Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on December 03, 2014, 09:24:AM
-
Jeremy's supporters are often claiming he would not have the opportunity to dispose of his massacre night clothes. Am I missing something ?
The clothes may not have ended up with much blood anyway. June, Sheila and the twins were shot without resistance. By a long rifle. So unlikely that any back splatter would hit Jeremy.
Neville also received his first four shots from a distance. There was a kitchen fight, but unless they were rolling around on the floor, Jeremy would have remained virtually blood free. Certainly most of it would go after a washing machine spin. He may have even met the police without changing. Just putting extra layers on. He was well clothed for August.
Anyway if he was covered in blood, he had a month to dispose of the evidence. During this time he went on several jolly ups with Brett, Julie and other buddies. To London, Eastbourne, Amsterdam & St Tropez. So could have disposed of clothes anywhere in England, or in two other countries.
Or he could even dispose of the clothes on the night. He knew the farm land very well.
Claiming Jeremy could not have got clothes which may have had a few spots of blood on through customs, is also weak. Customs only check the inside of very few suitcases. They are looking for drugs, not blood. The London/Amsterdam customs were pretty weak as Jeremy smuggled a lot of cannabis through, just after the massacre.
Do other people think Jeremy did or did not have plenty of time to dispose of clothes ?
-
Jeremy's supporters are often claiming he would not have the opportunity to dispose of his massacre night clothes. Am I missing something ?
The clothes may not have ended up with much blood anyway. June, Sheila and the twins were shot without resistance. By a long rifle. So unlikely that any back splatter would hit Jeremy.
Neville also received his first four shots from a distance. There was a kitchen fight, but unless they were rolling around on the floor, Jeremy would have remained virtually blood free. Certainly most of it would go after a washing machine spin. He may have even met the police without changing. Just putting extra layers on. He was well clothed for August.
Anyway if he was covered in blood, he had a month to dispose of the evidence. During this time he went on several jolly ups with Brett, Julie and other buddies. To London, Eastbourne, Amsterdam & St Tropez. So could have disposed of clothes anywhere in England, or in two other countries.
Or he could even dispose of the clothes on the night. He knew the farm land very well.
Claiming Jeremy could not have got clothes which may have had a few spots of blood on through customs, is also weak. Customs only check the inside of very few suitcases. They are looking for drugs, not blood. The London/Amsterdam customs were pretty weak as Jeremy smuggled a lot of cannabis through, just after the massacre.
Do other people think Jeremy did or did not have plenty of time to dispose of clothes ?
You do of course realise that everything you've just written there could be applied to Sheila as well?
-
You do of course realise that everything you've just written there could be applied to Sheila as well?
Well the thread is regarding the police not finding any forensic evidence on Jeremy's clothes. After they searched one month later. People saying the police would have found something as Jeremy did not have the opportunity to dispose of them in a one month period.
Maybe he gave them to Brett. He had given him Neville's Citroen.
-
Well the thread is regarding the police not finding any forensic evidence on Jeremy's clothes. After they searched one month later. People saying the police would have found something as Jeremy did not have the opportunity to dispose of them in a one month period.
Maybe he gave them to Brett. He had given him Neville's Citroen.
Or of course there was no forensic evidence in the first place? Which would mean he is innocent?
-
Or of course there was no forensic evidence in the first place? Which would mean he is innocent?
;D
-
Or of course there was no forensic evidence in the first place? Which would mean he is innocent?
Yaaaaaayyyy. ;D
-
Jeremy's supporters are often claiming he would not have the opportunity to dispose of his massacre night clothes. Am I missing something ?
The clothes may not have ended up with much blood anyway. June, Sheila and the twins were shot without resistance. By a long rifle. So unlikely that any back splatter would hit Jeremy. THAT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY NO BLOOD SPLATTER ON SHEILA _ WELL DONE ADAM!
Neville also received his first four shots from a distance. There was a kitchen fight, but unless they were rolling around on the floor, Jeremy would have remained virtually blood free. Certainly most of it would go after a washing machine spin. He may have even met the police without changing. Just putting extra layers on. He was well clothed for August. GREAT - THAT COVERS SHEILA AS WELL.
Anyway if he was covered in blood, he had a month to dispose of the evidence. During this time he went on several jolly ups with Brett, Julie and other buddies. To London, Eastbourne, Amsterdam & St Tropez. So could have disposed of clothes anywhere in England, or in two other countries. NO HE DID NOT- THE POLICE AFTER SEEING WHAT YOU THINK IS A STAGED BODY COULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN HOURS AND SEEN ALL OF HIS WET CLOTHES - OH DEAR
Or he could even dispose of the clothes on the night. He knew the farm land very well. NEVER BEEN FOUND THOUGH HAVE THEY - DID HE CYCLE BACK WITH NO CLOTHES AFTER HE DISPOSED OF THEM?
Claiming Jeremy could not have got clothes which may have had a few spots of blood on through customs, is also weak. Customs only check the inside of very few suitcases. They are looking for drugs, not blood. The London/Amsterdam customs were pretty weak as Jeremy smuggled a lot of cannabis through, just after the massacre. - WHO SAID THAT?
Do other people think Jeremy did or did not have plenty of time to dispose of clothes ?
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HIM DISPOSING CLOTHES OR SHOES ON THE NIGHT WHICH HE WOULD HAVE PLANNED TO DO.
-
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HIM DISPOSING CLOTHES OR SHOES ON THE NIGHT WHICH HE WOULD HAVE PLANNED TO DO.
This is a bit like discussing the Emperor's new clothes isn't it? ;D
-
I love it though see my other comments - it explains why Sheila had no blood on her nightie! :) except for hers.
-
It is much more likely Sheila would end up with blood and marks after a fight with Neville.
The judge said Neville put up a tremendous fight for life. He was able to restrain Sheila with one arm BW said. So surprised she had no marks.
Jeremy was much bigger and fitter. And also fully clothed. If he did end up with blood he had a month to dispose of the clothes.
People have often said Jeremy could not get clothes through customs. The last time on Sunday.
-
It is not in the realms of logic not to believe this would have been among the early questions put to Jeremy where no clothes are present then yes you have reason to question .
-
It is much more likely Sheila would end up with blood and marks after a fight with Neville.
The judge said Neville put up a tremendous fight for life. He was able to restrain Sheila with one arm BW said. So surprised she had no marks.
Jeremy was much bigger and fitter. And also fully clothed. If he did end up with blood he had a month to dispose of the clothes.
People have often said Jeremy could not get clothes through customs. The last time on Sunday.
He could have been beaten AFTER he was shot and if there was a fight it would apply to EITHER Assailant.
And you have obviously had no experience whatsoever of a person with the illness that Sheila had.
And stop going on about he had a month- HE DID NOT.
