Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on October 26, 2014, 12:04:PM
-
Jeremy's OS says the police tried to frame him because they made a mistake on the night.
Believing Sheila was dead when she was still alive. The raid team not noticing Sheila moving upstairs from the kitchen after they entered WHF, and too ashamed to admit their mistake. So framed Jeremy one month later.
Another poster, an author this week said Jeremy manages the OS.
If the police were so ashamed of their mistake, why did they spend the first month supporting the murder/suicide theory ? It would risk highlighting their mistake.
There is no record of the defence making this accusation at trial. So it seems no one, apart from a few raid team officers, were aware that Sheila was alive in the kitchen and moved upstairs after one shot. So cannot see this as a reason for the police changing stance after one month, dangerously trying to frame an innocent man.
Perhaps the police changed stance after Julie approached her and the silencer tests came back. Both happening around the same time.
-
The police DIDN'T frame Jeremy. ::) Nobody did. ::)
-
The police DIDN'T frame Jeremy. ::) Nobody did. ::)
How did Sheila's, June's & Neville's blood, and June's DNA, and kitchen paint scratch marks get on the silencer ?
-
It was the way in which they handled the case that gave the impression that they had framed Jeremy. Then their shonkey workmanship was passed on to the relatives who went along with EP.
-
Do you mean why did EP change what they found in August into September.
-
They made that many mistakes Patti and jumped to so many conclusions that half the time the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. Logs didn't tally,notes the same.It was abysmal from start to finish. Some saw things,others didn't. What a total mess.
-
They made that many mistakes Patti and jumped to so many conclusions that half the time the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. Logs didn't tally,notes the same.It was abysmal from start to finish. Some saw things,others didn't. What a total mess.
Do you agree with Jeremy, that they changed direction after one month, because they were too ashamed to admit they thought Sheila was dead, when alive. And did not notice her walk upstairs ?
-
How did Sheila's, June's & Neville's blood, and June's DNA, and kitchen paint scratch marks get on the silencer ?
Correction. There appears to be some misunderstanding relating to the DNA found inside the moderator. As it stands at the moment Sheila's LCN DNA was accepted by the COA as not being inside the moderator.
The paint on the knurl end of the moderator could have made at any time before the tragedies.
I have my own theories about the scratch marks.
When a sample was taken from the underside of the mantel piece why did Jones and Cook not see the scratches on the 14th August? They put a yellow label on the mantel piece from where they got a sample. On the 12 th August Jones was given the moderator and was aware of the possibility of red paint being on the moderator. So why on the 14th does he take samples with Cook and fail to notice any scratch marks which so happened to be where the samples were taken from. I can't see how either of them failed to see the scratches. Unless the knife they used slipped and they made the scratches in an attempt to take the samples. Then those same scratches were used in evidence or made to fit the evidence presented in court. It is possible if you look at it from both angles. :-\
-
Do you agree with Jeremy, that they changed direction after one month, because they were too ashamed to admit they thought Sheila was dead, when alive. And did not notice her walk upstairs ?
I agree with nobody.This is the way I personally see the way things panned out. The police are past-masters at covering up their mistakes.
-
Jeremy's OS says the police tried to frame him because they made a mistake on the night.
Believing Sheila was dead when she was still alive. The raid team not noticing Sheila moving upstairs from the kitchen after they entered WHF, and too ashamed to admit their mistake. So framed Jeremy one month later.
Another poster, an author this week said Jeremy manages the OS.
If the police were so ashamed of their mistake, why did they spend the first month supporting the murder/suicide theory ? It would risk highlighting their mistake.
There is no record of the defence making this accusation at trial. So it seems no one, apart from a few raid team officers, were aware that Sheila was alive in the kitchen and moved upstairs after one shot. So cannot see this as a reason for the police changing stance after one month, dangerously trying to frame an innocent man.
Perhaps the police changed stance after Julie approached her and the silencer tests came back. Both happening around the same time.
I know for a fact that Essex Police are not liked by the Metropoliton Police. Was it Harrison, or someone else who said that Essex Police are very divided and that there is not much unity between them? I can't remember who said that? But if that was so in those days then one can make certain deductions as to why they could have ended up blaming Jeremy for a crime he did not do?
I have mentioned this before, but I'll say it again anyway. The original case was not based upon all the scenarios and so called evidence that we often see posted on this forum these days. In fact everyone though, even two of the jury members that Bamber was convicted upon the most flimsey of evidence.
Now some way arguse that now we have a better understanding of things that Bamber looks even moe guilty. But no. The reason he apparently looks guilty today is simply because of the many scenarios and assumptions that some have made concerning him. One example is their almost sycophantic attitude concerning Mugfords evidence and the dogmatic attitude and ear stopping that they exercise to ever consider that she would lie. That together with their utmost religious belief and blind faith they have in the silencer evidence and their supposed belief in the notion that no one could possibly fake such a thing. Add that to the belief that not only the notion that Mugford would not lie, but the belief that nearly everything that Jeremy said was a lie.
So once again he is found guilty by this modern day lynch mob on the basis of manufactured evidence and presumption.
-
i know esse police arnt liked by the met but then agian the met arnt liked by anybody.
-
I know for a fact that Essex Police are not liked by the Metropoliton Police. Was it Harrison, or someone else who said that Essex Police are very divided and that there is not much unity between them? I can't remember who said that? But if that was so in those days then one can make certain deductions as to why they could have ended up blaming Jeremy for a crime he did not do?
I have mentioned this before, but I'll say it again anyway. The original case was not based upon all the scenarios and so called evidence that we often see posted on this forum these days. In fact everyone though, even two of the jury members that Bamber was convicted upon the most flimsey of evidence.
