Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Bambergate on February 17, 2015, 06:46:PM
-
Hi
I have done this in the past, and will again.
here is the link
http://www.essex.pcc.police.uk/2015/02/essex-police-challenge-comes-to-witham/
Nick Alston has stated he will not support a request for Essex Police to show that they have not framed JB.
All would take is the release of the original reports from the team surrounding the farm house.
I believe its a good idea to have a long documented history of giving Essex Police the opportunity to come clean.
As you all know I have been in contact with officers who were inside the farmhouse and have been threatened by Essex Police for doing this.
This was done to try and keep what happened a secret,this is one of the most darkest acts in UK policeing.
Essex Police have Framed Jeremy Bamber.
-
Hi
I have done this in the past, and will again.
here is the link
http://www.essex.pcc.police.uk/2015/02/essex-police-challenge-comes-to-witham/
Nick Alston has stated he will not support a request for Essex Police to show that they have not framed JB.
All would take is the release of the original reports from the team surrounding the farm house.
I believe its a good idea to have a long documented history of giving Essex Police the opportunity to come clean.
As you all know I have been in contact with officers who were inside the farmhouse and have been threatened by Essex Police for doing this.
This was done to try and keep what happened a secret,this is one of the most darkest acts in UK policeing.
Essex Police have Framed Jeremy Bamber.
Can I ask? In what way did EP threaten you? I also made a submission; I believe Roch did as well. I never got a reply. ;D
-
Hi Bambergate.
Are you saying we can all make a submission?
I would ask for the original file - plus the details of the 32 interviews with JM :)
-
And if I ask for the same,Jan,that'll be two of us. ;D
I wrote last time and asked them what it was that changed their minds from a murder/suicide to murder.
Needless to say my request must have gone into the" out basket". :-[ :(
-
Bambergate,I thank you once again for the work that you've done including correspondence galore to the various people who were involved in the case. It WILL pay off in the end,trust me.
-
Hi
I have done this in the past, and will again.
here is the link
http://www.essex.pcc.police.uk/2015/02/essex-police-challenge-comes-to-witham/
Nick Alston has stated he will not support a request for Essex Police to show that they have not framed JB.
All would take is the release of the original reports from the team surrounding the farm house.
I believe its a good idea to have a long documented history of giving Essex Police the opportunity to come clean.
As you all know I have been in contact with officers who were inside the farmhouse and have been threatened by Essex Police for doing this.
This was done to try and keep what happened a secret,this is one of the most darkest acts in UK policeing.
Essex Police have Framed Jeremy Bamber.
What did they tell you?
-
And if I ask for the same,Jan,that'll be two of us. ;D
I wrote last time and asked them what it was that changed their minds from a murder/suicide to murder.
Needless to say my request must have gone into the" out basket". :-[ :(
What changed their mind ?
Evidence.
-
What changed their mind ?
Evidence.
There were only two things - the silencer and JM.
-
There were only two things - the silencer and JM.
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
-
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
Where ??
-
"Mountain of circumstantial evidence" is a term used by prosecution when there is very little....
You have to make it look like something substantial somehow.
-
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
There's positively a mountain of evidence to say he DIDN'T do it !!
-
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
there is no forensic evidence that proves JB did it
I hope you never get convicted on circumstantial evidence. Mountain or molehill.
You have tried JB in your mind on his character (perceived by you ) which is also no basis to convict a man of 5 murders.
-
Hello Adam please direct me to your thread showing all the forensic evidence I guess I missed it. Thanks.
-
there is no forensic evidence that proves JB did it
I hope you never get convicted on circumstantial evidence. Mountain or molehill.
You have tried JB in your mind on his character (perceived by you ) which is also no basis to convict a man of 5 murders.
There is forensic evidence that proves Sheila didn't do it but rather there was someone else present who killed everyone. Jeremy admitting he knew the family was in trouble. He claimed he knew as a result of a call from Nevill blaming Sheila. It is not credible that Nevill phoned to blame Sheila for a variety of reasons including the fact Sheila didn't do anything so why would he call and lie and claim she did? Jeremy did a variety of things to frame Sheila including claiming she fired all weapons in the house- something he recanted later. He also staged bullets in the kitchen in support of a made up a bogus tale regarding leaving the gun out for Sheila to grab.