ANNE was watching him from day one and the police could have searched his house the next day.
-
It is much more likely Sheila would end up with blood and marks after a fight with Neville.
The judge said Neville put up a tremendous fight for life. He was able to restrain Sheila with one arm BW said. So surprised she had no marks.
Jeremy was much bigger and fitter. And also fully clothed. If he did end up with blood he had a month to dispose of the clothes.
People have often said Jeremy could not get clothes through customs. The last time on Sunday.
What a load of rubbish. ::)
-
He could have been beaten AFTER he was shot and if there was a fight it would apply to EITHER Assailant.
And you have obviously had no experience whatsoever of a person with the illness that Sheila had.
And stop going on about he had a month- HE DID NOT.
ANNE was watching him from day one and the police could have searched his house the next day.
Did Ann Eaton go to Eastbourne, London, Amsterdam & St Tropez with him ?
Oh sorry I forgot, customs would single him out, open his suitcase & arrest him after searching his clothes and seeing drops of dried blood. Who said so ? Grahame & Nugs. ;D. Didn't know he had to go through customs to go to Eastbourne and London anyway.
He was beaten after getting his four upstairs bullets. But put up a tremendous fight for life. So surprising that Sheila in a flimsy nightie didn't have a mark on her.
-
Jeremy needs more.
The CCRC are not going to refer the case to the COA if Jeremy claims he did not have time to dispose of clothes which may/may not have had incriminating evidence on.
-
What a load of rubbish. ::)
I have reported this to the moderators.
This is a discussion forum. Not somewhere where you can just make offensive remarks.
I did not say this to you when you said Neville rang Jeremy after Sheila started shooting everyone. I discussed the case.
-
Grahame is getting quite a collection of reports.
He has always been very abusive to posters who do not believe Jeremy is innocent. I stuck up for him when he said 'f__k you' after I politely asked for a source. Perhaps this prevented a permanent ban. Sadly he has got worse as I highlighted recently.
As my thread yesterday said, perhaps support should change direction to MOJ/unsafe conviction. Arguing Jeremy's innocence just means having to fire fight. Even on this thread him and Jan are arguing that a month was not long enough to dispose of clothes. Refusing to close this minor issue.
Constant fire fighting would take it's toll on anyone.
-
I have reported this to the moderators.
This is a discussion forum. Not somewhere where you can just make offensive remarks.
I did not say this to you when you said Neville rang Jeremy after Sheila started shooting everyone. I discussed the case.
What? Now we can't even comment on your posts either? Soon we won't be saying anything my lad. A bit silly reporting every post we make to the moderators isn't it. I think they're getting just a bit fed up with you by now aren't they?
-
Grahame is getting quite a collection of reports.
He has always been very abusive to posters who do not believe Jeremy is innocent. I stuck up for him when he said 'f__k you' after I politely asked for a source. Perhaps this prevented a permanent ban. Sadly he has got worse as I highlighted recently.
As my thread yesterday said, perhaps support should change direction to MOJ/unsafe conviction. Arguing Jeremy's innocence just means having to fire fight. Even on this thread him and Jan are arguing that a month was not long enough to dispose of clothes. Refusing to close this minor issue.
Constant fire fighting would take it's toll on anyone.
What do you keep saying CLOSURE for ?? The only thing that I see that has a need for closure---------is our mouth !!
-
Did Ann Eaton go to Eastbourne, London, Amsterdam & St Tropez with him ?
Oh sorry I forgot, customs would single him out, open his suitcase & arrest him after searching his clothes and seeing drops of dried blood. Who said so ? Grahame & Nugs. ;D. Didn't know he had to go through customs to go to Eastbourne and London anyway.
He was beaten after getting his four upstairs bullets. But put up a tremendous fight for life. So surprising that Sheila in a flimsy nightie didn't have a mark on her.
Adam you are becoming obsessed with his trips.You don't have to mention them in every post.
-
Grahame is getting quite a collection of reports.
He has always been very abusive to posters who do not believe Jeremy is innocent. I stuck up for him when he said 'f__k you' after I politely asked for a source. Perhaps this prevented a permanent ban. Sadly he has got worse as I highlighted recently.
As my thread yesterday said, perhaps support should change direction to MOJ/unsafe conviction. Arguing Jeremy's innocence just means having to fire fight. Even on this thread him and Jan are arguing that a month was not long enough to dispose of clothes. Refusing to close this minor issue.
Constant fire fighting would take it's toll on anyone.
Adam I have told you time and time again why he would not have had a month to dispose of evidence. You are the one that has got a problem.
I am 100% you are connected in some way with the family or Julie because your lack of discussion is becoming quite creepy.
-
What do you keep saying CLOSURE for ?? The only thing that I see that has a need for closure---------is our mouth !!
OUR mouth, Lookout!!!!! SURELY a typo????????? ;D ;D ;D
-
The " y " key is misplaced on my laptop,so I have to make sure that I press hard on what's left of it. ;D ;D
-
Lookout that could be dangerous be careful ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The " y " key is misplaced on my laptop,so I have to make sure that I press hard on what's left of it. ;D ;D
oooops ;D
-
Yes,I lost my temper when the damn thing froze,so did a quick swipe along the keys,and it lifted when my nails caught it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Grahame is getting quite a collection of reports.
He has always been very abusive to posters who do not believe Jeremy is innocent. I stuck up for him when he said 'f__k you' after I politely asked for a source. Perhaps this prevented a permanent ban. Sadly he has got worse as I highlighted recently.
As my thread yesterday said, perhaps support should change direction to MOJ/unsafe conviction. Arguing Jeremy's innocence just means having to fire fight. Even on this thread him and Jan are arguing that a month was not long enough to dispose of clothes. Refusing to close this minor issue.
Constant fire fighting would take it's toll on anyone.
What I said was he could not of relied on having a month to dispose of his clothes - you are using that month as an excuse for not finding the evidence . I said it was much more probable that in his "plan" he must have somehow disposed of them on the night.
So you have to fit that in with everything he had to do and it had to be a pretty good plan for the clothes never having been discovered. If he had been sussed straight away the police could have checked every bin and looked all along this "route" he is supposed to have cycled. Also don't forget blood on soles of shoes etc. He would have had to dispose of everything on the night .IMO ;D
-
Well the thread is regarding the police not finding any forensic evidence on Jeremy's clothes. After they searched one month later. People saying the police would have found something as Jeremy did not have the opportunity to dispose of them in a one month period.
Maybe he gave them to Brett. He had given him Neville's Citroen.
So where did he hide them before he gave them to xxxxx?
-
So where did he hide them before he gave them to Brett?
Maybe xxxxx xxxx xxxx at the post funeral dinner everyone went to. Everyone had a splendid time.