Now some way arguse that now we have a better understanding of things that Bamber looks even moe guilty. But no. The reason he apparently looks guilty today is simply because of the many scenarios and assumptions that some have made concerning him. One example is their almost sycophantic attitude concerning Mugfords evidence and the dogmatic attitude and ear stopping that they exercise to ever consider that she would lie. That together with their utmost religious belief and blind faith they have in the silencer evidence and their supposed belief in the notion that no one could possibly fake such a thing. Add that to the belief that not only the notion that Mugford would not lie, but the belief that nearly everything that Jeremy said was a lie.
So once again he is found guilty by this modern day lynch mob on the basis of manufactured evidence and presumption.
As the Spectator said it is highly unlikely Julie would tell such serious lies for such a trivial reason. Or have the confidence to keep up the lie throughout such long term sustained pressure.
I created a thread asking whether there had been any other examples of 'apparent' jilted women telling lies in court. There had not.
The relatives could not frame Jeremy. All they could do was give the silencer to the police and ask them to frame him.
-
As the Spectator said it is highly unlikely Julie would tell such serious lies for such a trivial reason. Or have the confidence to keep up the lie throughout such long term sustained pressure.
I created a thread asking whether there had been any other examples of 'apparent' jilted women telling lies in court. There had not.
The relatives could not frame Jeremy. All they could do was give the silencer to the police and ask them to frame him.
You are unfortunately still stuck in that vortex of error in listening to others instead of searching for the truth.
-
You are unfortunately still stuck in that vortex of error in listening to others instead of searching for the truth.
He is indeed Mr G. It's folk like him who create so many MOJ's,by following others rather than use his own thoughts to try and create a balance then take it from there.
-
Who on earth is the Spectator and what authority does this annonymous paper have in saying such a thing? In fact it's a silly generalisation to make. What about Hitler and the lies he made? He had a whole nation follow after his lies. The point is that her incentive to keep to her lies is the fact that if she confessed she would be prosecuted even today.
-
Correction. There appears to be some misunderstanding relating to the DNA found inside the moderator. As it stands at the moment Sheila's LCN DNA was accepted by the COA as not being inside the moderator.
The paint on the knurl end of the moderator could have made at any time before the tragedies.
I have my own theories about the scratch marks.
When a sample was taken from the underside of the mantel piece why did Jones and Cook not see the scratches on the 14th August? They put a yellow label on the mantel piece from where they got a sample. On the 12 th August Jones was given the moderator and was aware of the possibility of red paint being on the moderator. So why on the 14th does he take samples with Cook and fail to notice any scratch marks which so happened to be where the samples were taken from. I can't see how either of them failed to see the scratches. Unless the knife they used slipped and they made the scratches in an attempt to take the samples. Then those same scratches were used in evidence or made to fit the evidence presented in court. It is possible if you look at it from both angles. :-\
1) The police did see the scratches on the 14th. They took the samples because not only the color matched but because of the scratches.
2) the notion people often had the gun with the moderator attached in the kitchen to have been able to scratch it at a prior time is contrary to testimony of guns being unloaded and cleaned elsewhere. At any rate, the scratches were zigzags thus NOT CONSISTENT with being made by someone walking with the gun and accidentially hitting the wall or the gun lening against something, falling and scratching the wall on the way down. The zig zag pattern is consistent with a fight fro control of the weapon as peopel pulled back and forth. The only other explanation woudl be someone attempoting to make it look like it was made in a struggle as peopel fought back and forth. So it was either intentionally fabricated or it was genuinely cuased by a struggle over control of the weapon. those are the only possibilities. Being caused prior to the murders naturally by an accident is not possible.
3) The Appeal Court said Sheila's DNA may or may not have been inside and there was no need to decide whethe rit was or not. From a factual standpoint it was, the defense expert chose to ignore that enough markers matched to say it was hers. The defense expert also chose to declare the faint DNA profile was a male though scientifically speaking the claim was baseless. The defense needed more than just June's DNA it needed Nevill's because all experts agreed the blood could not have been June's alone. So the imlication was the minor contributpor could have been Nevill because it was male.
The obvious distortion by the defense was a waste of time though because a DNA test of the blood removed is the only way to detemrine for sure whose blood it was. Testing the moderator would not and especially not testing the moderator after it had no blood left. Any DNA found can't have been blood based in such circumstances.
-
1) The police did see the scratches on the 14th. They took the samples because not only the color matched but because of the scratches.
2) the notion people often had the gun with the moderator attached in the kitchen to have been able to scratch it at a prior time is contrary to testimony of guns being unloaded and cleaned elsewhere. At any rate, the scratches were zigzags thus NOT CONSISTENT with being made by someone walking with the gun and accidentially hitting the wall or the gun lening against something, falling and scratching the wall on the way down. The zig zag pattern is consistent with a fight fro control of the weapon as peopel pulled back and forth. The only other explanation woudl be someone attempoting to make it look like it was made in a struggle as peopel fought back and forth. So it was either intentionally fabricated or it was genuinely cuased by a struggle over control of the weapon. those are the only possibilities. Being caused prior to the murders naturally by an accident is not possible.
3) The Appeal Court said Sheila's DNA may or may not have been inside and there was no need to decide whethe rit was or not. From a factual standpoint it was, the defense expert chose to ignore that enough markers matched to say it was hers. The defense expert also chose to declare the faint DNA profile was a male though scientifically speaking the claim was baseless. The defense needed more than just June's DNA it needed Nevill's because all experts agreed the blood could not have been June's alone. So the imlication was the minor contributpor could have been Nevill because it was male.
The obvious distortion by the defense was a waste of time though because a DNA test of the blood removed is the only way to detemrine for sure whose blood it was. Testing the moderator would not and especially not testing the moderator after it had no blood left. Any DNA found can't have been blood based in such circumstances.
So can I refresh my memory here? Who discovered the scratches on the mantle piece?
-
So can I refresh my memory here? Who discovered the scratches on the mantle piece?
Cook, Miller and DS Jones on the evening of 8/14/85 when they went to look for paint samples to try to match to the moderator.
-
Cook, Miller and DS Jones on the evening of 8/14/85 when they went to look for paint samples to try to match to the moderator.