The only one with a motive to kill everyone in the house including the twins was Jeremy. He clearly knew about the murders and took efforts to frame his sister. Julie said he admitted he was behind the killings- calling her before police even- and that he had been planning the murders for some time.
Saying there is no evidence is simply living in denial. Living in denial doesn't make such evidence go away though.
-
Hello Adam please direct me to your thread showing all the forensic evidence I guess I missed it. Thanks.
Not like you to miss something.
-
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
There is the silencer evidence.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night.
As well as the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside is more forensic evidence.
-
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
-
There were also several motives. As well as 'a lot more' (judges words) than £436,000p.
ALREADY IN PRISON ON THE FARM:
Was it 14 or 17 hour days on the farm ? Either way long days. At court Jeremy said he had seen his fathers will which tied him to working on the farm until Neville died.
BOARDING SCHOOL:
Mary Mugford said Jeremy 'never forgave June for sending him to boarding school.
THINGS WERE SLIPPING AWAY:
Jeremy was 24. It was the 'loads of money' era. Jeremy wanted to be a rich playboy based in London. But told Julie he had 'too much to lose' by walking away. He had neither the talent or determination to make it alone.
Mary Mugford said in court Jeremy had told her June was going to amend her will in favour of the twins.
OPPORTUNITY:
As the previous thread showed. There was an opportunity and ready made scapegoat.
HATRED:
People testified how Jeremy hated his parents. Julie testified how Jeremy said Sheila upset him when younger.
RESENTMENT:
Sheila was living rent & work free in London. And would have inherited as much as Jeremy when Neville/June deceased. But how many hours had she worked on the farm ? And how many hours would she put in after inheriting ?
DOING EVERYONE A FAVOUR:
Neville was apparently 'ready to be put to pasture', June was a 'religious maniac', Sheila needed being 'put out of her misery' & the twins were bound to be effected by all this. Even Colin would benefit as he would have more time to look for work without the burden of two children.
PROVING JULIE WRONG, AND IMPRESSING HER:
Julie obviously never believed Jeremy would do something so horrendous. Even on the night she dismissed him. On TV she said Jeremy used to 'say things to shock people'.
STATUS, POWER, FAME:
Jeremy would instantly obtain these. He offered a 'Sun' journalist his life story prior to being charged.
TO SHOW HE COULD ACHIEVE SOMETHING:
The perfect crime and frame. Jeremy was so proud. Ringing Julie on the night. Then telling her later but giving himself a proxy. He later boasted to Liz Rimmington 'only I know what really happened that night'.
ON THE DAY:
Spending 14, or was it 17 hours working on the farm. Watching Sheila & the twins strolling around on their free holiday. A rare opportunity with everyone at WHF. Julies dismissal. Maybe Jeremy had an argument at WHF that night. BW said there was always a strained atmosphere when Jeremy was present.
THE CARAVAN BREAK IN:
BW said June & Neville knew about this. Further damaging their relationship with Jeremy. Was it now beyond repair ? Jeremy and June had not spoken for years according to Mary Mugford.
ADOPTION:
Jeremy was not related by blood. He was adopted and then sent to boarding school. Before persuading his parents to finance some jaunts abroad. Now he was a farm labourer. Complaining about his adoptive parents interfering in his life. Parents he did not like.
THE BUSINESS:
AE says Jeremy and Neville had a blazing row just before the murders. Neville would always have the final say as Jeremy only had a small share. This would have frustrated the 'would be' business executive Jeremy.
-
There was also -
A mountain of circumstantial evidence.
An opportunity.
No alibi.
-
Everything fits:
1: Was there a motive - Several.
2: Was there an opportunity - Yes.
3: Was there an alibi - No.
4: Was there a lot of circumstantial evidence - Yes.
5: Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes.
6: Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes.
7: Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes.
8: Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes.
9:Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes.
10: Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes.
11: Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes.
12: Are there just two suspects - Yes.
13: Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes.
14: Does the silencer evidence round the suspects to one - Yes.
15: Is a triple frame attempt unprecedented - Yes.
16: Did Bamber have an opportunity to dispose of evidence - Yes.
17: Are there lots of reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No.
18: Did Bamber have better options, random stranger etc - No.
19: Would the WHF dogs prevent a massacre or attempt - No.
20: Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No.
21: Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No.
22: Have there been several failed appeals - Yes.
23: Has anyone retracted or been proved to have lied - No.
I could continue. Can someone please tell me what does not fit and why the conviction is wrong.
