Powell that people discredit when she says something negative about Jeremy? ;)
-
How would Claire Powell know that?
Excellent question Jansus and of course the answer is - she doesn't.
-
How would Claire Powell know that?
I can only assume that what she'd stated on the front cover about researching " dozens of people " who'd agreed to speak to her during her writing of the book. Detectives,family members ( particularly as she described David Boutflour as being a pillar of strength and salt of the earth ) which you wouldn't necessarily describe someone this way if you didn't know them.
-
Of course I have studied the pictures and there is nothing to suggest she was moved at all (see above). If you want to believe she was moved then that's fine but certainly is doubt - a lot of it.
Now is this the same Claire Powell that people discredit when she says something negative about Jeremy? ;)
She certainly was negative as far as Jeremy's concerned,which was the idea of her book.
This is the extract when Sheila was found I quote," The slim figure was neatly dressed in a fresh nightgown.The dark,red-tinted hair was thick and glossy and the " outstretched " hands were tipped by long,blood-red nails.unquote ".
-
Excellent question Jansus and of course the answer is - she doesn't.
Of course another question could be asked, where did she get it from?
-
Apparently it was the rifle with the smashed " handle" that was found near Sheila. We've heard very little about the smashed one ? Was it ever examined,along with the piece that came off it ?
-
Apparently it was the rifle with the smashed " handle" that was found near Sheila. We've heard very little about the smashed one ? Was it ever examined,along with the piece that came off it ?
Sorry Lookout, not sure what you mean? There was only one.
-
The whole argument about whether Sheila's body was moved or not was crucial to the defence's argument. For if they could prove that she was moved then that would disprove that Jeremy staged the scene.
That's not true in the least. The whole issue of police moving her body is a red herring Jeremy supporters raise because they want to pretend Jeremy is innocent but having nothing vlaid to reaise to rebut his guilt.
The fact that police moved her body after they took the initial photos is indisputable. They indeed had to move her body to remove it from the scene so moving her body after tkaing the initial photos means nothing at all.
Moving her body even before the photos would not mean much it would just mean we would have to go by police witness statements as to the state of her body when found as opposed to having a photo showing the exact state before police moved her.
Moving her body doesn't impact any of the evidence that proves Jeremy's guilt. She was moved too long after her death for the movement to have accounted for the blood staining on her gown or the pool of blood on the floor that the bible which is the only theoretical relevance moving her body slightly could have.
Her body was seated propped up against something when shot and moved flat after she died but within minutes of being shot. Similarly the bible was opened and closed after her death and evne placed in the pool of blood that formed after her death while it was still wet. Ther eis no way police moving her body hours later would have any relevance to either issue.
It is just one of many worthless red herrings Jeremy supporters resort to and they can't even think up a potential point of how it impacts anything it is just tossed out there without any coherent argument.
-
She certainly was negative as far as Jeremy's concerned,which was the idea of her book.
This is the extract when Sheila was found I quote," The slim figure was neatly dressed in a fresh nightgown.The dark,red-tinted hair was thick and glossy and the " outstretched " hands were tipped by long,blood-red nails.unquote ".
this is why I have resisted reading books - or when I have taken it with a pinch of salt.
I don't think in any of the reports it actually said how long her nails were . And Anne Eaton apparently did find a false finger nail - so perhaps they were painted but not particularly long.
Also the one thing that does annoy me about the moving of the body - even if it was just a small amount is the two officers that certain posters dismiss as having made a mistake who did say that the body/bible and rifle were in a different position to what they saw. They were experienced officers and why would they even mention it if they were not sure.
There my have been a possibility that stupidly they moved the body more than they admitted to take the photos ( after all apparently they did not check the gun was safe or wear gloves ::) that made the body look more staged than it was.
At the time as they thought the case was so cut and dried they did not think it mattered at all - why would they ? But later the case changed they could not admit what they had done. I am not saying that body was found on the bed - but if they were correct then the body may not have looked "staged" at all and that does affect the case greatly.
It also would explain the case under her body and the position of the bible.
-
How would Claire Powell know that?
A more precise question would be what evidence did Powell have that would justify making such claim in when the official police statements and photos demonstrate something different?
When challenging the official account one should note what the official account is and present evidence to the contrary. She though was presenting that as the official account essentially. Which means either she didn't know the official account was different or she didn't care and decided to pretend that was the official account. It could be sloppiness or deception. Either way she is wrong which is what matters to us.
It is one of the reasons why authors are not valid sources. If they present evidence to support their claims that is a different story particularly if you are able to verify the evidence.
-
this is why I have resisted reading books - or when I have taken it with a pinch of salt.
I don't think in any of the reports it actually said how long her nails were . And Anne Eaton apparently did find a false finger nail - so perhaps they were painted but not particularly long.
Also the one thing that does annoy me about the moving of the body - even if it was just a small amount is the two officers that certain posters dismiss as having made a mistake who did say that the body/bible and rifle were in a different position to what they saw. They were experienced officers and why would they even mention it if they were not sure.
There my have been a possibility that stupidly they moved the body more than they admitted to take the photos ( after all apparently they did not check the gun was safe or wear gloves ::) that made the body look more staged than it was.