So it wasn't the relatives who discovered the scratches then?
-
So it wasn't the relatives who discovered the scratches then?
No, but Ann Eaton said they rapidly went room to room and only in the kitchen did they not rush through but rather quickly zeroed in on the mantle.
They were looking for a something with the specific paint color found on the moderator and oddly enough the manle is the only thing in the house with that color. Uusually houses have multiple things the same color. Anyway that made it easy for police to scan a room and not see anything that color and to move on till they finally were in a room that did have it.
But conspiracy theorists say this is evidence police made the scratches in advance, thus knew where to look and just went through the other rooms first as a pretext to conceal they had made the scratches.
That is rather far fetched though that they made the scratches before they gave the keys to the fmaily, returned days later to look for said scratches and then put on a show for Ann Eaton by not going immediately to the mantle but instead making it look like they went room to room to look. But still that is what some suggest based on her claims she made in her statement.
-
No, but Ann Eaton said they rapidly went room to room and only in the kitchen did they not rush through but rather quickly zeroed in on the mantle.
They were looking for a something with the specific paint color found on the moderator and oddly enough the manle is the only thing in the house with that color. Uusually houses have multiple things the same color. Anyway that made it easy for police to scan a room and not see anything that color and to move on till they finally were in a room that did have it.
But conspiracy theorists say this is evidence police made the scratches in advance, thus knew where to look and just went through the other rooms first as a pretext to conceal they had made the scratches.
That is rather far fetched though that they made the scratches before they gave the keys to the fmaily, returned days later to look for said scratches and then put on a show for Ann Eaton by not going immediately to the mantle but instead making it look like they went room to room to look. But still that is what some suggest based on her claims she made in her statement.
I thought the conspiracy "theorists" said that the relatives made the scratches? But to be honest there really is no evidence that the scratches were made the night of the murders? They could have been made anytime, as Ann Eaton had not been round the house since Christmas. No evidence at all that the scatches have been made during a fight of any kind. That surely is just speculation?
-
If AP's rifle was registered/licensed at the address of WHF,and he'd stated he'd taken it home,what were the chances of him being found in possession of an illegal firearm ? And charged ?
Why would he have specifically denied that his rifle was there anyway on that particular night ?
I've never felt comfortable with this set-up.
-
What would have been AP's reason to take the rifle home,as he obviously knew he'd be in breach of the firearms policy by taking it from WHF ?
-
If AP's rifle was registered/licensed at the address of WHF,and he'd stated he'd taken it home,what were the chances of him being found in possession of an illegal firearm ? And charged ?
Why would he have specifically denied that his rifle was there anyway on that particular night ?
I've never felt comfortable with this set-up.
Nor me Lookout, it feels wrong :-\ but scipio tells us we shouldn't trust our instincts and just believe what the police etc. told us. ;D
-
Nor me Lookout, it feels wrong :-\ but scipio tells us we shouldn't trust our instincts and just believe what the police etc. told us. ;D
You've got to remember he's trained as a lawyer and so only follows what it available to him. If he was an investigator however he would be suspicious of everyone especially the police.
-
Nor me Lookout, it feels wrong :-\ but scipio tells us we shouldn't trust our instincts and just believe what the police etc. told us. ;D
Yes,and blah blah blah to him,Maggie. ::)- ;D
-
You've got to remember he's trained as a lawyer and so only follows what it available to him. If he was an investigator however he would be suspicious of everyone especially the police.
Ahem,ahem,yes,I forgot :-[
-
AP changed his " tale " didn't he ?
Would Neville have been aware that AP had taken his rifle,I wonder ? He could have got Neville in hot water over that, being a man in his position and all.
Something isn't sitting right at all.
-
I'm afraid I'm not happy with all the jiggery-pokery that was overlooked by EP which would normally have either carried separate charges for the individuals concerned,or at least cautions----------but nothing.
This is what becomes of having friends in high places and messenger boys like Carr who worked for the Met,running to RWB every minute when something cropped up which helped cover mistakes which were made.
-
I just posted this on anther thread about Susan May - I think it is very interesting :
"disinterested observer may conclude that some evidence had been manipulated to construct a case against Susan May". He added that a "number of police witnesses may have adjusted their evidence to fit a desired rather than valid outcome".
Last year, the Guardian traced a witness who said police tried to persuade him to lie in order to "eliminate" a red Ford Fiesta car, seen at the murder scene the night Hilda Marchbank was killed.
Police failed to disclose this evidence to the defence team and hid the fact they considered a local man a "good suspect" for the murder, after the car's sighting and an anonymous phone call naming him as the killer.
Now Scipio criticised me saying that I would not look at the individual "components " of the bigger picture . Because they all added up to the fitting of the puzzle which "proves " Jeremy was guilty .
But when you do break down those components the mostly are all possible .
E.g
Jeremy could have gone out to shoot rabbits
No-one has dis-proved the call from Neville to Jeremy
He could have not realised how serious things were and called the local police in error
He could have called Julie because he was confused and not sure what to do .
Julie could have embellished her testimony for "the noble cause"
The Dickinson report explained the lack of blood on the night dress ( and anyway it was destroyed so can not be re-tested)
If Sheila was still alive she could have washed her hands.
etc etc
So then we are down to interpretation of the evidence/photos and the logs that were released to the defence. And I do emphasise "interpretation"
The ONLY thing I can see that was the item that sealed Jeremys fate was the silencer and the "blood" that was found.
And in the case above it turned out that the prints in the blood that convicted Susan May - may not even be prints in blood at all . How sad.
-
Ahem,ahem,yes,I forgot :-[
He is a lawyer of sorts lookout, or kind of. He was was they called a JAG in the Marines. The judge's advocate division. So he does know quite a bit about the law. But he is not a very good investigator as he is not suspicious enough about people.
-
But when you do break down those components the mostly are all possible .