-
Jeremy is supposed to have had the nerve to shoot everybody, his last victim twice to make it look like suicide (!), "hide" the silencer with blood, paint and a hair on it, cycle home, hide his clothes (where??), wash up, put on fresh clothes.
Then call the police to create an alibi, which wasnt really an alibi, but still, hey ho. Meet up with police outside the murder scene, confident they would not be looking for any clues of murder, since he nudged them in the direction that his sister, whom he had shot twice, was a nutter and had gone crazy with a gun.
Confident they wouldn´t suspect him when they found her with two bullet holes to her neck, confident they would not look for the silencer in the house, wouldn´t look for possible footprints or other traces of him (for instance outside the window he is alleged to have exited through), wouldn´t search his house containing bloody clothes.
All of this does not make much sense to me.
-
Maybe Brett wore them at the post funeral dinner everyone went to. Everyone had a splendid time.
This is libel. Be careful, Adam.
-
Jeremy is supposed to have had the nerve to shoot everybody, his last victim twice to make it look like suicide (!), "hide" the silencer with blood, paint and a hair on it, cycle home, hide his clothes (where??), wash up, put on fresh clothes.
Then call the police to create an alibi, which wasnt really an alibi, but still, hey ho. Meet up with police outside the murder scene, confident they would not be looking for any clues of murder, since he nudged them in the direction that his sister, whom he had shot twice, was a nutter and had gone crazy with a gun.
Confident they wouldn´t suspect him when they found her with two bullet holes to her neck, confident they would not look for the silencer in the house, wouldn´t look for possible footprints or other traces of him (for instance outside the window he is alleged to have exited through), wouldn´t search his house containing bloody clothes.
All of this does not make much sense to me.
Nor me Alias, whatever happened it was not as you describe it above, except where you say it doesn't 'make much sense' .
-
This is libel. Be careful, Adam.
I also think it is a disgusting suggestion and highly immoral on Adam's part.
-
Closure time on this question. How did Jeremy dispose of the clothes he used in the murders?
Answer: He didn't and there is absolutely no evidence at all of any type of clothes to dispose of. It is way past time that this kind of manufactured suggestion was put to rest, because anything that anyone can suggest must remain just that, a suggestion and only a suggestion. Furthermore common sense must dictate that there were no murder clothes to dispose of. Why? Because there is no evidence of anything at all, whether it be the foolish suggestion that Jeremy wore a wetsuit, or anytyhing else to commit murder most foul that ghastly night. So time to lay this thread to rest. We must only be guided by facts alone. Produce proof of murder clothes or finish any further kind of idle chatter.
-
Speaking of which--------that young mother and her 4 day old baby were found dead. It upset me greatly as the woman had mental health problems ( schizophrenia ) and NOBODY foresaw what would happen when the woman with her baby walked out of the hospital. So very very sad.
The woman was being treated prior to this sad event !!
-
Lookout that is so sad heard it in the news another victim of cut backs and let down by the system and a baby of 4 days never given the chance of life :(
-
Lookout that is so sad heard it in the news another victim of cut backs and let down by the system and a baby of 4 days never given the chance of life :(
Not far from me susie, the bridge is so high up there are many suicides. Such a tragedy .
-
Maggie any person who decides to die like that must be very disturbed and the poor baby as well they were both let down IMO :(
-
Aww,Susan,it really upset me when I heard the news. Poor,poor woman. Her mind must have been tortured. God bless them both. Yet more unavoidable tragedies as you say,cutbacks. Shameful.
-
Maggie any person who decides to die like that must be very disturbed and the poor baby as well they were both let down IMO :(
Saw her poor mum, how dreadful losing her daughter and granddaughter in that way.
-
Aww,Susan,it really upset me when I heard the news. Poor,poor woman. Her mind must have been tortured. God bless them both. Yet more unavoidable tragedies as you say,cutbacks. Shameful.
-
Saw her poor mum, how dreadful losing her daughter and granddaughter in that way.
Ah,yes,it'll affect her greatly.Lord only knows what I'd do if that was me.
-
I have a friend who lives near there. We trained together in the 50/60's. I know she'll be upset about it too.
-
Ah,yes,it'll affect her greatly.Lord only knows what I'd do if that was me.
I know lookout, unbearable.
-
You ladies have such tender and loving hearts.
-
Closure time on this question. How did Jeremy dispose of the clothes he used in the murders?
Answer: He didn't and there is absolutely no evidence at all of any type of clothes to dispose of. It is way past time that this kind of manufactured suggestion was put to rest, because anything that anyone can suggest must remain just that, a suggestion and only a suggestion. Furthermore common sense must dictate that there were no murder clothes to dispose of. Why? Because there is no evidence of anything at all, whether it be the foolish suggestion that Jeremy wore a wetsuit, or anytyhing else to commit murder most foul that ghastly night. So time to lay this thread to rest. We must only be guided by facts alone. Produce proof of murder clothes or finish any further kind of idle chatter.
Common sense dictates that he disposed of clothing which he wore in the murders since they would have been covered in blood spatter. Not rocket science!
-
Where,and how did that occur without causing attention ? Smoke through burning/dustbins that will have been searched at his home.?
ALL eyes were on the guy from day one,so how was it possible with the snooping relatives to let anything go unnoticed ? They would have created a statement on the disposal of a full set of clothes ? Yet not to my knowledge have they brought that into the equation. ?
There had been no news ANYWHERE of bloodied clothes having been found.
The dog couldn't have been much good at the time either,as it didn't show any interest in Jeremy when he was in the front courtyard of WHF with EP. It wasn't attracted to any part of him,not even his hands where there was every chance of gsr being down his fingernails.
-
John,were you not also aware that dogs can smell fear too ?
-
Common sense dictates that he disposed of clothing which he wore in the murders since they would have been covered in blood spatter. Not rocket science!
The argument is that if he was the murderer he would have got rid of everything on the night so that must be included in any "timing " logistic" arguments.
Adam is saying he had all month to do it.
The answer is that is a smokescreen because he had no way of knowing he would not be a suspect from day one. So really the same answer from what ever side of the fence you sit on.
-
John,were you not also aware that dogs can smell fear too ?
There's no evidence that Zeus was asked to sniff Jeremy.
-
There's no evidence that Zeus was asked to sniff Jeremy.
It could possibly have been " done " surreptitiously while Jeremy was there,as the police by their very nature,and the nature of the job of course,are suspicious characters. So when the dog was there,it made no attempt that it was aware of Jeremy,therefore evidence couldn't have been gathered that the dog was " over-excited ".If you get my meaning.
-
Even a whiff of a recently smoked" reefer" would have created arousal I'm sure.
-
Common sense dictates that he disposed of clothing which he wore in the murders since they would have been covered in blood spatter. Not rocket science!