At the time as they thought the case was so cut and dried they did not think it mattered at all - why would they ? But later the case changed they could not admit what they had done. I am not saying that body was found on the bed - but if they were correct then the body may not have looked "staged" at all and that does affect the case greatly.
It also would explain the case under her body and the position of the bible.
Books are good for basic background and some books actually detail evidence. Some will cite from documents, testimony and even provide documents and transcripts on occasion. There can thus be value in reading books but one has to understand the limitaitons and to look to see if they actually contain any evidence or not. Raping footnotes has always been a way historians and scholars advance knowledge. Works without footnotes that list sources for claims are usually worthless. Some will forego doing so in footnotes and do it in the main body but even then something is usually reserved for footnotes. If you read footnotes and there is no source listed just further discussion in general it is a bad sign.
Citing an affidavit, statement or document is appropriate in a formal work like a book and better still is to cite the paragraph or page at least so people can check the claim to make sure the source actually supports the proposition asserted.
With historical works that is a staple. You check the claim and if valid you can adopt the claim instead of just saying it is a claim made by someone else that you are not positive whether it is true or not.
-
Sorry Lookout, not sure what you mean? There was only one.
According to Professor Leon McDonnell there were two rifles. One on Sheila and another complete with silencer in " another room ".Seemingly,it was that silencer which had blood on it as well ( which was already attached to the rifle )
-
this is why I have resisted reading books - or when I have taken it with a pinch of salt.
I don't think in any of the reports it actually said how long her nails were . And Anne Eaton apparently did find a false finger nail - so perhaps they were painted but not particularly long.
Also the one thing that does annoy me about the moving of the body - even if it was just a small amount is the two officers that certain posters dismiss as having made a mistake who did say that the body/bible and rifle were in a different position to what they saw. They were experienced officers and why would they even mention it if they were not sure.
There my have been a possibility that stupidly they moved the body more than they admitted to take the photos ( after all apparently they did not check the gun was safe or wear gloves ::) that made the body look more staged than it was.
At the time as they thought the case was so cut and dried they did not think it mattered at all - why would they ? But later the case changed they could not admit what they had done. I am not saying that body was found on the bed - but if they were correct then the body may not have looked "staged" at all and that does affect the case greatly.
It also would explain the case under her body and the position of the bible.
Every publication is different. How on earth can you have differences like that for exactly the same crime ?
-
Apparently it was the rifle with the smashed " handle" that was found near Sheila. We've heard very little about the smashed one ? Was it ever examined,along with the piece that came off it ?
We have heard a lot about it, it is the only rifle in the case there were no others. The only other rifle in the house was just a gun that used CO2 to fire metal pellets not a real riflearm. The only other firearms were shotguns.
They fingerprinted the murder weapon, they tested the blood stains on it finding they were human blood stains, they searched the barrel to see if it had any blood in it, which it didn't so it could not have been used for any contact shots to any of the victims without the moderator attached, and they looked at the damage to the stock including taking the stock off and looking inside to the extent possible since it has a cavity. The stock ha several stress fractures running from the front towards the back. These fractures were caused by the stock being squeezed at both ends. The piece that broke off also browke off from the same sort of pressure. The break ran laterally. The pressure that caused such was obviously someone forcing the butt of the rifle into something. You had force on one side and it was kitting something hard on the other.
Nevill's skull had wounds that were caused by the butt of the rifle striking it. His face as well and arms though his face in addition could have been struck by a fist as well not exclusively the rifle. I sincerely doubt bashing the nose and face with the rifle would be able to cause the damage in question to the butt. Bashing the skull is much more likely to cause such.
The rifle had one print that belonged to Sheila, one that belonged to Jeremy and several partials that could not be matched to anyone.
They never typed the blood on the weapon they just did a test to determine if it was human blood. No doubt most if not all the blood on it was Nevill's. The stains on the stock and rear of the weapon were determined to be consistent with medium velocity spatter. Someone bleeding was being stuck with the stock and the blood was spashing onto the rifle. The only one with wounds indicating he was being struck with the rifle was Nevill so obviously the blood had to be his so a test of blood type wasn't necessary.
That pretty much covers everything about the rifle physically. The only thing to add is that the 25 casings were tied as being fired by the murder weapon thus proving it was the weapon that fired such 25 rounds. To prove that required test firing bullets and comparing the the extraction marks and firing pin impressions on the samples to the 25 used in the murder. So we know a different wepaon was not used.
You suggested the other day the gun on Sheila wasn't the actual murder wepaon. If that were the case it would prove even more strongly that someone else killed her because she never stood up after being shot and certainly can't have died then brought the gun to a different room. The gun on her was the murder weapon.
-
According to Professor Leon McDonnell there were two rifles. One on Sheila and another complete with silencer in " another room ".Seemingly,it was that silencer which had blood on it as well ( which was already attached to the rifle )
And as explained to you he was wrong. If his claims were true then the defense would have had no ability at all to argue Sheila committed suicide. They alreayd were behind the 8 ball in making such a claim because of the actual evidence. If the murder weapon were found in a different room from Sheila that is even stronger evidence than the blood in moderator that Sheila was murdered.