E.g
Jeremy could have gone out to shoot rabbits
No-one has dis-proved the call from Neville to Jeremy
He could have not realised how serious things were and called the local police in error
He could have called Julie because he was confused and not sure what to do .
Julie could have embellished her testimony for "the noble cause"
The Dickinson report explained the lack of blood on the night dress ( and anyway it was destroyed so can not be re-tested)
If Sheila was still alive she could have washed her hands.
etc etc
Saying they are theoretically possible is not enough to establish reasonable doubt. It is necessary to establish a REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD such things occurred not that it is theoretically possible.
Time and again you and your other Jeremy supporting comrades ignore:
1) It is not reasonably likely that Sheila could have shot herself and not have gotten GSR on her gown and hand that pulled the trigger. It is imposisble for her to change her clothes and wash after killing herself.
2) It is not reasonably likely that the fatal shot would not result in drawback which means her blood had to be EITHER in the muzzle of the weapon or if the moderator was used then in the moderator. It was in the moderator but not the muzzle so that proves the moderator was attached when she was killed
3) It is not reasonably likely that Sheila could have killed her parents without getting their blood spatter on her clothing and body. There would have been medium velocity spatter from Nevill and high velocity spatter from both. It is not reasonably likely that she would not have gotten GSR on her gown as well. It is not reasonably likely someone who decided to commit suicide would wash and change their clothing but if she had done so her blood/GSR stianed clothing would have to have been at the scene but no such clothing was present so that means there is no evidence to suggest such occurred. The burden is on Jeremy's defenders to produce evidence of such.
4) After Sheila's death she was moved flat and the bible placed in a pool of wet blood that formed after her death. It is impossible for her to have done either after her death this proves someone else was there at the scene staging things.
Jeremy's supporters intentionally ignore this evidence but have no way to refute it. It is necessary to refute it to make it go away.
As for some of your other tripe-
A call from Nevill to Jeremy is not reasonably likely to have occurred:
A) The evidence proves the shooting started in the master bedroom with both parents being present and both being shot. There was no phone in the room so no way for Nevill to call anyone prior to the shooting started.
B) For the call to have happened Sheila had to wake up the family, be running around with the gun, allow Nevill to make a call and only intervene at the end by hanging it up and then taking it off the hook, June had to stay in bed through all of it as did the kids (why would she do that?), then Sheila had to decide to kill them both in the bedroom and her father up to the bedroom to shoot both at the same time. Why would Sheila do any of these things? Why would June stay in bed? Saying it is theoretically possible peopel did senseless things for no reaosn that do not comport with the claim of her raging with a gun doesn't make them likely. You have to be downright stupid to actually believe such things might have occurred.
C) Nevill had no reason at all to call Jeremy to help disarm her. She didn't get along with Jeremy he woudl make matters worse. Nevill was physically stronger than Jeremy so had a better ability to physically disarm her as well as to calm her down and he was actually present so had the need and opportunity to disarm her. Why would he wait 20 minutes for Jeremy to come try to disarm her instead of doing it himself? For that matter the kitchen had knives, guns and other weapons he could have used if he was too scared to try to disarm her with his bare bands. Jeremy had an answering machine and would not have even answered his phone. If so scared he neede dhelp he would have dialed 999 not called Jeremy.
D) Jeremy's reactions are not those of someone who received a call from Nevill as claimed. Someone receiving such a call would either rush over or immediately dial 999 (or call 999 then rush over). He didn't do so. He never called 999 instead he called Julie before police though no person in his place would call her at all. After that he waited a while before calling police and didn't dial 999 he looked up 2 different stations int he phone book wasing more time. Then he lied and told police he called them immediately after getting off the phone with Nevill though he called Julie before he ever called police and called her quite a while before police at that. POlice wanted him at the scene and instead of beating them there he went slow so that police could beat him there by several minutes so they coudl say they beat him.
E) At the scene Jeremy didn't prompt police to go in nor did he go to the door or try to at least look in the windows like someone in his place would. Instead he was busy lying to police telling them how Sheila fired all the guns int he house and could use them all and was a big threat because she was nuts.
F) Julie admits Jeremy had been planning to kill his parents, told her that was the night he was goign to do it then claled her right after to let her know it was done and to try to bolster his fake alibi by having her say he called her to say he received a call from Nevill and was worried.
No rational person would find there was a reasonable likelihood that Nevill called him. The only people who suggest such are irrational supporters who have irraitonal reaosns for supporting Jeremy. Despite tremendous prodding no such supporters have come up with anything to actually support a call having been made. Instead just the weak argument it still is somehow theoretically possible because Julie could have lied, and all the people involved could have done things that make no sense.
It is not reasonably likely that Jeremy took out the gun to shoot rabbits:
A) It was late and getting dark so the claim he saw rabbits by the barn is not credible but worse he can't even keep his story straight and initially claimed he heard them by the barn.
B) He was NEVER known to do that before ever. SO the first time in his life he went to shoot rabbits was supposedly right before the murders
C) His claim he found the gun with the moderator and scope removed because Nevill removed them is not credible. There is no evidence to suggest Nevill even used the gun, it was purchased for Jeremy Nevill used a .410 to shoot vermin. There wa sno reaosn for Nevill to remove the scope and moderator though. His claim it was because it didn't fit int he closet with them attached was a lie. He later changed this claim to it didn't fit int he case with them attached but there is no evidence Nevill ever removed the accessories to put the gun in a case. It was found by AP in the closet with both attached.
D) Nevill and June would have put the gun away not left it out for the kids to find. June used the phone that he supposedly dumped the bullets out next to. She would not have left them there either. But there is stronger evidence these bullets were staged after the murders. He claimed he took a box of 48-50 rounds and dumped them out and used them to load the gun to go after the rabbits. He said he fired no rounds the rabbits got away. This was the ammo supply supposedly used to shoot the victims. 25 shots were fired. That means 23-25 rounds shoudl have remained. There were 30 though remaining. Why would the killer use 18-20 rounds from the kitchen supply and though 30 remained there- decide to go to the closet to get 5-7 more? Quite clearly a totla of 30 bullets were staged after the murders to bolster his fake claim he took the gun and bullets out to shoot rabbits and left them out to pretend there was a weapon of opposirtunity for Sheila to find since she would not have sought the weapon and ammo out herself.