Not for a prejudiced idiot of course not. Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that any clothes that were used for the murders or were subsequently destroyed.
-
Where,and how did that occur without causing attention ? Smoke through burning/dustbins that will have been searched at his home.?
ALL eyes were on the guy from day one,so how was it possible with the snooping relatives to let anything go unnoticed ? They would have created a statement on the disposal of a full set of clothes ? Yet not to my knowledge have they brought that into the equation. ?
There had been no news ANYWHERE of bloodied clothes having been found.
The dog couldn't have been much good at the time either,as it didn't show any interest in Jeremy when he was in the front courtyard of WHF with EP. It wasn't attracted to any part of him,not even his hands where there was every chance of gsr being down his fingernails.
Can't prove it but probably took a change of clothing with him which he changed out of before leaving the farm. The contaminated items were then hidden, probably buried in a previously prepared location well out of sight or even weighted down and sunk in the reservoir.
He had to get rid of the clothing immediately he left the farm, he could not take the chance of them being discovered.
Remember the blood found under the seat in the car, was it related to the blood spattered clothing?
-
Can't prove it but probably took a change of clothing with him which he changed out of before leaving the farm. The contaminated items were then hidden, probably buried in a previously prepared location well out of sight or even weighted down and sunk in the reservoir.
He had to get rid of the clothing immediately he left the farm, he could not take the chance of them being discovered.
Remember the blood found under the seat in the car, was it related to the blood spattered clothing?
If he went to all that trouble to dispose of incriminating evidence WHY, oh why, didn't he include the silencer instead of putting it somewhere where, at SOME point, it would be found? I don't object to him being guilty but I find it offensive when, after all this time, no one can categorically say how he did it without resorting to make believe.
-
If he went to all that trouble to dispose of incriminating evidence WHY, oh why, didn't he include the silencer instead of putting it somewhere where, at SOME point, it would be found? I don't object to him being guilty but I find it offensive when, after all this time, no one can categorically say how he did it without resorting to make believe.
Only Bamber and possibly one other know the mechanics of what he did with the clothing. Whatever he did with them they were well hidden.
-
Only Bamber and possibly one other know the mechanics of what he did with the clothing. Whatever he did with them they were well hidden.
So, he went to the trouble of hiding the clothes but omitted to go to the same lengths with the HIGHLY incriminating silencer when at the VERY least, he had a creek full which would have ensured it never again saw the light of day.....................but then of course, maybe the silencer was never used.
-
Can't prove it but probably took a change of clothing with him which he changed out of before leaving the farm. The contaminated items were then hidden, probably buried in a previously prepared location well out of sight or even weighted down and sunk in the reservoir.
He had to get rid of the clothing immediately he left the farm, he could not take the chance of them being discovered.
Remember the blood found under the seat in the car, was it related to the blood spattered clothing?
Christ,it gets worse. A " change of clothes ?" This was a murder investigation,not a holiday camp.
Blood found on the car seat was probably from Sheila when Jeremy drove her home from a party after she'd " damaged " herself. She was a self-harmer as well.
The blood proved so insignificant that the subject wasn't mentioned,which was strange considering it was inside Jeremys' car,don't you think ?
Silly question,but was it tested ?
-
Christ,it gets worse. A " change of clothes ?" This was a murder investigation,not a holiday camp.
Blood found on the car seat was probably from Sheila when Jeremy drove her home from a party after she'd " damaged " herself. She was a self-harmer as well.
The blood proved so insignificant that the subject wasn't mentioned,which was strange considering it was inside Jeremys' car,don't you think ?
Silly question,but was it tested ?
Lookout, I wasn't aware that Sheila had damaged herself at the party -although I believe that at some time she cut herself when she smashed a glass/window/mirror in anger- she said she was tired and asked Colin to take her home but as he's been drinking, Jeremy and Julie took her.
-
Can't prove it but probably took a change of clothing with him which he changed out of before leaving the farm. The contaminated items were then hidden, probably buried in a previously prepared location well out of sight or even weighted down and sunk in the reservoir.
He had to get rid of the clothing immediately he left the farm, he could not take the chance of them being discovered.
Remember the blood found under the seat in the car, was it related to the blood spattered clothing?
Pure biased speculation as usual. FACT: No evidence. Nada. Nichts. Rien. Ekkert. Intet. obviously Russian doesn't work. Niente. Nothing.
-
If he went to all that trouble to dispose of incriminating evidence WHY, oh why, didn't he include the silencer instead of putting it somewhere where, at SOME point, it would be found? I don't object to him being guilty but I find it offensive when, after all this time, no one can categorically say how he did it without resorting to make believe.
Persacerly April. As John would say, "It's not rocket science". ;)
-
Lookout, I wasn't aware that Sheila had damaged herself at the party -although I believe that at some time she cut herself when she smashed a glass/window/mirror in anger- she said she was tired and asked Colin to take her home but as he's been drinking, Jeremy and Julie took her.
That´s right. Jeremy drove Sheila to the emergency unit at a hospital after she had rammed her hand through a window at her apartment. And correct, Colin was too intoxicated to drive her, so they (or he) asked Jeremy to do it.
Jeremy also drove Sheila home from that party because, again, Colin was too drunk to drive.
So two different occasions.
Sheila´s blood could well have still been in Jeremy´s car since the time he drove her to the hospital.
-
That´s right. Jeremy drove Sheila to the emergency unit at a hospital after she had rammed her hand through a window at her apartment. And correct, Colin was too intoxicated to drive her, so they (or he) asked Jeremy to do it.
Jeremy also drove Sheila home from that party because, again, Colin was too drunk to drive.
So two different occasions.
Sheila´s blood could well have still been in Jeremy´s car since the time he drove her to the hospital.
Good thinking Alias and as it would only need to have been a tiny drop it may not have been noticed by either of them.
-
So, he went to the trouble of hiding the clothes but omitted to go to the same lengths with the HIGHLY incriminating silencer when at the VERY least, he had a creek full which would have ensured it never again saw the light of day.....................but then of course, maybe the silencer was never used.
You are right again.
If Jeremy disposed of bloodied clothing, it shows us that he had focus on incriminating blood evidence.
Then, putting the silencer with blood, paint and a hair on it in the gun cupboard seems very unlikely. He would have disposed of that too, or at least cleaned it.
What makes this even more unlikely is that he handed the keys over to Ann Eaton, quite care free of the possibility of her or other relatives discovering the silencer.
-
Speculation upon speculation...
What is beyond doubt is that his own stupidity placed him at the murder scene. What he did with the blood spattered clothes is somewhat academic. :D
The blood stained silencer was probably put away in panic. Little did he think it would form part of the investigation since Sheila was set up to make her death look like she committed suicide. As Essex Police missed the silencer QED.