-
According to Professor Leon McDonnell there were two rifles. One on Sheila and another complete with silencer in " another room ".Seemingly,it was that silencer which had blood on it as well ( which was already attached to the rifle )
I have never read that lookout? Have you got a erm....Source ::) for it? :)
-
I have never read that lookout? Have you got a erm....Source ::) for it? :)
It's in a statement of his,where in the next breath, he's asking for his fee. ???
-
And as explained to you he was wrong. If his claims were true then the defense would have had no ability at all to argue Sheila committed suicide. They alreayd were behind the 8 ball in making such a claim because of the actual evidence. If the murder weapon were found in a different room from Sheila that is even stronger evidence than the blood in moderator that Sheila was murdered.
Of course if there were blood on the "other" silencer on the other gun then the defence could have argued that Sheila could have used that gun (if it was the same type of gun of course) to shoot her parents then used the accepted murder weapon to kill herself?
-
It's in a statement of his,where in the next breath, he's asking for his fee. ???
Where is the statement located - the forum or somewhere else?
-
Where is the statement located - the forum or somewhere else?
I've been trying to find it. It's actually on this forum from 2011,but I can't remember the thread title that I did a search on,but I know it wasn't McDonnell. I was searching something else and that about McDonnell happened to come up.
-
Of course if there were blood on the "other" silencer on the other gun then the defence could have argued that Sheila could have used that gun (if it was the same type of gun of course) to shoot her parents then used the accepted murder weapon to kill herself?
He claimed the weapon found in the other room was the weapon with Sheila's blood thus was the weapon used to kill her. He claimed the rifle dumped on Sheila was staged and not the one used to kill her. The assessment the gun on her was staged was related to the photos he saw but also could have been influenced by his erreonous belief a different gun was the murder weapon. So he woudl need to render a whole new assessment based on the actual facts.
-
Her leg doesn't look as if it has been moved, but what would be the point of moving it a couple of centimeters?
It's been moved by several inches, not just a fraction of an inch.
-
It's been moved by several inches, not just a fraction of an inch.
Only in your opinion. You haven't even commented on the angle of the shot which is quite obviously different given the view of the bible in both shots. You also haven't commented on how a leg moved several inches (in your opinion) makes Jeremy innocent?
-
What I can see having been moved is Sheila´s lower arm and hand and the bible, the rest is due to different angles of the photographs. In my opinion.
-
I rather feel that Sheila wouldn't have been found in such a serene position,barely touching the rifle,,if she'd shot herself. She'd have been left clutching/gripping it with her hands stiffened around the rifle if she'd been dead for hours. It just doesn't sit right that someone should look so " relaxed ".
-
A team of forensic experts working for the defence spent a day at WHF.
Surely they checked the windows.
-
They came too late. AE had washed the blood from the sill/s. ::)
-
They came too late. AE had washed the blood from the sill/s. ::)
To test if there was a lockable from outside window.
-
To test if there was a lockable from outside window.
They probably did,but would never have admitted that they were self-locking.
-
Prosecutor Arlidge in his opening speech said about the window -
The window was shut, but the catch was not secured.
Scratch marks had been put on the window after the decorators had painted the window. They matched the marks the found hacksaw blade would make.
An experts conclusion is that the found hacksaw blade had been used to force open the window. Probably prior to the massacre night.
-
Arlidge continued -
Jeremy had told Julie Mugford he had found a way of getting out of WHF undetected. Leaving through a kitchen window which would appear to have been shut from inside due to the design of the catch.
-
Prosecutor Arlidge in his opening speech said about the window -
The window was shut, but the catch was not secured.
Scratch marks had been put on the window after the decorators had painted the window. They matched the marks the found hacksaw blade would make.
An experts conclusion is that the found hacksaw blade had been used to force open the window. Probably prior to the massacre night.
Hacksaw blade-------------red herring
Phone hidden----------------red herring.
Silencer---------red herring.
Any more ?
-
Hacksaw blade-------------red herring
Phone hidden----------------red herring.
Silencer---------red herring.
Any more ?
Thank you for clarifying everything Lookout.
-
You're welcome,Adam. Any time. ;D
-
You haven't even commented on the angle of the shot which is quite obviously different given the view of the bible in both shots. You also haven't commented on how a leg moved several inches (in your opinion) makes Jeremy innocent?
I commented on the different camera position, which implies a different angle. I explained why it's immaterial - it can't affect the position of Sheila's right thigh in relation to the position of the rug on the carpet. In particular, the edge of the rug cannot be in line with two quite different positions on her thigh due to a change in camera position or angle. If the police moved her body, that significantly weakens the prosecution case that Jeremy staged her suicide.
-
I guess the fact is that we all in or minds think the photos do look so staged it would be hard to imagine the police could not see that?
I am not sure how common suicide by rifle is but you would think that the rifle /arm would fall away from the body and the hand would not remain in that position. I know the rifle has very little recoil but it is not how you would imagine the scene to look.
that is why I think the statements of officers who said they saw the body/bible/rifle in a different position should not be so easily dismissed.
Now it could be things were moved to check rifle safety/ check the body ( as officers said they saw blood running from her mouth) in a haphazard rather than a calculated way and then moved again ( to take photos) but if this is true and not admitted it does not prove Jeremys innocence but it would prove that the Jury were not getting the true images from the crime scene which would surely be relevant.