Jeremy supporters live in fantasy land while the rest of us who face his guilt live in reality.
-
He is a lawyer of sorts lookout, or kind of. He was was they called a JAG in the Marines. The judge's advocate division. So he does know quite a bit about the law. But he is not a very good investigator as he is not suspicious enough about people.
On the contrary I am a great investigator and suspicious of the right people.
Jeremy supporters ignroe all the evidenc eproving his guilt which is where rational suspicion should be given the evidence and hold out irraitonal hope that somewhere there is evidence everyoen is unaware of that could refute the evidence against him.
How could Sheila kill herself without getting GSR on her gown and blood in the muzzle of the weapon? How could she move her body and place the bible in a pool of her blood that formed after her death? How could she shoot Nevill and June without getting GSR and their spatter on her clothing and body? How could she beat Nevill without getting his spatter on her clothing and body?
These are the questions an intelligent, reasonable investigator asks.
The fact you and other defenders ignore such demonstrates who is totally lacking in investigative areas.
-
On the contrary I am a great investigator and suspicious of the right people.
Jeremy supporters ignroe all the evidenc eproving his guilt which is where rational suspicion should be given the evidence and hold out irraitonal hope that somewhere there is evidence everyoen is unaware of that could refute the evidence against him.
How could Sheila kill herself without getting GSR on her gown and blood in the muzzle of the weapon? How could she move her body and place the bible in a pool of her blood that formed after her death? How could she shoot Nevill and June without getting GSR and their spatter on her clothing and body? How could she beat Nevill without getting his spatter on her clothing and body?
These are the questions an intelligent, reasonable investigator asks.
The fact you and other defenders ignore such demonstrates who is totally lacking in investigative areas.
So mr. rational "great" investigator why are you not the least bit suspicious as to why the police are so umwilling to release those things held under PII even when commanded to by the CCRC?
Indeed there is evidence that you are extremely naive in that you tend to gullibly drink in every word of Mugford's testimony. That is not a sign of a "great" investigator. Me? I'm suspicious of everyone, even you.
-
yes the ccrc no less.
-
So mr. rational "great" investigator why are you not the least bit suspicious as to why the police are so umwilling to release those things held under PII even when commanded to by the CCRC?
Indeed there is evidence that you are extremely naive in that you tend to gullibly drink in every word of Mugford's testimony. That is not a sign of a "great" investigator. Me? I'm suspicious of everyone, even you.
There is nothing that was ordered by the CCRC to be relased that wasn't. The claims ther eis so much being hodden under PII has not in the least bit been substantiated. There is WILD SPECULATION about there being considerable materials withheld under PII.
The limited materials held under pII doesn't concern me at all because a court approves such regardless of what Jeremy's absurd supporters claim and the things that matter to a defense attorney were actually turned over. The places a defense attorney would look for evidence was turned over long ago.
Those holding out hope that ther eis evidence hidden by PII revelaing police destroyed bloody/GSR stained clothing that Sheila changed out of, removed blood evidence from the rifle and planted the evidence in the moderator are living in a fantasy world.
As for Julie's testimony, the parts that matter are all not only credible but corroborated by evidence.
The simple tryuth is that you admitted you can't refute any of the evidence that proves Jeremy's guilt and thus ran away only to return again under a new name where you make childish remarks against me but still have nothing at all to refute the evidence that convicted Jeremy.
There is no rational reason for you to doubt his guil and you don't do so based on any rational reaosn only irraitonal ones.
-
"As for Julie's testimony, the parts that matter are all not only credible but corroborated by evidence."
what "evidence" is that then?
-
There is nothing that was ordered by the CCRC to be relased that wasn't. The claims ther eis so much being hodden under PII has not in the least bit been substantiated. There is WILD SPECULATION about there being considerable materials withheld under PII.
The limited materials held under pII doesn't concern me at all because a court approves such regardless of what Jeremy's absurd supporters claim and the things that matter to a defense attorney were actually turned over. The places a defense attorney would look for evidence was turned over long ago.
Those holding out hope that ther eis evidence hidden by PII revelaing police destroyed bloody/GSR stained clothing that Sheila changed out of, removed blood evidence from the rifle and planted the evidence in the moderator are living in a fantasy world.
As for Julie's testimony, the parts that matter are all not only credible but corroborated by evidence.
The simple tryuth is that you admitted you can't refute any of the evidence that proves Jeremy's guilt and thus ran away only to return again under a new name where you make childish remarks against me but still have nothing at all to refute the evidence that convicted Jeremy.
There is no rational reason for you to doubt his guil and you don't do so based on any rational reaosn only irraitonal ones.
well if theres nothing much of intrest there they shouldent mind turning it over when asked to should they.
-
"As for Julie's testimony, the parts that matter are all not only credible but corroborated by evidence."
what "evidence" is that then?
Evidence that Jeremy:
1) Sheila can't have shot anyone else
2) Sheila can't have shot herself
3) that Jeremy hid the phone in advance of the murders and after the murders staged bullets to support his bogus story of leaving the gun and bullets out
4) that the call from Nevill was made up to support his alibi just like Julie testified to
5) Jeremy's call to Julie before phoning police
6) calling Julie around 6AM to tell her not to go to work so he could have her speak with police to confirm he called her around 3:30AM and she could pretend he had actually received a call from Nevill and was worried.
All of that supports her overall account of Jeremy telling her he wanted to kill his family, that he told her tonight was the night, called her around 3 AM to tell her it was done and try to get her to support his alibi of Nevill claling him then calling.
There is other evidence of course this is the most signficant though.