-
There were also several motives. As well as 'a lot more' (judges words) than £436,000p.
ALREADY IN PRISON ON THE FARM:
Was it 14 or 17 hour days on the farm ? Either way long days. At court Jeremy said he had seen his fathers will which tied him to working on the farm until Neville died.
BOARDING SCHOOL:
Mary Mugford said Jeremy 'never forgave June for sending him to boarding school.
THINGS WERE SLIPPING AWAY:
Jeremy was 24. It was the 'loads of money' era. Jeremy wanted to be a rich playboy based in London. But told Julie he had 'too much to lose' by walking away. He had neither the talent or determination to make it alone.
Mary Mugford said in court Jeremy had told her June was going to amend her will in favour of the twins.
OPPORTUNITY:
As the previous thread showed. There was an opportunity and ready made scapegoat.
HATRED:
People testified how Jeremy hated his parents. Julie testified how Jeremy said Sheila upset him when younger.
RESENTMENT:
Sheila was living rent & work free in London. And would have inherited as much as Jeremy when Neville/June deceased. But how many hours had she worked on the farm ? And how many hours would she put in after inheriting ?
DOING EVERYONE A FAVOUR:
Neville was apparently 'ready to be put to pasture', June was a 'religious maniac', Sheila needed being 'put out of her misery' & the twins were bound to be effected by all this. Even Colin would benefit as he would have more time to look for work without the burden of two children.
PROVING JULIE WRONG, AND IMPRESSING HER:
Julie obviously never believed Jeremy would do something so horrendous. Even on the night she dismissed him. On TV she said Jeremy used to 'say things to shock people'.
STATUS, POWER, FAME:
Jeremy would instantly obtain these. He offered a 'Sun' journalist his life story prior to being charged.
TO SHOW HE COULD ACHIEVE SOMETHING:
The perfect crime and frame. Jeremy was so proud. Ringing Julie on the night. Then telling her later but giving himself a proxy. He later boasted to Liz Rimmington 'only I know what really happened that night'.
ON THE DAY:
Spending 14, or was it 17 hours working on the farm. Watching Sheila & the twins strolling around on their free holiday. A rare opportunity with everyone at WHF. Julies dismissal. Maybe Jeremy had an argument at WHF that night. BW said there was always a strained atmosphere when Jeremy was present.
THE CARAVAN BREAK IN:
BW said June & Neville knew about this. Further damaging their relationship with Jeremy. Was it now beyond repair ? Jeremy and June had not spoken for years according to Mary Mugford.
ADOPTION:
Jeremy was not related by blood. He was adopted and then sent to boarding school. Before persuading his parents to finance some jaunts abroad. Now he was a farm labourer. Complaining about his adoptive parents interfering in his life. Parents he did not like.
THE BUSINESS:
AE says Jeremy and Neville had a blazing row just before the murders. Neville would always have the final say as Jeremy only had a small share. This would have frustrated the 'would be' business executive Jeremy.
who is mary mugford?
-
What changed their mind ?
Sherlock Boutflour
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59885000/jpg/_59885825_59885824.jpg)
-
Hello buddy
think Mary is Julie's Mum.
-
Where ??
He was convicted on it.
-
Adam that is not very nice moderate your tone please I was being polite to you that is the least I can expect back from you.
-
there is no forensic evidence that proves JB did it
I hope you never get convicted on circumstantial evidence. Mountain or molehill.
You have tried JB in your mind on his character (perceived by you ) which is also no basis to convict a man of 5 murders.
Lots of people get convicted on circumstantial evidence and if they're guilty, they deserve to be - surely?
-
Lets not take over this thread - when it has a specific purpose.
All the above has already been discussed several times.
-
Sherlock Boutflour
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59885000/jpg/_59885825_59885824.jpg)
Bet he isn't saying " there are no winners ",now !!
-
I would ask Essex police;
1. Why was JM not charged with drug smuggling.
2. why was JM not charged with burglary from the caravan site.
3. why was JM not charged with cheque card fraud.
4. Why after the murders did she not go to the police as Jeremy had told her " tonight is the night".
5. She had no difficulty identifying the twins, and still said nothing.
6 JM never went to the police in the first place.
Sounds like a woman scorned to me.
-
I would ask if there is nothing to hide - why refuse access to documents?
-
I would ask Essex police;
1. Why was JM not charged with drug smuggling.
2. why was JM not charged with burglary from the caravan site.