-
I guess the fact is that we all in or minds think the photos do look so staged it would be hard to imagine the police could not see that?
I am not sure how common suicide by rifle is but you would think that the rifle /arm would fall away from the body and the hand would not remain in that position. I know the rifle has very little recoil but it is not how you would imagine the scene to look.
that is why I think the statements of officers who said they saw the body/bible/rifle in a different position should not be so easily dismissed.
Now it could be things were moved to check rifle safety/ check the body ( as officers said they saw blood running from her mouth) in a haphazard rather than a calculated way and then moved again ( to take photos) but if this is true and not admitted it does not prove Jeremys innocence but it would prove that the Jury were not getting the true images from the crime scene which would surely be relevant.
What does it matter? Bamber staged the scene in any event.
-
What does it matter? Bamber staged the scene in any event.
I'm surprised at you John. Can't you admit that the case was badly handled ?
-
I'm surprised at you John. Can't you admit that the case was badly handled ?
The case being badly handled doesn't mean Jeremy isn't guilty.
-
What does it matter? Bamber staged the scene in any event.
I obviously am not tending towards that opinion hence my post.
We are all free to have our own opinion.
that's the point of discussion.
-
The case being badly handled doesn't mean Jeremy isn't guilty.
It may do?
-
It may do?
But it doesn't necessarily follow.
-
I commented on the different camera position, which implies a different angle. I explained why it's immaterial - it can't affect the position of Sheila's right thigh in relation to the position of the rug on the carpet. In particular, the edge of the rug cannot be in line with two quite different positions on her thigh due to a change in camera position or angle. If the police moved her body, that significantly weakens the prosecution case that Jeremy staged her suicide.
As I already explained to you numerous times her thigh is in the same position in relation to the carpet. Her dress was moved further down her thigh so that her crotch was more protected. Her dress moved not her leg.
Far from saying it was immaterial and you were just pointing it out for the sake of pointing it out you were clearly trying it imply it was suggestive of police wrongdoing and somehow helps Jeremy though you could not come up with any explanation of how it actually does so.
-
I guess the fact is that we all in or minds think the photos do look so staged it would be hard to imagine the police could not see that?
I am not sure how common suicide by rifle is but you would think that the rifle /arm would fall away from the body and the hand would not remain in that position. I know the rifle has very little recoil but it is not how you would imagine the scene to look.
that is why I think the statements of officers who said they saw the body/bible/rifle in a different position should not be so easily dismissed.
Now it could be things were moved to check rifle safety/ check the body ( as officers said they saw blood running from her mouth) in a haphazard rather than a calculated way and then moved again ( to take photos) but if this is true and not admitted it does not prove Jeremys innocence but it would prove that the Jury were not getting the true images from the crime scene which would surely be relevant.
In countries where firearms are widely available they are used in about 60% of suicides. In countries where they are not widely available the percentage is much lower. In the UK percentage is around 2% only. The majority of these are with shotguns not rifles. Asphyxiation or suffocation (which are usually grouped together statistically but asphyxiation is more common).
When handguns are not outlawed they make up the majority of firearm suicides with shotguns taking second place and rifles last. When handguns are outlawed they make up a smaller amount of suicides and usually are outnumbered by shotguns and sometimes even rifle suicides.
So police in the UK were not and still are not used to dealing with many firearm related suicides.
The staging was to suggest Sheila was lying down on her back, held the gun along her body, fired and then the gun fell on her. If that actually happened the gun could indeed land on her the way it was found. The problems are that the bloodstains indicate she was seated not lying down and she had neither ant GSR on her gown as would be the case with the gun being fired along her body nor on her hands.
The police at the scene were not experts in blood stains and had no way to know whether she had GSR or not on her so it is understandable that they would need experts to detail such for them. Once such details were provided to those handling the investigation it changed things a great deal. But so did the moderator evidence and Julie's account.
We are not looking in the dark like police were. We are looking with the benefit of already having knowledge of everything. There is no way for us to shut hidsight off and put ourselves in the position of police at the outset.
-
her thigh is in the same position in relation to the carpet. Her dress was moved further down her thigh so that her crotch was more protected. Her dress moved not her leg.
I wasn't referring to her dress (nightie) at all. I was referring to the position of her thigh in relation to the rug on the carpet. You are therefore referring to things I didn't post and failing to consider what I did post.
-
I commented on the different camera position, which implies a different angle. I explained why it's immaterial - it can't affect the position of Sheila's right thigh in relation to the position of the rug on the carpet. In particular, the edge of the rug cannot be in line with two quite different positions on her thigh due to a change in camera position or angle. If the police moved her body, that significantly weakens the prosecution case that Jeremy staged her suicide.
I don't believe they did move her leg and honestly think you're imagining it. However, it doesn't weaken the case at all, the staging is the gun on the chest and bible by her side. She quite obviously died there because she's in a pool of her own blood.
-
I wasn't referring to her dress (nightie) at all. I was referring to the position of her thigh in relation to the rug on the carpet. You are therefore referring to things I didn't post and failing to consider what I did post.