-
There is nothing that was ordered by the CCRC to be relased that wasn't. The claims ther eis so much being hodden under PII has not in the least bit been substantiated. There is WILD SPECULATION about there being considerable materials withheld under PII.
The limited materials held under pII doesn't concern me at all because a court approves such regardless of what Jeremy's absurd supporters claim and the things that matter to a defense attorney were actually turned over. The places a defense attorney would look for evidence was turned over long ago.
Those holding out hope that ther eis evidence hidden by PII revelaing police destroyed bloody/GSR stained clothing that Sheila changed out of, removed blood evidence from the rifle and planted the evidence in the moderator are living in a fantasy world.
As for Julie's testimony, the parts that matter are all not only credible but corroborated by evidence.
The simple tryuth is that you admitted you can't refute any of the evidence that proves Jeremy's guilt and thus ran away only to return again under a new name where you make childish remarks against me but still have nothing at all to refute the evidence that convicted Jeremy.
There is no rational reason for you to doubt his guil and you don't do so based on any rational reaosn only irraitonal ones.
Are you calling ngb a liar then? For he knows that the CCRC requested material to be released that was being held under PII but the police categorically refused to do so. Furthermore the CCRC refused to use their powers in order to compel them to do so. Also if you were as good an investigator as you claim to be you would without doubt and indeed should be interested in everything held under PII if access to it is denied. It just goes to show just how bad an investigator you are. Because you follow the rest of the gullible sheep who believe everything they are told.
-
nggb knows how many documents are held by the ccrc.
-
Evidence that Jeremy:
1) Sheila can't have shot anyone else
2) Sheila can't have shot herself
3) that Jeremy hid the phone in advance of the murders and after the murders staged bullets to support his bogus story of leaving the gun and bullets out
4) that the call from Nevill was made up to support his alibi just like Julie testified to
5) Jeremy's call to Julie before phoning police
6) calling Julie around 6AM to tell her not to go to work so he could have her speak with police to confirm he called her around 3:30AM and she could pretend he had actually received a call from Nevill and was worried.
All of that supports her overall account of Jeremy telling her he wanted to kill his family, that he told her tonight was the night, called her around 3 AM to tell her it was done and try to get her to support his alibi of Nevill claling him then calling.
There is other evidence of course this is the most signficant though.
All speculation on your part as there is no evidence either way to prove or disprove a telephone call was made or not made. You can offer this up as speculation, but not as proven evidence.
-
Are you calling ngb a liar then? For he knows that the CCRC requested material to be released that was being held under PII but the police categorically refused to do so. Furthermore the CCRC refused to use their powers in order to compel them to do so. Also if you were as good an investigator as you claim to be you would without doubt and indeed should be interested in everything held under PII if access to it is denied. It just goes to show just how bad an investigator you are. Because you follow the rest of the gullible sheep who believe everything they are told.
I saw a post by NGB where he alleged the CCRC failed to use powers it had at its disposal to require the government to provide them with documents subject to a PII nondisclosure order. So what he claimed is that the CCRC coudl demand the docuemnts if they want and force disclosure but didn't do so nto that the government has refused to turn them over despite the CCRC requiring it.
I have seen nothing as far as evidence regarding how much materails ar ewithheld under PII just some made up figure of 200 boxes seems to be bandied about. At any rate, you clearly distorted NGB's own words with regard to same.
You should have learned by now your BS will nto work on me I am 50 steps ahead of you at any given time.
-
well nggb will know how many there are.
-
I saw a post by NGB where he alleged the CCRC failed to use powers it had at its disposal to require the government to provide them with documents subject to a PII nondisclosure order. So what he claimed is that the CCRC coudl demand the docuemnts if they want and force disclosure but didn't do so nto that the government has refused to turn them over despite the CCRC requiring it.
I have seen nothing as far as evidence regarding how much materails ar ewithheld under PII just some made up figure of 200 boxes seems to be bandied about. At any rate, you clearly distorted NGB's own words with regard to same.
You should have learned by now your BS will nto work on me I am 50 steps ahead of you at any given time.
How have I distorted ngb's claim? You have just confirmed what I said word for word. On the contrary you have tried to put words into my mouth by saying I have claimed there are 40 boxed of evidence. I have never said any such thing. I have just told you in the most honest words possible (I know that you are unfamiliar with the word honesty) what I though ngb said and indeed you yourself have just confirmed those words.
-
All speculation on your part as there is no evidence either way to prove or disprove a telephone call was made or not made. You can offer this up as speculation, but not as proven evidence.
Evidence of whether a call actually occurred is:
1) whether Nevill had motive to call Jeremy
2) whether Nevill had the opportunity to call Jeremy
3) whether Jeremy's actions were consistent with someone receiving such a call
4) any other evidence that speaks to the issue such as Julie's testimony Jeremy told her in advance as part of his plan he was making such a call up to support his claims
Did Nevill have motive to call Jeremy? No. The evidence proves Sheila can't have shot anyone but rather someone else shot her and everyone else so that means he had no reason to call Jeremy and claim she had a gun.
Even if Sheila did have a gun there would be no reason for Nevill to call Jeremy. Jeremy could not have calmed her down and had no ability to physically disarm her from far away. Nevill had the ability to disarm her in contrast and need plus was stronger than her or Jeremy. He also had access to guns, kinvies and other wepaons he coudl have used to confront her. If too scared to confront her he would have dialed 999 not calle dhis son's answering machine. That is another problem Jeremy would not have been able to reach the phone even if he had woken up, the answering machien woudl have picked up.
Nevill not only had no motive to call Jeremy and tell him that Sheila had a gun he also had no opportunity. The killer walked into the bedroom and shot both Nevill and June before they could do anything. There was no phone so no way Nevill could have called Jeremy before any shooting started.
Jeremy's actions are totally inconsistent with someone receiving such a clal and he evne had to lie and say he claled police before Julie to try to pretend his actions were somewhat consistent with how someone in his place would act.
Everything supports Julie's claim that he told her in advance he planned to pretend he received a call from WHF.