-
Speculation upon speculation...
What is beyond doubt is that his own stupidity placed him at the murder scene. What he did with the blood spattered clothes is somewhat academic. :D
Yes, we all speculate.
In some instances in this case, all you have to go on is your own sense of logic - and we all vary, right! ;D
-
We do indeed,Alias. ;D ;D ;D ;D Some are more logical than others ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Speculation upon speculation...
What is beyond doubt is that his own stupidity placed him at the murder scene. What he did with the blood spattered clothes is somewhat academic. :D
The blood stained silencer was probably put away in panic. Little did he think it would form part of the investigation since Sheila was set up to make her death look like she committed suicide. As Essex Police missed the silencer QED.
Asd you say, speculation upon speculation ;)
-
However open my mind is, I find it almost impossible to believe that silencer was discovered with all necessary clues stuck on it.
-
Speculation upon speculation...
What is beyond doubt is that his own stupidity placed him at the murder scene. What he did with the blood spattered clothes is somewhat academic. :D
The blood stained silencer was probably put away in panic. Little did he think it would form part of the investigation since Sheila was set up to make her death look like she committed suicide. As Essex Police missed the silencer QED.
Any speculation on here is yours. We must only deal in facts and nothing puts Bamber at the scene of the crime.
-
Yes, we all speculate.
In some instances in this case, all you have to go on is your own sense of logic - and we all vary, right! ;D
Except John's speculation contains no logic whatsoever.
-
However open my mind is, I find it almost impossible to believe that silencer was discovered with all necessary clues stuck on it.
I agree Maggie. It was too pre-arranged for my liking,as though it had literally been planted. It's surprising how many people think this way.
It was " placed " in the cupboard,the same as the rifle was " placed " on Sheilas' body,along with the Bible.
-
However open my mind is, I find it almost impossible to believe that silencer was discovered with all necessary clues stuck on it.
I agree - it seems too convenient!
-
Maggie logic tells me the silencer was not used by either Sheila or Jeremy. Think we all have our own ideas where this all started. Whoever committed the murders at WHF would not have gone to all that trouble of putting it back in a box and into the back of the cupboard no logic in that.
-
Especially when the " accused " was outside with the police, as large as life. Nobody's that stupid---------are they ? ;D While the silencer is sitting in the cupboard ? Oh,I don't think so.
-
Maggie logic tells me the silencer was not used by either Sheila or Jeremy. Think we all have our own ideas where this all started. Whoever committed the murders at WHF would not have gone to all that trouble of putting it back in a box and into the back of the cupboard no logic in that.
Have to agree susie, if you bothered to put it in a box you would never leave a hair on it and how could a hair remain stuck when it was fastened in a box and we know the blood would dry out, crack and fall off. Doesn't make any sense.
-
Any speculation on here is yours. We must only deal in facts and nothing puts Bamber at the scene of the crime.
Deal with this one then and try thinking outside the box for once. The evidence proves that Jeremy Bamber murdered five members of his own family, namely, his adoptive mother, father, sister and her two young sons as they slept.
-
Deal with this one then and try thinking outside the box for once. The evidence proves that Jeremy Bamber murdered five members of his own family, namely, his adoptive mother, father, sister and her two young sons as they slept.
You're the one who doesn't think outside the box mate.
-
C'mon John,list the evidence,including forensic,that got him convicted.
Any fool can say what you've just said.
-
We´re not supposed to use rude language.....
-
C'mon John,list the evidence,including forensic,that got him convicted.
Any fool can say what you've just said.
And those who say it are fools and extremely naive.
-
Bamber disposing of clothes on the night:
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That's got to be the rubbery wetsuit causing those flames,surely.
-
I've just been reading something written by a woman who lives in Essex,and who's in touch with Jeremy. She'd asked him why he wasn't going mad with the injustices he's suffered and he'd said that he's keeping calm and that " all was good " !" This is recent.
This woman was saying that she had her chimney swept for the first time in 18 years and as she was talking to the young sweep,the subject of Jeremy came up and the sweep immediately said that his father had always said that Jeremy hadn't done it.
The same conversation came up when she spoke to the daughter of a retired Essex police officer who also said that Jeremy hadn't done it and later that evening the daughters' mother rang to confirm Jeremys' innocence.
-
We´re not supposed to use rude language.....
That's right. I shall not use the word "John" any more. ::)
-
wash your mouth out graham.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Deal with this one then and try thinking outside the box for once. The evidence proves that Jeremy Bamber murdered five members of his own family, namely, his adoptive mother, father, sister and her two young sons as they slept.
that's easy to say when he is in jail :)
I just do not believe it was proved beyond reasonable doubt . We are all entitled to our opinion.
-
There was no blood found in Jeremy's car. Allegedly there was a small amount of blood found on passenger seat of Nevill's Citroen but was not enough to be tested. If Jeremy was indeed guilty,he wouldn't have been able to remove silencer from scene in case it was missed. That would have been suspicious straight away since all of those at whf were deceased. EP would have wanted to know where it was and who removed it? I don't believe in the silencer evidence at all btw,for many reasons.
-
There was no blood found in Jeremy's car.
Always trust Tyler.
A fantastic person.
-
Ah,bless you Alias. I feel same about you,always have x
-
There was no blood found in Jeremy's car.
Always trust Tyler.
A fantastic person.
Of course Tyler/Alias you are correct there was no blood in Jeremy's car! My cold has deffo muddled my head, there was a trace found in Nevill's which could have been from any person or animal and meant nothing.
You're both really knowledgeable, would always trust both of you :-* :-*
-
Of course Tyler/Alias you are correct there was no blood in Jeremy's car! My cold has deffo muddled my head, there was a trace found in Nevill's which could have been from any person or animal and meant nothing.
You're both really knowledgeable, would always trust both of you :-* :-*
The guilters like to think they have nothing but concrete evidence for Jeremy being guilty. But if there really was concrete evidence then I personally would believe the same as they do.
But all they really have amounts to whistling in the dark. Everything they have stated has been manufactured long after the original verdict.
They in fact have nothing but self built scenarios. There was no testing of the so called silencer as to whether drawback would have taken place. That is just an assumption by those who believe it did. But neither the silencer, nor the rifle itself was ever tested for drawback.
It has also been assumed that Sheila would have been covered with backspatter from her victims. That has also something that has never been tested. Just something that has just been accepted as fact without anyone every proving that it would have taken place. Remember that Sheila was holding a "long" gun. She was never ever standing that close to her victims. If the gun was too long for her to shoot herself as some assert, then it would also be too long for backspatter to affect her to any degree.