Her leg didn't move you are imagining it. You are so desperate to attack police you see things that don't exist and fail to establish anything wrong even if you had been correct.
Her gown being lower gives the false initial impression her leg moved. All one has to do is take a closer look to see that is not the case.
As Caroline pointed out even if her leg had been moved it would have no significance at all. They have the right to move her body all they want after taking the initial photo to document her position she was found in. They could roll her over to check her back and move her anywhere they wanted.
The phot taken after she was moved was to document the blood stain that was under her hand. The photo served that purpose perfectly. Hey could have moved her all they wanted before taking it and it would make no difference at all.
-
What about the officer who didn't even see a rifle on Sheilas' chest ?? How did it suddenly appear,and where from ? And why place it on her body.? It had been placed because it doesn't look right.We all know where the bullet wounds are without the rifle pointing them out ! It's too obvious.
-
What about the officer who didn't even see a rifle on Sheilas' chest ?? How did it suddenly appear,and where from ? And why place it on her body.? It had been placed because it doesn't look right.We all know where the bullet wounds are without the rifle pointing them out ! It's too obvious.
Who?
-
Who?
I'll find his name,but I was sure it was Collins.However I'll make sure.
-
>>>>>>>>>>>still looking,but I do know that both Collins and Delgado weren't happy about the crime scene.
-
Miller had stated that the rifle was by her right-hand side.He'd entered that in his notebook.
-
No.
The evidence clearly shows what it is, and that isn't a call from Neville. It even states where the information came from, Nevilles son Jeremy.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/14/gchq-tools-manipulate-online-information-leak
-
I'm going for Collins anyway,as because the rifle was down by Sheilas' r/h side,he would have noticed that it wasn't on her body according to his vantage point.
Is this the same rifle which Jeapes saw at the window ? If so,how did it get by Sheilas' side ?
And why----------at one point was the tip of the rifle seen beneath her necklace on the left side,then next minute it's showing above the necklace on her chin on the left-hand side ?
Another pic shows the rifle just resting on the right side of her chin instead of the left.
Are ALL pics mirror images ? If not,then there's been movement.
-
Miller had stated that the rifle was by her right-hand side.He'd entered that in his notebook.
Your record of always being wrong is safely intact. There was no Miller on the raid team. There are records that show police discussed after seeing the photos whether it looked different than when they saw the scene in person. They write after their discussions that they decided that nothing was moved.
During the COLP investigation Woodcock claimed he though he remembered the bible further away from Sheila and that he didn't rememebr the gun being on her. But this was many years later when his memory faded so it is understandable for him to misrecall details. He didn't say any such thing at the time.
You should really take advantage of the resources posted in the archives of this site and to actually pay attention to what other peopel who discuss same write on here. You said you don't care what we write you don't trust it. The result of not trusting us and trying to learn is your details are always wrong.
-
I didn't mention Miller being in the raid team--------------YOU DID !
-
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/14/gchq-tools-manipulate-online-information-leak
In other words the lesser was sacrificed for the greater.
-
I'm going for Collins anyway,as because the rifle was down by Sheilas' r/h side,he would have noticed that it wasn't on her body according to his vantage point.
Is this the same rifle which Jeapes saw at the window ? If so,how did it get by Sheilas' side ?
And why----------at one point was the tip of the rifle seen beneath her necklace on the left side,then next minute it's showing above the necklace on her chin on the left-hand side ?
Another pic shows the rifle just resting on the right side of her chin instead of the left.
Are ALL pics mirror images ? If not,then there's been movement.
Whatever Jeapes saw was not a rifle barrel. All she saw was something sticking up that looked narrow. It never moved so it can't have been the murder weapon. Ther eowuld be no way for police to find it on Sheila's body and yet for it to have still been in the window with Jeapes looking at it. It coudl have been a broom, it could have been a shadow it could have been something else. No photos of the room in quesiton are available so we have no way to know what it was. We onyl know it can't have been the murder weapon.
The bodies in the bedroom were found by:
Collins
Delgado
Woodcock
After they cleared the room 2 other raid members went in
Hall
Manners
The last raid team member to see the bedroom was Webb but he neve rwent inside he just saw from the hallway so only saw June.
The others to see the bodies did so after the raid team cleared the entire house and exited. Woodcock ended up staying behind but the rest of the raid team went back to the station.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/14/gchq-tools-manipulate-online-information-leak
What does this have to do with Nevill's phone call? I see you haven't commented on that. How about the misleading information on the official site? Quite clearly people were under the impression that it was Nevill's log that the jury didn't see because that's the way it has been communicated. The Daily Mail (and other newspapers) also made this mistake - do you think that it is fine to give false impressions when it's in support of Jeremy?
-
What does this have to do with Nevill's phone call? I see you haven't commented on that. How about the misleading information on the official site? Quite clearly people were under the impression that it was Nevill's log that the jury didn't see because that's the way it has been communicated. The Daily Mail (and other newspapers) also made this mistake - do you think that it is fine to give false impressions when it's in support of Jeremy?
More amusing still are the claims the defense was not made aware of the existence of both.
Bonnett's was an official exhibit.
West's was read into the record by West while he was on the witness stand.
That is on top of the defense receiving copies of both prior to trial.