While you say this is not evidence rational people who actually understand what evidence is disagree.
-
Evidence of whether a call actually occurred is:
1) whether Nevill had motive to call Jeremy
2) whether Nevill had the opportunity to call Jeremy
3) whether Jeremy's actions were consistent with someone receiving such a call
4) any other evidence that speaks to the issue such as Julie's testimony Jeremy told her in advance as part of his plan he was making such a call up to support his claims
Did Nevill have motive to call Jeremy? No. The evidence proves Sheila can't have shot anyone but rather someone else shot her and everyone else so that means he had no reason to call Jeremy and claim she had a gun.
Even if Sheila did have a gun there would be no reason for Nevill to call Jeremy. Jeremy could not have calmed her down and had no ability to physically disarm her from far away. Nevill had the ability to disarm her in contrast and need plus was stronger than her or Jeremy. He also had access to guns, kinvies and other wepaons he coudl have used to confront her. If too scared to confront her he would have dialed 999 not calle dhis son's answering machine. That is another problem Jeremy would not have been able to reach the phone even if he had woken up, the answering machien woudl have picked up.
Nevill not only had no motive to call Jeremy and tell him that Sheila had a gun he also had no opportunity. The killer walked into the bedroom and shot both Nevill and June before they could do anything. There was no phone so no way Nevill could have called Jeremy before any shooting started.
Jeremy's actions are totally inconsistent with someone receiving such a clal and he evne had to lie and say he claled police before Julie to try to pretend his actions were somewhat consistent with how someone in his place would act.
Everything supports Julie's claim that he told her in advance he planned to pretend he received a call from WHF.
While you say this is not evidence rational people who actually understand what evidence is disagree.
Unfortunately as usual you are jst expanding on your own speculative BS scipio. No matter how you dress it up it is still only speculation. Reasons made up by yourself and nothing more. Questions based entirely upon what you yourself think to be reasonable or unreasonable. Not upon the truth, just upon what you yourself perceive to be true?
-
How have I distorted ngb's claim? You have just confirmed what I said word for word. On the contrary you have tried to put words into my mouth by saying I have claimed there are 40 boxed of evidence. I have never said any such thing. I have just told you in the most honest words possible (I know that you are unfamiliar with the word honesty) what I though ngb said and indeed you yourself have just confirmed those words.
Mr G,he's taking the p*ss out of everyone. Nobody can be that stupid---------------can they ??
-
Mr G,he's taking the p*ss out of everyone. Nobody can be that stupid---------------can they ??
No not stupid, just a wise guy who has convinced himself that he is the only one who has the truth. Unfortunately it is only happening in his own vain mind.
-
No not stupid, just a wise guy who has convinced himself that he is the only one who has the truth. Unfortunately it is only happening in his own vain mind.
Mr Pedantic.
-
How have I distorted ngb's claim? You have just confirmed what I said word for word. On the contrary you have tried to put words into my mouth by saying I have claimed there are 40 boxed of evidence. I have never said any such thing. I have just told you in the most honest words possible (I know that you are unfamiliar with the word honesty) what I though ngb said and indeed you yourself have just confirmed those words.
He didn't say anything about the CCRC requesting documents but being denied access. He said the CCRC didn't request documents it could have demanded.
When documents are withheld because a privilege is claimed there is a log made that details generally what is being withheld. Vague descriptions of what is withheld. PII requires a court order int he first place to deal something under pII.
You and others carrying on about it don't even seem to understand what PII is:
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/public-interest-immunity.htm
If there is a PII court order the defense shoudl be able to publish the decision and reference it.
I haven't seen any such order. Just alot of unsubstantiated claims about 200 boxes being withheld from the defense under PII.
You are the one who said I should ask for proof and evidence so where is your proof and evidenc eabout PII or is it just another situaiton where you just run with allegations form Mike et all and don't actually require any of it to be factual based?
-
Mr G,he's taking the p*ss out of everyone. Nobody can be that stupid---------------can they ??
If I am so stupid then post evidence of precisely what is being withheld und er Pii court order and produce a copy of the order.
That should be easy enough to do if your claims on such were actually true but 99% of claims made in support of Jeremy don't hold up to scrutiny and end up being false.
-
If I am so stupid then post evidence of precisely what is being withheld und er Pii court order and produce a copy of the order.
That should be easy enough to do if your claims on such were actually true but 99% of claims made in support of Jeremy don't hold up to scrutiny and end up being false.
I'm telling you nothing,pal !
-
Unfortunately as usual you are jst expanding on your own speculative BS scipio. No matter how you dress it up it is still only speculation. Reasons made up by yourself and nothing more. Questions based entirely upon what you yourself think to be reasonable or unreasonable. Not upon the truth, just upon what you yourself perceive to be true?
That is the evidence and how it is looked at by raitonal people. You always view things the complete opposite of reality so naturally you look at it the complete opposite of how rational people and the law does. WHat matters is how the law and raitonal people look at it though.
Your BS changes nothign it just makes you a fool
-
I'm telling you nothing,pal !
That's because ther eis nothign to tell. You don't know any facts at all just the bogus allegations made by Jeremy supporters which you always run with.
You have not bothered to actually look at the evidence and anytime the evidence is discussed you run from it.
-
That's because ther eis nothign to tell. You don't know any facts at all just the bogus allegations made by Jeremy supporters which you always run with.
You have not bothered to actually look at the evidence and anytime the evidence is discussed you run from it.
That's where you're wrong again.There's plenty to tell.
-
That is the evidence and how it is looked at by raitonal people. You always view things the complete opposite of reality so naturally you look at it the complete opposite of how rational people and the law does. WHat matters is how the law and raitonal people look at it though.
Your BS changes nothign it just makes you a fool
personal posts again.
what are you so scared of?
-
personal posts again.
what are you so scared of?
What could I have to be scared of?
I merely state fact, lookign at the evidence raitonally there is only one conclusion- Jeremy is guilty as sin.