3. why was JM not charged with cheque card fraud.
4. Why after the murders did she not go to the police as Jeremy had told her " tonight is the night".
5. She had no difficulty identifying the twins, and still said nothing.
6 JM never went to the police in the first place.
Sounds like a woman scorned to me.
Hi buddy, good to see you posting again :)
These are all valid questions which have never been answered imo.
-
Of course it was Buddy. A heat of the moment decision done for spite to get her own back,but---------as she began to think what she'd done,she must have suddenly thought about the part she'd played in with the fraud,robbery and smuggling,then it was too late,except with Mr S Jones behind her and him desperate to get a conviction for Jeremy,their plan worked out quite nicely.
-
I would ask Essex police;
1. Why was JM not charged with drug smuggling.
2. why was JM not charged with burglary from the caravan site.
3. why was JM not charged with cheque card fraud.
4. Why after the murders did she not go to the police as Jeremy had told her " tonight is the night".
5. She had no difficulty identifying the twins, and still said nothing.
6 JM never went to the police in the first place.
Sounds like a woman scorned to me.
In respect to questions 1-4 - she wasn't charged because she gave evidence against Jeremy Bamber. EP wouldn't have even known about the offences until she told them. She had to admit to them in case Jeremy mentioned her involvement thus discrediting her as a witness.
5 and 6 can only be answered by JM.
-
I would ask Essex police;
1. Why was JM not charged with drug smuggling.
2. why was JM not charged with burglary from the caravan site.
3. why was JM not charged with cheque card fraud.
4. Why after the murders did she not go to the police as Jeremy had told her " tonight is the night".
5. She had no difficulty identifying the twins, and still said nothing.
6 JM never went to the police in the first place.
Sounds like a woman scorned to me.
Buddy, all those questions apply which ever side of the divide we are, but I can almost guarantee that if all of us here, who believe those questions need answers, were to submit them, the most, IMO, we'd receive in return, is an acknowledgement. But it's more likely that we'd hear nothing.
-
Buddy, all those questions apply which ever side of the divide we are, but I can almost guarantee that if all of us here, who believe those questions need answers, were to submit them, the most, IMO, we'd receive in return, is an acknowledgement. But it's more likely that we'd hear nothing.
Those questions are all basically commentary anyway not questions for the police. The police don't decide who is prosecuted, the police can't speak for Julie. The questions about the charges are proper questions for the prosecutors but we already saw the document where they laid out why she would not be charged. The other questions about why Julie did things are questions for her.
It takes a lot of effort to get police to answer questions appropriate to them these are not and thus if they did respond substantively it would be to say these questions should be posed to others not them. They would either do that or not respond at all.
-
In respect to questions 1-4 - she wasn't charged because she gave evidence against Jeremy Bamber. EP wouldn't have even known about the offences until she told them. She had to admit to them in case Jeremy mentioned her involvement thus discrediting her as a witness.
5 and 6 can only be answered by JM.
unless they asked her in the interviews - which you would think was an obvious question.
So EP could have the answers in the file.
-
unless they asked her in the interviews - which you would think was an obvious question.
So EP could have the answers in the file.
Perhaps but I fail to see how the answers to either question would make any difference to Jeremy's incarceration.
-
"the police can't speak for Julie"
Do you really know the british police force of the 80s?
They certainly admit to putting words in the mouths of witnesses to "get their man" so to speak.
Especially when it is one persons word against another.
Trust me - it happened.
-
"the police can't speak for Julie"
Do you really know the british police force of the 80s?
They certainly admit to putting words in the mouths of witnesses to "get their man" so to speak.
Especially when it is one persons word against another.
Trust me - it happened.
But Julie hasn't accused them of doing that.
-
Perhaps but I fail to see how the answers to either question would make any difference to Jeremy's incarceration.
Well it would if her answers implied she was telling lies.
A bit like - I knew he had done it - I knew he had killed his family
But then later saying implying she never thought he meant he would actually kill his family .
So which was it in the days after the murder ?
-
I would ask why they chose to destroy almost all physical evidence in 1996.
That is one of the reasons I believe the case against Jeremy is dodgy.
-
But Julie hasn't accused them of doing that.
Why would she ? that would mean she lied under oath so would be in jail herself?