The defense even had copies of their notebooks and statements which the defense counsel referenced during cross examination.
The truth is that until this century no one though up the failrytale claim that that Bonnett's log reflects a call from Nevill. It wasn't made at trial because no one conceived of such fairytale at the time let alone had any evidence to support such claim.
Making the claim now with no eivdence doesn't amount to a hill of beans and since it is something that could have been raised below but wasnn't it can'
t be raise don appeal anyway. Even if allowed to raise it on appeal though it would not matter because to succeed proof is needed. An unsupported allegation doesn't cut it.
-
Bonnett's log may seem to be an official exhibit, but there were no direct references to it by anyone until this century. There are no references to it in the appeal judgement. Had the defence seen it during or before the trial, they would have spotted that it gives Nevill's age as 26, etc., and raised questions about it in the trial.
-
More amusing still are the claims the defense was not made aware of the existence of both.
Bonnett's was an official exhibit.
West's was read into the record by West while he was on the witness stand.
That is on top of the defense receiving copies of both prior to trial.
The defense even had copies of their notebooks and statements which the defense counsel referenced during cross examination.
The truth is that until this century no one though up the failrytale claim that that Bonnett's log reflects a call from Nevill. It wasn't made at trial because no one conceived of such fairytale at the time let alone had any evidence to support such claim.
Making the claim now with no eivdence doesn't amount to a hill of beans and since it is something that could have been raised below but wasnn't it can'
t be raise don appeal anyway. Even if allowed to raise it on appeal though it would not matter because to succeed proof is needed. An unsupported allegation doesn't cut it.
And who made the claim this century ? Jeremy.
Gotta give him credit, he managed to get the ridiculous suggestion on the front page of national newspapers. As Paul Harrison said this week, Jeremy still has influence from behind bars.
It is correct that this was not suggested at trial or at the the 2002 appeal. Although the claim was made public in 2005 I believe. It would be interesting to know whether it was submitted at the 2012 appeal. I suspect it was just media bravado.
-
Bonnett's log may seem to be an official exhibit, but there were no direct references to it by anyone until this century. There are no references to it in the appeal judgement. Had the defence seen it during or before the trial, they would have spotted that it gives Nevill's age as 26, etc., and raised questions about it in the trial.
The defense gets a copy of the exhibits. There is no way to clai they didn't see it. There was nothing to ask about the age on Bonnett's saying 26. They didn't care because it can be chalked up to only 1 of 2 things. Either he wrote down a different age than he told Bonnett or Bonnett wrote down a different age than West told him. Neither of these was to any consequence to the defense. The defense asked questions relevant to its defense such as to challenge the notion that the call came at 3:36 because that suggests Jeremy waited far too long to call police and undermines his ability to claim he called Julie after getting off the phone with police.
The defense at trial was trying to establish the complete opposite of what you and Mike keep claiming regarding the call to police being at 3:36.
-
As Paul Harrison said this week, Jeremy still has influence from behind bars.
Don't believe everything you read in the tabloids.
-
Don't believe everything you read in the tabloids.
As Paul Harrison himself advised. ;)
-
Interesting article on another site.
I do not believe Bamber phoned the police pretending to be Neville. He would have made a fuss at the time and got his defence to use it However if he did then it might explain him not ringing 999.
It should be clear to all that much of Jeremy Bamber's defence is based on the phone call from "Neville Bamber" to thepolice. If "Neville Bamber" did make such a call then it is clear that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
However......
Unlike modern day telephone exchanges which automatically record the number from which a 999 call is dialed from, the BT exchanges in 1985 did not have that level of sophistication. There was a simple meter attached to your phone line @ your local exchange. All it recorded was the number of minutes your phone had used. at a given tariff.
Therefore it would have been perfectly possible for Jeremy Bamber to dial 999 from his own house phone, claim to be his father Neville and to say "my daughter has gone beserk with a gun". Leaving the phone off the hook in the farm after committing the murders would have helped reinforce the idea that Neville had indeed made the calls.
What is rather daming for Jeremy's case is that, by his own admission, rather than dial 999 for his own call to the police (which any normal person would have done). he looked up his local police stationn in the phone book and called them. Why?
Well, if you believe that he is guilty, then the reason is quite straight-forward. A 999 call would have been put through to the Divisonal HQ by the BT Operator (which is what happened with the "Neville" call).
If Jeremy Bamber had made that call then he risked being caught out if, minutes later, he then made a similar 999 call, this time posing as the worried son. The chances are that he would have gone via the same BT Operator and been connected to the same duty officer at the Divisional HQ. Either one of them might have suspected that the same caller was making both calls..
They only way to avoid this was to phone his local police station directly.
In this way he was guarenteed to speak to a different duty officer (which is what happened). Like the Divisional HQ officer that duty officer also dispatched a patrol car, hence the reason for 2 cars being dispatched. CA7 was dispatched by the Divisional HQ officer (and arrived first), whislt CA5 was dispatched by the local station.
Think about it - if your sister was going crazy with a gun, would you waste time looking up the number of your local police station in the phone book or would you simply dial 999 ?