Again so called GSR would not have affected Sheila to any degree either. Remember the gun was a rifle. It was also a .22 calibre. The amount of GSR would have been negligible anyway. But not only that, the GRS would be (as I have asserted many times, don't be fooled by scipios "expert" opinion) expelled mostly through the end of the barrel and not to the side as is often asserted.
Just remember mostly all the arguments put forward here concerning and presuming to prove Jeremy's guilt were never a factor that was considered in the original trial. But since been concocted by those who think through their own prejudiced minds. What man invents man understands. Just rember those words when reading their assertive over confident posts.
-
There was no blood found in Jeremy's car.
Always trust Tyler.
A fantastic person.
I agree,Alias. Straight and to the point and a reliable poster. Jan too,who is always down to earth. My kind of people.
-
Jeremy's supporters are often claiming he would not have the opportunity to dispose of his massacre night clothes. Am I missing something ?
The clothes may not have ended up with much blood anyway. June, Sheila and the twins were shot without resistance. By a long rifle. So unlikely that any back splatter would hit Jeremy.
Neville also received his first four shots from a distance. There was a kitchen fight, but unless they were rolling around on the floor, Jeremy would have remained virtually blood free. Certainly most of it would go after a washing machine spin. He may have even met the police without changing. Just putting extra layers on. He was well clothed for August.
Anyway if he was covered in blood, he had a month to dispose of the evidence. During this time he went on several jolly ups with Brett, Julie and other buddies. To London, Eastbourne, Amsterdam & St Tropez. So could have disposed of clothes anywhere in England, or in two other countries.
Or he could even dispose of the clothes on the night. He knew the farm land very well.
Claiming Jeremy could not have got clothes which may have had a few spots of blood on through customs, is also weak. Customs only check the inside of very few suitcases. They are looking for drugs, not blood. The London/Amsterdam customs were pretty weak as Jeremy smuggled a lot of cannabis through, just after the massacre.
Do other people think Jeremy did or did not have plenty of time to dispose of clothes ?
Hi Adam
If you are implying that Jeremy was kinda blood free then you must also apply this to Sheila; using the long range of the rifle as an excuse that there would be no blood spatter.
Why would he dispose of any clothing if he was wearing a wetsuit? :-\
-
Jeremy's supporters are often claiming he would not have the opportunity to dispose of his massacre night clothes. Am I missing something ?
The clothes may not have ended up with much blood anyway. June, Sheila and the twins were shot without resistance. By a long rifle. So unlikely that any back splatter would hit Jeremy.
Neville also received his first four shots from a distance. There was a kitchen fight, but unless they were rolling around on the floor, Jeremy would have remained virtually blood free. Certainly most of it would go after a washing machine spin. He may have even met the police without changing. Just putting extra layers on. He was well clothed for August.
Anyway if he was covered in blood, he had a month to dispose of the evidence. During this time he went on several jolly ups with Brett, Julie and other buddies. To London, Eastbourne, Amsterdam & St Tropez. So could have disposed of clothes anywhere in England, or in two other countries.
Or he could even dispose of the clothes on the night. He knew the farm land very well.
Claiming Jeremy could not have got clothes which may have had a few spots of blood on through customs, is also weak. Customs only check the inside of very few suitcases. They are looking for drugs, not blood. The London/Amsterdam customs were pretty weak as Jeremy smuggled a lot of cannabis through, just after the massacre.
Do other people think Jeremy did or did not have plenty of time to dispose of clothes ?
The rifle ended up with spatter on it. The notion the spatter would travel in a narrow path hitting the rifle but not the person holding it is fantasy. The close tange shots to Nevill and June would have resulted in high velocity spatter from both. Moreover, the beating Nevill took would have resulted in medium velocity spatter. It is the wounds to the kids heads which woudl be unlikely to result in spatter because shots by .22s to the head rarely result in spatter. It takes a larger caliber to be able to do enough damage to a head to cause spatter.
You should have stuck with your second argument which is that he had time to change his clothing before ever seeing police and police didn't examine his clothing until weeks after the murders so he had plenty to time to dispose of same.
-
The rifle ended up with spatter on it. The notion the spatter would travel in a narrow path hitting the rifle but not the person holding it is fantasy. The close tange shots to Nevill and June would have resulted in high velocity spatter from both. Moreover, the beating Nevill took would have resulted in medium velocity spatter. It is the wounds to the kids heads which woudl be unlikely to result in spatter because shots by .22s to the head rarely result in spatter. It takes a larger caliber to be able to do enough damage to a head to cause spatter.
You should have stuck with your second argument which is that he had time to change his clothing before ever seeing police and police didn't examine his clothing until weeks after the murders so he had plenty to time to dispose of same.
I've been saying that all the time but your keep on dismissing it.
-
I've been saying that all the time but your keep on dismissing it.
I keep dismissing what? All I did was dismiss the absurd claim that the killer would not have gotten high velocity spatter from the parents and medium veloicty spatter from Nevill on his/her clothing and body.
It was dismissed because it is absurd. The only claims of yours I dismiss are ridiculous ones that are borne out of your bias in favor of Bamber instead of being raitonal and objective.
-
The guilters like to think they have nothing but concrete evidence for Jeremy being guilty. But if there really was concrete evidence then I personally would believe the same as they do.
But all they really have amounts to whistling in the dark. Everything they have stated has been manufactured long after the original verdict.
They in fact have nothing but self built scenarios. There was no testing of the so called silencer as to whether drawback would have taken place. That is just an assumption by those who believe it did. But neither the silencer, nor the rifle itself was ever tested for drawback.
It has also been assumed that Sheila would have been covered with backspatter from her victims. That has also something that has never been tested. Just something that has just been accepted as fact without anyone every proving that it would have taken place. Remember that Sheila was holding a "long" gun. She was never ever standing that close to her victims. If the gun was too long for her to shoot herself as some assert, then it would also be too long for backspatter to affect her to any degree.
Again so called GSR would not have affected Sheila to any degree either. Remember the gun was a rifle. It was also a .22 calibre. The amount of GSR would have been negligible anyway. But not only that, the GRS would be (as I have asserted many times, don't be fooled by scipios "expert" opinion) expelled mostly through the end of the barrel and not to the side as is often asserted.
Just remember mostly all the arguments put forward here concerning and presuming to prove Jeremy's guilt were never a factor that was considered in the original trial. But since been concocted by those who think through their own prejudiced minds. What man invents man understands. Just rember those words when reading their assertive over confident posts.
There is a considerable body of evidence regarding spatter. .22 routinely result in backspatter when hitting locations where many of the victims were shot. There was no need to do the same tests over again to prove the doctors were right about the various locations causing spatter. Indeed we had somethign better- the gun was covered in spatter which means for sure there was spatte rit is absolute proof.
As for the GSR, you again demonstrate you know nothing about the subject. Despite countless spoonfeeding to you about the difference between PGSR and unburned gunpowder you still don't understand the concepts.