IMO I still think she was persuaded to say certain things to implicate JB - because the police persuaded her he was guilty and it would help them . But we don't know do we? perhaps they said she could be charged with perverting the course of justice if she did not testify? Perhaps she went to EP in anger and then got in to deep?
Obviously I don't know - but her statements appear very contrived to me.
-
How about seeing JM's 32 statements for starters ?
-
In respect to questions 1-4 - she wasn't charged because she gave evidence against Jeremy Bamber. EP wouldn't have even known about the offences until she told them. She had to admit to them in case Jeremy mentioned her involvement thus discrediting her as a witness.
5 and 6 can only be answered by JM.
http://canlookup.com/business-directory/listing/S/1715/3/5416/155186 (http://canlookup.com/business-directory/listing/S/1715/3/5416/155186)
She is only a phone call away ;D
-
http://canlookup.com/business-directory/listing/S/1715/3/5416/155186 (http://canlookup.com/business-directory/listing/S/1715/3/5416/155186)
She is only a phone call away ;D
Oh, wow!
-
I would ask why they chose to destroy almost all physical evidence in 1996.
That is one of the reasons I believe the case against Jeremy is dodgy.
The only evidence destroyed in 1996 that supporters of Jeremy have produced related to blood samples. Anytime the question is asked of what else was allegedly destroyed nothing specific is claimed let alone substantiated.
-
The only evidence destroyed in 1996 that supporters of Jeremy have produced related to blood samples. Anytime the question is asked of what else was allegedly destroyed nothing specific is claimed let alone substantiated.
Well its going to be very difficult to find out what specific things they destroyed. Only the police will know the details and I cant see them revealing the information. You destroy something because you don't want people to know about it.
-
Why would she ? that would mean she lied under oath so would be in jail herself?
IMO I still think she was persuaded to say certain things to implicate JB - because the police persuaded her he was guilty and it would help them . But we don't know do we? perhaps they said she could be charged with perverting the course of justice if she did not testify? Perhaps she went to EP in anger and then got in to deep?
Obviously I don't know - but her statements appear very contrived to me.
Perhaps not everything she said was true but perhaps a lot of it was.
-
Perhaps not everything she said was true but perhaps a lot of it was.
https://ca.linkedin.com/pub/julie-smerchanski/87/158/759 (https://ca.linkedin.com/pub/julie-smerchanski/87/158/759)
She can be contacted you know. Don't think she would appreciate it thou, wouldent surprise me if she gets a few random emails now and then asking her about the case.
-
Well its going to be very difficult to find out what specific things they destroyed. Only the police will know the details and I cant see them revealing the information. You destroy something because you don't want people to know about it.
I thought there was a documented list somewhere on the forum? - because it included the nightdress for a start.
-
there is a list here somewhere - in the meantime this might help
-
The only evidence destroyed in 1996 that supporters of Jeremy have produced related to blood samples. Anytime the question is asked of what else was allegedly destroyed nothing specific is claimed let alone substantiated.
Yes, that is what I am getting at: the blood evidence - which I find very significant, since this was exactly around the time forensic DNA testing was gaining ground freeing loads of innocent people from incarceration. Spared some the death penalty even.
I know you will write a novel now about how it has no significance, but it will not change that I find it noticable they chose to destroy all blood evidence at that exact time.
-
Destruction of vital evidence/exhibits in 1996 :
ND/5---------June Bambers' nightdress.
ND/3----------Sheila Caffells' nightdress.
DRH/34-----Top pillow and pillow case from R/H side of bed in main bedroom.
DRH/35.------Bottom pillow and floral pillowcase from R/H side of bed in main bedroom.
DRH/44------Bible found next to Sheila.
ND/1-------------Ralph Bambers' pyjama top.
ND/2------------Ralph Bambers' pyjama bottoms.
ND/8---------Daniel Caffells' pyjamas ( red )
ND/9------------Nicholas Caffells' pyjamas ( blue ).
-
Destruction of vital evidence/exhibits in 1996 :
ND/5---------June Bambers' nightdress.
ND/3----------Sheila Caffells' nightdress.
DRH/34-----Top pillow and pillow case from R/H side of bed in main bedroom.
DRH/35.------Bottom pillow and floral pillowcase from R/H side of bed in main bedroom.
DRH/44------Bible found next to Sheila.
ND/1-------------Ralph Bambers' pyjama top.
ND/2------------Ralph Bambers' pyjama bottoms.