There were 3 telephone calls in question:
1. Neville Bamber's 999 call to the police
A phone call was made by a person claiming to be "Neville Bamber". However, the prosecution dispute that Neville actually made the call since he was shot in the Larynx which would have made speach very difficult, if not impossible. However, the defence could have argued that he may have been shot in the larynx after making the calls.
2. Neville Bamber to Jeremy Bamber
The prosecution have always maintained that no call was ever made by Neville to Jeremy, since the latter was the killer. The defence has always argued that the call was made and that Jeremy is innocent. Sadly there is no way that we can ever know which version is correc t.
3. Jeremy Bamber to the police station
The call from Jeremy was made to his local poice station. The prosecution would have asked why, when his sister was going crazy with a gun did he waste time looking up his local police station's phone number in the phone book? Why did he also phone his girlfriend before calling the police, despite the seriousness of the situation?
It is possible that Jeremy, being unfamiliar with the workings of a BT exchange, may have incorrectly thought that he needed to make another call to prevent the 999 call being traced back to his phone. Maybe he thought that the exchange held the last number he dialled (a bit like the modern 1471 feature), hence his reason for phoning his girlfriend. Perhaps he needed to catch his breathe or collect his thought before making his next call to the police. Maybe he thought that his original 999 call under the guise of being his father went to his local police station and was scared that he would be put through to the same duty officer again, and so wanted to wait a few minutes just in case.
Whatever the reason, he briefly phoned his girlfriend, then looked up his local police station's number before finally calling them.
I don't know whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent, but the above is a feasible method by which he could have faked the calls. Impossible to do these days with the modern exchanges since the 999 caller id is automatically recorded, but was possible in 1985 when the murders were committed.
-
You should get a job,Adam.It might broaden your outlook !
-
The more complicated you make Jeremys actions on the night - just so the scenario "fits" then the less likely it is that he was guilty IMO.
-
I see it that way too Jan. Too many scenarios make it look as though folk are struggling. ;D
-
You should get a job,Adam.It might broaden your outlook !
I have a full time job thanks. A well paid one to.
The article to me was interesting as it showed why Bamber would dial 999 to pretend to be Neville, then dial Chelmsford as himself. Rather than just dial 999 twice.
Although he did not pretend to be Neville in my view, otherwise he would have demanded his lawyers look for proof of Neville's call, in 1985. Not optimistically bring it up twenty years later.
-
I have a full time job thanks. A well paid one to.
The article to me was interesting as it showed why Bamber would dial 999 to pretend to be Neville, then dial Chelmsford as himself. Rather than just dial 999 twice.
Although he did not pretend to be Neville on my view, otherwise he would have demanded his lawyers look for proof of Neville's call, in 1985. Not optimistically bring it up twenty years later.
There was no 999 call because had there been it would have been mentioned. All this cloak and dagger conspiracy stuff about such a phone call is utter rubbish in my opinion.
-
Sheila must have been crazy.
Neville ringing the police at 3.26am, then ringing Jeremy at 3.36am according to the OS. Or did he ring Jeremy at 3.10am as his WS says ?
-
Neville rang Jeremy at his Goldhanger home------------yes ?
Who, then, was at Goldhanger to answer Nevilles' call if Jeremy was busy slaughtering everyone at WHF ?
Was it possible that Jeremy was in two places at once ? Or even commuting from one place to the other in such a short space of time ?
-
Would not this ,or should not this have been classed as having been Jeremys' alibi ?
Also,something I've said before-------if Jeremy had have committed this heinous crime,I'm as sure as I'll ever be,that he'd have also turned the gun on himself rather than have faced the prospect of never seeing daylight again. Sadly,because of this obvious miscarriage of justice,it's happened anyway,but through NO fault of his own.
Let's hope that justice is done and seen to be done next year after this raw deal that Jeremy has endured,and with the utmost dignity I might add,as none of us would have survived what he's had to go through.
-
Right-------------I want some reasonable answers to what I've put forward,then I'll tell you if I agree with them or not. Logical answers only because they're logical questions.
-
I'm not letting this go.
Who was at Goldhanger answering Nevilles' call if Jeremy was busy shooting his family at WHF ??
-
Yoohoo,Adam----------solve this one Mr Mastermind.
-
I'm not letting this go.
Who was at Goldhanger answering Nevilles' call if Jeremy was busy shooting his family at WHF ??
That's quite easy - there was no call.
-
That's quite easy - there was no call.
Okay.
-
Reading Colins book again he does mention that in retrospect Jeremy did mention at Goldhanger that he thought his father could have received an injury before making the call- but with just a few short words I am not sure how he could have thought that ? But it is definitely in his book that Jeremy did mention that.
I am re-reading it again as I did skim read it the first time and the views about the funerals and Jeremys moods after the murders are quite interesting . How he perceived them at the time and how when he knew he had been charged how he interpreted things differently.
As I said it appears there was a 24 /28 page statement taken on that morning from Jeremy .
-
So we have Colin distinctly remembering 24-28 pages of statement given by Jeremy ( who refused to talk about Sheilas Drug involvement) and then a 7 page and 3 page typed statement that came from that. Unless he just meant that they were pocket book pages?
It would have been interesting to see the original which would have all the words/timings etc fresh in his mind . Apparently he said at the time a lot of it was about Sheilas life.