You and others are scared of the truth for some reaosn and keep ignoring the evidence and making up wild tales of misconduct to try to say that the evidence should be ignored because of some other alleged misconduct that has nothing to do with the evidence that matters.
-
I'm NEVER scared of the truth at any time and am always up-front with everyone no matter who it is because I've absolutely NOTHING to hide whatsoever.
On the contrary,it's YOU who appears to be the " nervous poster " among us,and for that,my suspicion about YOU,grows !!
-
What could I have to be scared of?
I merely state fact, lookign at the evidence raitonally there is only one conclusion- Jeremy is guilty as sin.
You and others are scared of the truth for some reaosn and keep ignoring the evidence and making up wild tales of misconduct to try to say that the evidence should be ignored because of some other alleged misconduct that has nothing to do with the evidence that matters.
Then go and take your ego and use your "skills" on someone who needs it.
stop wasting your time with us.
-
What could I have to be scared of?
I merely state fact, lookign at the evidence raitonally there is only one conclusion- Jeremy is guilty as sin.
You and others are scared of the truth for some reaosn and keep ignoring the evidence and making up wild tales of misconduct to try to say that the evidence should be ignored because of some other alleged misconduct that has nothing to do with the evidence that matters.
Your own failure and the danger that you'll be proved wrong.
-
Your own failure and the danger that you'll be proved wrong.
There is no dange rof me being proven worng here. In any event when wrong I admit it because I have nothing invested in this case beond the truth. In contrast Jeremy supporters liek yourself don';t care about the evidence and follwoing it wher eit leads but rather want Jeremy to be innocent no matter what and ignore any evidence that proves his guilt to avoid facing that reality.
I challenge people to prove hme wrong all the time and to explain the basis of their positions the fact is you can;t while I can not only explain the basis fo rmy positions but post evidence to support same that despite daring people to rebut you can't.
-
There is no dange rof me being proven worng here. In any event when wrong I admit it because I have nothing invested in this case beond the truth. In contrast Jeremy supporters liek yourself don';t care about the evidence and follwoing it wher eit leads but rather want Jeremy to be innocent no matter what and ignore any evidence that proves his guilt to avoid facing that reality.
I challenge people to prove hme wrong all the time and to explain the basis of their positions the fact is you can;t while I can not only explain the basis fo rmy positions but post evidence to support same that despite daring people to rebut you can't.
I have never ever seen you admit to being proved wrong. That would be a blow to your oversized ego.
-
I have never ever seen you admit to being proved wrong. That would be a blow to your oversized ego.
I have admitted those errors I made. A big one was accepting the baloney about there being proof a call was made from WHF to Goldhanger. I won't be that naive again though.
-
I have admitted those errors I made. A big one was accepting the baloney about there being proof a call was made from WHF to Goldhanger. I won't be that naive again though.
Yes, you did admit that.
-
I have admitted those errors I made. A big one was accepting the baloney about there being proof a call was made from WHF to Goldhanger. I won't be that naive again though.
In view of all the " negative " posts you've made,do you by any chance agree that certain non-disclosures of files/documents to the defence has been a travesty of justice ?
-
Bribery and Corruption won this case !!
-
I sincerely hope that there are at least one or two members of the jury from that time,take a look on this forum and see that a DEAL WAS made BEFORE the trial that JM received a large payment from the News of the World, in exchange as the MAIN prosecution witness !!
Pity the jury hadn't known about this prior to Jeremys' conviction. Things just might have been a lot different.
-
I have admitted those errors I made. A big one was accepting the baloney about there being proof a call was made from WHF to Goldhanger. I won't be that naive again though.
If you remember scipio it was you who introduced that baloney when you stated that there was only one call made from WHF that night and you cited a telephone engineer to prove your point. ;D But I didn't accept it from the starts and so checked up on it finding that your claim (acknowledging the fact that you were..ahem misled) was indeed false. I wish that your claim was true, because it would have backed up Jeremy's claim. But you were of course wrong, but didn't admit it saying rather that you were misled instead. Who says I got a bad memory?
-
I have admitted those errors I made. A big one was accepting the baloney about there being proof a call was made from WHF to Goldhanger. I won't be that naive again though.
Really? I rather think you are a very bad judge of character in that you have chosen to believe the wrong people in my opinion? How naïve is that? ::)
-
In view of all the " negative " posts you've made,do you by any chance agree that certain non-disclosures of files/documents to the defence has been a travesty of justice ?
No one has established any non-disclosures that were required by law let alone that were exculpatory.
For there to be a proven travesty the government had to withhold exculpatory evidence that would have cleared someone sooner had it been released.
The notebooks and statements of all invovled have been released to the defense as well as the significant documents comprising the records and there is nothing in any of it to clear Jeremy.
-
How would you know this is fact?
The notebooks and statements of all invovled have been released to the defense as well as the significant documents comprising the records and there is nothing in any of it to clear Jeremy.
So you know 100% that there are no documents or photos in the boxes held under PII that have not already been seen by JB defence ?
Explain how you have the knowledge to make that statement?
-
How would you know this is fact?
The notebooks and statements of all invovled have been released to the defense as well as the significant documents comprising the records and there is nothing in any of it to clear Jeremy.
So you know 100% that there are no documents or photos in the boxes held under PII that have not already been seen by JB defence ?
Explain how you have the knowledge to make that statement?
The negatives were all turned over according to NGB. The notion photos could clea rhim is absurd anyway.
There is nothign at all to suggest anything exculatory was improperly withheld from the defense and indeed the nature of the evidence that convicted him leaves little ways for there ot be evidence oout there that could help him.
There is not going to be a document that reveals the lab planted blood. And short of something outrageous like that among other things Jeremy's innocence is impossible.
Those who doubt his guilt largely attack police in generla and have various biases that prevent them fromrationally looking at the case and evidence objectively and largely attack the police in generla and use this more as a vehicle for their own aspirations than actually caring about the facts of the case.