ND/8---------Daniel Caffells' pyjamas ( red )
ND/9------------Nicholas Caffells' pyjamas ( blue ).
You have to ask why they destroyed it.
By their own admission, they have a room full of 200 boxes of case material - why destroy those exact items?
-
Perhaps not everything she said was true but perhaps a lot of it was.
Perhaps is not good enough !!!!
Nobody
Absolutely nobody could tell when Mugford was telling the truth or when she was telling lies
She will probably go down in legal history of one of the most prolific liars that has ever given evidence in a murder trial
An absolute master at lies and deception
She quite happily sat in that witness box knowing she had made the NOTW deal but was confident this would not come out during trial
Colin must have been broken-hearted while Mugford was popping the champagne corks
What a vile family if her mother was proud of the newspaper interview she gave along with the photos
-
Mark (Bambergate) you must have realised by now that one reason Jeremy is still in prison is down to his 'official campaign team'
They have achieved NOTHING but Jeremy is happy for these people to do their utmost to keep him locked up forever
Sarah Hanover continues to be a complete embarrassment and you only have to look at the website and read the Twitter feed
They are a laughing stock and things get worse each month
-
Destruction of vital evidence/exhibits in 1996 :
ND/5---------June Bambers' nightdress.
ND/3----------Sheila Caffells' nightdress.
DRH/34-----Top pillow and pillow case from R/H side of bed in main bedroom.
DRH/35.------Bottom pillow and floral pillowcase from R/H side of bed in main bedroom.
DRH/44------Bible found next to Sheila.
ND/1-------------Ralph Bambers' pyjama top.
ND/2------------Ralph Bambers' pyjama bottoms.
ND/8---------Daniel Caffells' pyjamas ( red )
ND/9------------Nicholas Caffells' pyjamas ( blue ).
This'll be worth submitting,with a large question mark,.WHY ?
-
You have to ask why they destroyed it.
By their own admission, they have a room full of 200 boxes of case material - why destroy those exact items?
Yes it does seem very strange and suspect. It was against the police guidelines.
Wonder if Scippys upcoming novel will hold the answer?
-
Yes it does seem very strange and suspect. It was against the police guidelines.
Wonder if Scippys upcoming novel will hold the answer?
He already wrote that novel a while back. 8) Didn´t change my mind about it though.
-
You can bet your life it will,David. ;D
-
Yes, that is what I am getting at: the blood evidence - which I find very significant, since this was exactly around the time forensic DNA testing was gaining ground freeing loads of innocent people from incarceration. Spared some the death penalty even.
I know you will write a novel now about how it has no significance, but it will not change that I find it noticable they chose to destroy all blood evidence at that exact time.
According to the above document, Whiddon was given carte blanche to decide what to keep, return and what to destroy. He fel he wasn't familiar enough with the case to make informed decisions so had someone else decide and just followed orders.
There was no reason to need the samples. There were no blood stains that they would need to have DNA tested so no need for the blood samples to use to rule out the victims hence no need for any victim blood. The only DNA tests they ended up doing were worthless as they had no ability to establish a thing. If they had some blood stains from the killer and they feared the stains would prove Sheila was the killer and thus disposed of them that would be one thing. But that is not the case and there objectively was no use for the blood samples.
DNA helps exonerate in cases where the DNA of the killer was left behind or someone other than the defendant was found to have DNA of the victims on them. There was no way to predict any value of any DNA tests given the evidence in this case and the DNA tests ultimate done were indeed pointless.
Interestingly they destroyed Sheila's diaries to keep them from being sold. The Estate it appears would have liked ot try to make money off them that is pretty scummy if the relatives approved of such.
-
This'll be worth submitting,with a large question mark,.WHY ?
Because they saw no need for the items that were not used as trial exhibits. No use was found for them in more than a decade and they didn't foresee any future use.
-
Because they saw no need for the items that were not used as trial exhibits. No use was found for them in more than a decade and they didn't foresee any future use.
Then why had they already been kept for 10 years ? There was an order NOT to destroy items,but EP went ahead and did so anyway.
I know----------because there HAD been doubts about Jeremy's conviction among some officers.
-
Because they saw no need for the items that were not used as trial exhibits. No use was found for them in more than a decade and they didn't foresee any future use.
How can you possibly know this?
-
Then why had they already been kept for 10 years ? There was an order NOT to destroy items,but EP went ahead and did so anyway.