-
Page 264 of Wilkes book. The judges summing up.
'On oath he denied trying to telephone Witham before calling Chelmsford. However Bamber on the night told two officers he had tried to call Witham.
Bamber is a bit all over the place regarding events on the night.
-
Page 264 of Wilkes book. The judges summing up.
'On oath he denied trying to telephone Witham before calling Chelmsford. However Bamber on the night told two officers he had tried to call Witham.
Bamber is a bit all over the place regarding events on the night.
So would you be in a similar situation. You haven't a clue have you Adam. I hope God doesn't test you one day because of you continual unjust thoughts concerning Bamber. If you believe him to be guilty then justice has been done and your words are just vanity and vexation of spirit and also redundant. You are neither qualified nor justified in condemning a man who is condemned already. Tat is why you are so obnoxious to people on the forum. Even by those who have changed their stance to guilty and when they disagree with you you just insult them by telling them that they changed their stance because of your wonderful unanswerable arguments and your charming invincible personality. ;D
-
So would you be in a similar situation. You haven't a clue have you Adam. I hope God doesn't test you one day because of you continual unjust thoughts concerning Bamber. If you believe him to be guilty then justice has been done and your words are just vanity and vexation of spirit and also redundant. You are neither qualified nor justified in condemning a man who is condemned already. Tat is why you are so obnoxious to people on the forum. Even by those who have changed their stance to guilty and when they disagree with you you just insult them by telling them that they changed their stance because of your wonderful unanswerable arguments and your charming invincible personality. ;D
Could you please post about the case Grahame. You're post is nothing to do with the case. Unfortunately I have had to report you again.
It is strange that Bamber should tell the police he had tried to phone Witham. He would be in a tiss, but surely he would know whether he phoned them or not.
Perhaps he found out pre trial that Witham was open all night, and the phones manned. Chelmsford got through to Witham straight away.
Claiming he phoned Witham does him more harm than good at trial.
I will check the OS, to see if he mentions Witham at all. Perhaps he is now saying he phoned them :D
-
Go ahead and report.It's all you're fit for !!
-
Could you please post about the case Grahame. You're post is nothing to do with the case. Unfortunately I have had to report you again.
It is strange that Bamber should tell the police he had tried to phone Witham. He would be in a tiss, but surely he would know whether he phoned them or not.
Perhaps he found out pre trial that Witham was open all night, and the phones manned. Chelmsford got through to Witham straight away.
Claiming he phoned Witham does him more harm than good at trial.
I will check the OS, to see if he mentions Witham at all. Perhaps he is now saying he phoned them :D
Actually Adam, PC West seems to confirm that at some point Witham was unmanned by his comment that 'he was informed (by Bonnett) that officers had returned to Witham'.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6398.0;attach=39556
-
Neville ringing the police at 3.26am, then ringing Jeremy at 3.36am according to the OS.
Did you mean that? I don't recall any suggestion that Nevill rang Jeremy at 3:36am, as that's when Pc West thought (and recorded) that Jeremy was telephoning him.
Also, the idea that Nevill made a 999 call is implausible, as the BT operator who took the call would have little reason to stay quiet about it, and there's no direct evidence of it.
-
Did you mean that? I don't recall any suggestion that Nevill rang Jeremy at 3:36am, as that's when Pc West thought (and recorded) that Jeremy was telephoning him.
Also, the idea that Nevill made a 999 call is implausible, as the BT operator who took the call would have little reason to stay quiet about it, and there's no direct evidence of it.
Read the OS. Which NGB and Aunt Agatha said Bamber has full or at least part control over.
-
There seems to be an overriding tendency for certain posters to treat the written word as unquestionable irrevocable and 100% infallible. Writers have an angle, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence will know, and will generally lead the reader down a pre-chosen path.
There also appears to be, from some quarters, a sycophantic attitude to the opinions of others. One such being THE JUDGE!!!!!!!!! whose words -OPINIONS- are given God-like status. I will allow that his utterings, on points of law, probably can't be challenged. On opinion, however, his are probably of no MORE value than those of the more intelligent of us.......................don't all put your hands up at once, folks.
-
Did you mean that? I don't recall any suggestion that Nevill rang Jeremy at 3:36am, as that's when Pc West thought (and recorded) that Jeremy was telephoning him.
Also, the idea that Nevill made a 999 call is implausible, as the BT operator who took the call would have little reason to stay quiet about it, and there's no direct evidence of it.
Wow! You've changed your mind about the call from Nevill then?
-
I think Reader believes Nevill phoned Chelmsford direct rather than 999?
-
I think Reader believes Nevill phoned Chelmsford direct rather than 999?
So Nevill took time out to flick through the phone book whilst Sheila was debating what to do with the gun????????
-
I said I think that is what READER believes. I would imagine anyway that Nevill would have known the number of Chelmsford off by heart.
-
I think Reader believes Nevill phoned Chelmsford direct rather than 999?
Bonnett was a civilian worker and not a police officer - he would have no reason to lie either. I'm surprised that Reader can see the the logic of 'the no reason to lie' argument when applied to a BT worker but not a civilian control room operator. Plus surely the BT operator just asks which service the caller requires?