Firing the weapon would for sure have resulted in visible deposits on her gown not just PGSR. The vent is right near her gown and would have been even closer to her gown as she shot herself. You don't want to accept facts because you want Jeremy to be innocent. The defense can' even come up with an expert to dispute the fact her gown would have had GSR. No problem you will just make it up because you don't want to accept it.
The evidence against Jeremy is indeed ironclad and substantial. People here complain when I list the evidence against him because the summary alone is so long. You complain it is the longests posts on the board. That tells how much evidence there is. Because his supporters can't refute that evidence instead the coput that it is too long to respond to is made and the claim that the evidence I list proves nothing. Saying it proves nothing doesn't establish tha tit means nothing it just establishes that Jeremy supporters don't really want a detailed accurate discussion.
Your dismissal of the lack of GSR and claiming it would not be likely to be on the shooter has no foundation at all. You run to a site that claims there is less GSR from a rifle than from a pistol (which is referring to PGSR) and claim this prooves there woudl be no powder burns on the killer.
Your bias and dishonesty fgo hand in hand. Those who defend your integrity choose to close their eyes to it and often have the same problem. As I wrote before birds of a feather...
-
There is a considerable body of evidence regarding spatter. .22 routinely result in backspatter when hitting locations where many of the victims were shot. There was no need to do the same tests over again to prove the doctors were right about the various locations causing spatter. Indeed we had somethign better- the gun was covered in spatter which means for sure there was spatte rit is absolute proof.
As for the GSR, you again demonstrate you know nothing about the subject. Despite countless spoonfeeding to you about the difference between PGSR and unburned gunpowder you still don't understand the concepts.
Firing the weapon would for sure have resulted in visible deposits on her gown not just PGSR. The vent is right near her gown and would have been even closer to her gown as she shot herself. You don't want to accept facts because you want Jeremy to be innocent. The defense can' even come up with an expert to dispute the fact her gown would have had GSR. No problem you will just make it up because you don't want to accept it.
The evidence against Jeremy is indeed ironclad and substantial. People here complain when I list the evidence against him because the summary alone is so long. You complain it is the longests posts on the board. That tells how much evidence there is. Because his supporters can't refute that evidence instead the coput that it is too long to respond to is made and the claim that the evidence I list proves nothing. Saying it proves nothing doesn't establish tha tit means nothing it just establishes that Jeremy supporters don't really want a detailed accurate discussion.
Your dismissal of the lack of GSR and claiming it would not be likely to be on the shooter has no foundation at all. You run to a site that claims there is less GSR from a rifle than from a pistol (which is referring to PGSR) and claim this prooves there woudl be no powder burns on the killer.
Your bias and dishonesty fgo hand in hand. Those who defend your integrity choose to close their eyes to it and often have the same problem. As I wrote before birds of a feather...
it is not dishonest to have opinions or to research "expert" statements regarding aspects of the case . So stop calling posters dishonest or biased.
You are biased against Jeremy and that is bourne out by your inability to even consider that some people in this case were not honest in their evidence or statements. Stop being personal in your posts because we are all sick to the teeth of your repetitive negativity against this forum.
-
I keep dismissing what? All I did was dismiss the absurd claim that the killer would not have gotten high velocity spatter from the parents and medium veloicty spatter from Nevill on his/her clothing and body.
It was dismissed because it is absurd. The only claims of yours I dismiss are ridiculous ones that are borne out of your bias in favor of Bamber instead of being raitonal and objective.
Why do you constantly refer to it as HIGH velocity spatter? It was subsonic ammunition. I still contend that blood spatter existed with all those shots. There was blood on the gun because Sheila's hands had blood on them. It is quite a simple deduction and very logical.
-
it is not dishonest to have opinions or to research "expert" statements regarding aspects of the case . So stop calling posters dishonest or biased.
You are biased against Jeremy and that is bourne out by your inability to even consider that some people in this case were not honest in their evidence or statements. Stop being personal in your posts because we are all sick to the teeth of your repetitive negativity against this forum.
I am biased against Jeremy because I follow the evidence? That is quite a silly statement. Those who refuse to follow the evidence and ignore it are the ones biased. Often such peopel demosntrate bias in general against police and the authorities and using that as a basis to ignroe evidence since there is no rational reason to do so.
Graham is wildly inconsistent and constantly inaccurate which he has actually amazingly admitted. Despite admitting numerous errors he either refuses to change his position though the basis was flawed or he reverts back to claims previously established as wrong. The GSR issue is just one such issue. The following deonstrates a lot on many different levels:
"I concede defeat to my betters on the forum and their arguments according to the evidence that we have access to have at last won over me and therefore I have nothing more to argue for.
I bid you all farewell for the final time."
I can pounce on countless posts by others that demonstrate how bias prevents them from ignoring relaity but I have no need to do so. I prefer to point it out in the course of substantive posts where I discuss the exact facts of the case.
That is something always ignored. I post substnatively in the same exact posts where I point out bias. I posted substantively about how a MOJ constantly brought up features the complete opposite set of facts as here. That serves some purpose. Just criticizing without it being tied to substance is pointless. That is what many here do. They just launch personal attacks that are not tied to anything. Attacking Adam for instance and worse such people attack him for doing the same things they do.
It is funny how peopel can't see why this site is known as a Jeremy defender site instead of an objective site. It is because of the way those who actively control the site post. WHile NGB defends Jeremy he doesn't do it in a way that tries to stifle honest debate.
At the opposite end we have Jackie who thinks this site should be closed to anythign but pro-Jeremy propaganda.
The remainder largely attack those critical of Jeremy but stop short of debminding such people be banned an dinstead berate them simply and try to cow them.
The treatment of Caroline after she switched and attacks on others perceived to switching is a good example of that.
On boards like this things always go off topic to some degree but I have never been on a site that always goes off topic. No thread ever stays on topic the goal seems to always be to intentioally divert attention and change when there is something negative to Jeremy's side.
This particular thread should be an issue that both sites are willing to stipulate to and to stop raising .
1) Jeremy had plenty of time to wash and change before calling police
2) Jeremy and the clothes he was wearing at the time he met police were not tested or searched for blood or other foreign matter
3) Jeremy's house was not searched until weeks after the murders so he had plenty of time ot dispose of incriminating evidence.
It makes no difference whether he wors overalls, a wetsuit or some other kind of covering over his regular clothes at the time of the murders but based on the fact he would be able to wash and change before seeing police he had no need to wear any such protective covering over his clothing. So for that reason it is not likely he did so. The fact that Boutflour, a journalist or anyone else suspects he did doesn't make it more likely. Their opinions are not based on anything concrete jus ttheir own personal suspicions which ignore tha the would have no need to wear such.