I know----------because there HAD been doubts about Jeremy's conviction among some officers.
How do you know?
-
How do you know?
Nudge nudge,wink wink. I'm saying no more.
-
Nudge nudge,wink wink. I'm saying no more.
The I'll take it that you don't know - you're just assuming or you heard it somewhere.
-
The I'll take it that you don't know - you're just assuming or you heard it somewhere.
No,I'm not assuming anything. It'll come to light soon enough I imagine.
-
No,I'm not assuming anything. It'll come to light soon enough I imagine.
I doubt it but we'll see.
-
Then why had they already been kept for 10 years ? There was an order NOT to destroy items,but EP went ahead and did so anyway.
I know----------because there HAD been doubts about Jeremy's conviction among some officers.
That is false that there was an order not to destroy things. The supposed court order to not destroy anything didn't exist. It was standard police policy to not destroy things while an appeal was ongoing. he police who did it had no idea there was an ongoing appeal still though. The supposed ongoing appeal simply consisted of the Home Office conferring with the defense periodically. There were no proceedings the police were made aware of.
Nothing destroyed could have been used to try to free Jeremy. The only thing destroyed that the defense complained about was the blood samples that is the only thing they found some use for and that was only for the worthless DNA tests. The attachments to the above document were not uploaded ot this site but were given to the defense attorneys and they found nothing to argue was destroyed which could have freed Jeremy.
There was nothing at all in 1996 that was brought up to police that suggested Jeremy's innocence and they thus decided to destroy such evidence. The defense failed to come up with anything to establish Jeremy's innocence which is why the 2002 appeal failed.
-
How can you possibly know this?
That is what they asserted in the document that discusses the destruction and there is no reason to doubt it. No one has been able to articulate something destroyed that had the potential to exonerate Jeremy. There was no blood from the killer, nothing saved from under the fingernails of the victims that could be DNA from the killer, no other evidence which would be likely to contain the DNA of the killer, no blood that was removed in 1985/86 had been preserved...that kind of evidence is the only evidence that could potentially have established there was a different killer.
-
According to the above document, Whiddon was given carte blanche to decide what to keep, return and what to destroy. He fel he wasn't familiar enough with the case to make informed decisions so had someone else decide and just followed orders.
There was no reason to need the samples. There were no blood stains that they would need to have DNA tested so no need for the blood samples to use to rule out the victims hence no need for any victim blood. The only DNA tests they ended up doing were worthless as they had no ability to establish a thing. If they had some blood stains from the killer and they feared the stains would prove Sheila was the killer and thus disposed of them that would be one thing. But that is not the case and there objectively was no use for the blood samples.
DNA helps exonerate in cases where the DNA of the killer was left behind or someone other than the defent wound to have DNA of the victims on them. There was no way to predict any value of any DNA tests given the evidence in this case and the DNA tests ultimate done were indeed pointless.
Interestingly they destroyed Sheila's diaries to keep them from being sold. The Estate it appears would ave likedut ooot try to make money off them that is pretty scummy if the relatives approved of such.
[/quyou ote]ld
If you remember I showed you a document about blood results from Sheilas nightie which you admitted you did not understand - and these items were destroyed at a time when DNA testing was advancing and being used more and more in court cases . So I would say police guidelines exist for a reason - and they know that it was a very HIGH profile case so they had NO excuse for destroying items that could have held evidence
-
If you remember I showed you a document about blood results from Sheilas nightie which you admitted you did not understand - and these items were destroyed at a time when DNA testing was advancing and being used more and more in court cases . So I would say police guidelines exist for a reason - and they know that it was a very HIGH profile case so they had NO excuse for destroying items that could have held evidence
The only blood on Sheila's nightgown was the blood that leaked down from her neck and the blood from her wrist. There was no other blood to analyze. There was nothing that could have been spatter from any other victim. That being the case what testing could have been done to the gown to try to exonerate Jeremy? In the meantime spatter indicates being present when someone else is shot/beaten, it doesn't prove the person was the one doing the beating/shooting. So if there had been spatter it would be evidence that she was nearby when such person was beaten or shot and other things have to be looked at to assess whether she was the perp or just a victim who was present.