That should be enough to put this issue to rest. It is one of no value. There is no way for Jeremy defenders to say the lack of any evidence found helps prove his innocence when he was never searched and had both the opportunity and motive to wash and change. What he wore makes no differenc ein light of such.
That is what peopel should be pointing out in order to agree to put this issue to bed.
There are numerous stipulations that could be made so that only the significant issues are debated but that is never done.
The most significcant issues to discuss are the things I have listed time and again that point to Jeremy's guilt. Those are the things that were raised at trial to prove his guilt and that defenders MUST find a way to refute to establish his wrongful conviction.
The inability to honestly be able to refute such are why peopel play with the fringes instead. But that doesn't convice anyone objective, rational and knowledgeable about the case of his innocence so actualy doesn't accomplish anything. Preaching to the choir is a wasted effort.
-
I am biased against Jeremy because I follow the evidence? That is quite a silly statement. Those who refuse to follow the evidence and ignore it are the ones biased. Often such peopel demosntrate bias in general against police and the authorities and using that as a basis to ignroe evidence since there is no rational reason to do so.
Graham is wildly inconsistent and constantly inaccurate which he has actually amazingly admitted. Despite admitting numerous errors he either refuses to change his position though the basis was flawed or he reverts back to claims previously established as wrong. The GSR issue is just one such issue. The following deonstrates a lot on many different levels:
"I concede defeat to my betters on the forum and their arguments according to the evidence that we have access to have at last won over me and therefore I have nothing more to argue for.
I bid you all farewell for the final time."
I can pounce on countless posts by others that demonstrate how bias prevents them from ignoring relaity but I have no need to do so. I prefer to point it out in the course of substantive posts where I discuss the exact facts of the case.
That is something always ignored. I post substnatively in the same exact posts where I point out bias. I posted substantively about how a MOJ constantly brought up features the complete opposite set of facts as here. That serves some purpose. Just criticizing without it being tied to substance is pointless. That is what many here do. They just launch personal attacks that are not tied to anything. Attacking Adam for instance and worse such people attack him for doing the same things they do.
It is funny how peopel can't see why this site is known as a Jeremy defender site instead of an objective site. It is because of the way those who actively control the site post. WHile NGB defends Jeremy he doesn't do it in a way that tries to stifle honest debate.
At the opposite end we have Jackie who thinks this site should be closed to anythign but pro-Jeremy propaganda.
The remainder largely attack those critical of Jeremy but stop short of debminding such people be banned an dinstead berate them simply and try to cow them.
The treatment of Caroline after she switched and attacks on others perceived to switching is a good example of that.
On boards like this things always go off topic to some degree but I have never been on a site that always goes off topic. No thread ever stays on topic the goal seems to always be to intentioally divert attention and change when there is something negative to Jeremy's side.
This particular thread should be an issue that both sites are willing to stipulate to and to stop raising .
1) Jeremy had plenty of time to wash and change before calling police
2) Jeremy and the clothes he was wearing at the time he met police were not tested or searched for blood or other foreign matter
3) Jeremy's house was not searched until weeks after the murders so he had plenty of time ot dispose of incriminating evidence.
It makes no difference whether he wors overalls, a wetsuit or some other kind of covering over his regular clothes at the time of the murders but based on the fact he would be able to wash and change before seeing police he had no need to wear any such protective covering over his clothing. So for that reason it is not likely he did so. The fact that Boutflour, a journalist or anyone else suspects he did doesn't make it more likely. Their opinions are not based on anything concrete jus ttheir own personal suspicions which ignore tha the would have no need to wear such.
That should be enough to put this issue to rest. It is one of no value. There is no way for Jeremy defenders to say the lack of any evidence found helps prove his innocence when he was never searched and had both the opportunity and motive to wash and change. What he wore makes no differenc ein light of such.
That is what peopel should be pointing out in order to agree to put this issue to bed.
There are numerous stipulations that could be made so that only the significant issues are debated but that is never done.
The most significcant issues to discuss are the things I have listed time and again that point to Jeremy's guilt. Those are the things that were raised at trial to prove his guilt and that defenders MUST find a way to refute to establish his wrongful conviction.
The inability to honestly be able to refute such are why peopel play with the fringes instead. But that doesn't convice anyone objective, rational and knowledgeable about the case of his innocence so actualy doesn't accomplish anything. Preaching to the choir is a wasted effort.
What makes you think that you are my better for goodness sake. This just demonstrates what a high opinion you have of yourself.
I still hold to the FACT (and I have established it as a fact from experts) that GSR is mostly expelled from the barrel of the gun and is negligible from the side where the case is ejected. The facts are that you ae wrong and the experts are right. What you do is to try and pull the wool over people's eyes hoping they wouldn't check up on you. The plain facts are your opinions are driven by prejudice and by prejudice alone.
-
yes you have esablished it as a fact graham i did a google searh and everything you say is backed up by all the experts.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firearmsid.com%2Fa_distancegsr.htm&ei=4mWIVK6qLoP1Uri_gLgN&usg=AFQjCNF06sfYKRi8Awb8UQLZYfAFlNCw4w&sig2=9UZdT-Ut1G0AGiEg5T8LBw&bvm=bv.81456516,d.d24
dispite all his liams skippy clearly knows nothing about the subject.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firearmsid.com%2Fa_distancegsr.htm&ei=V2aIVOjdLYu3UeTAg4AL&usg=AFQjCNF06sfYKRi8Awb8UQLZYfAFlNCw4w&sig2=m5q9DFEJfy0p3jEXyUT4zA&bvm=bv.81456516,d.d24
-
Well done nugs for finding,yet again,information that saves further misunderstanding from " he who knows it all ".
Though no doubt he'll find fault over that too. ::)
-
Well done nugs for finding,yet again,information that saves further misunderstanding from " he who knows it all ".
Though no doubt he'll find fault over that too. ::)
Of course he will. He's more of a politician and gets out of difficult situations by altering his arguments. But he isn't an expert as he professes. He's just got the gift of the gab. Notice that he never ever admits defeat on anything. Remember when Caroline proved him wrong it was not him he said, but he was "mislead". ;D
-
Probably some nark who works on the relatives behalf,possibly an MP. ( full of spin ) Aren't they all,to make it look as though they've really said something while they blind the unsuspecting public with science.? All that they say can be said in one sentence !! The rest is pure spin.
-
Well done nugs for finding,yet again,information that saves further misunderstanding from " he who knows it all ".
Though no doubt he'll find fault over that too. ::)
well not the first timeof posted that but im happy to do so agian.
-
nugnug what happened to your previous post or is my laptop going crazy again :'(
-
o mesed it up a bit so i removed it.
-
nugnug thanks for that thought I was having a funny turn and seeing things ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D