-
The only blood on Sheila's nightgown was the blood that leaked down from her neck and the blood from her wrist. There was no other blood to analyze. There was nothing that could have been spatter from any other victim. That being the case what testing could have been done to the gown to try to exonerate Jeremy? In the meantime spatter indicates being present when someone else is shot/beaten, it doesn't prove the person was the one doing the beating/shooting. So if there had been spatter it would be evidence that she was nearby when such person was beaten or shot and other things have to be looked at to assess whether she was the perp or just a victim who was present.
so in the past you have said the fact there was no other victims blood on her was proof she was innocent . Now you are saying if for example a very small amount of blood was on her from say the twins - then it would not implicate her at all ? That's convenient.
-
so in the past you have said the fact there was no other victims blood on her was proof she was innocent . Now you are saying if for example a very small amount of blood was on her from say the twins - then it would not implicate her at all ? That's convenient.
I cited the lack of victim blood, GSR and lead on her hands in unison. I stated in the past that spatter indicates being present near someone killed not necessarily doing the killing. Thus if some spatter had been found it would not alone establish she did anything beyond be present when someone else was beaten or shot.
There was no blood though found on the gown besides the blood she transferred from her wrist and the blood that flowed from her own wounds. Why would the police need to destroy the gown when there was no blood on it to be concealed? If spatter had been found then one could speculate (and that is all it would be is speculation without proof) maybe the police destroyed it to prevent a DNA test that would determine whose spatter it had been. But no spatter had been found so there is no way to make such an argument.
If spatter had been found though it would have been cited at trial and the gown would not have fit the criteria for destruction in the first place and had it nonetheless been destroyed that would have created a problem because then the question would be why was it destroyed though it didn't fit the criteria established to sort out what was to be destroyed. So there would be a problem to address even without speculating the destruction was to hide evidence.
-
but there should have been blood on the back of the nightie surely - was there not blood on the carpet underneath where she was laying?
-
just for reference
-
but there should have been blood on the back of the nightie surely - was there not blood on the carpet underneath where she was laying?
There were small drops of blood on the carpet. Whether any was under her body is unclear. However there is no requirement that a tiny drop of blood on a carpet will transfer to her upon her being placed over the rug. It depends on how long a period of time passed for it to dry as well as how much blood was there to be transferred in addition to whether she was actually on the blood not just near it. . Blood on her back would not be of any use to the inquiry though anyway unless it were spatter in which case it would establish she had her back near a victim at the time someone else beat/shot the victim. That would obviously incriminate Jeremy further as opposed to be exculpatory.
-
just for reference
There are 2 lines pertaining to the dress both of which say blood type A was found. The scientists said they tested blood from 2 locations- the blood on her shoulder and the blood her hand deposited. The other references on the page are to things other than the dress including what appears to be a key but only someone who filled it out or was trained to fill it out and thus read it would be able to address the other references.
-
Because they saw no need for the items that were not used as trial exhibits. No use was found for them in more than a decade and they didn't foresee any future use.
That is false that there was an order not to destroy things. The supposed court order to not destroy anything didn't exist. It was standard police policy to not destroy things while an appeal was ongoing. he police who did it had no idea there was an ongoing appeal still though. The supposed ongoing appeal simply consisted of the Home Office conferring with the defense periodically. There were no proceedings the police were made aware of.
Nothing destroyed could have been used to try to free Jeremy. The only thing destroyed that the defense complained about was the blood samples that is the only thing they found some use for and that was only for the worthless DNA tests. The attachments to the above document were not uploaded ot this site but were given to the defense attorneys and they found nothing to argue was destroyed which could have freed Jeremy.
There was nothing at all in 1996 that was brought up to police that suggested Jeremy's innocence and they thus decided to destroy such evidence. The defense failed to come up with anything to establish Jeremy's innocence which is why the 2002 appeal failed.
In order to know this, you would have to have been high up the police service at the time and you weren't. Your just making this stuff up to suit your narrative
-
In order to know this, you would have to have been high up the police service at the time and you weren't. Your just making this stuff up to suit your narrative
There is no need to be a cop to understand if there could be any potential use for the evidence all one needs is an understanding of the case. Indeed Jeremy's lawyers are the ones who would try to figure out some use but failed to find any use for anything except the moderator with the worthless. WHat did the defense cry about being destroyed? The blood samples they wanted to use for the DNA tests of the moderator. What else? They haven't found any way to allege they could have used other evidence to exonerate him.
Anyone who want to allege police destroyed evidence to prevent testing which could have exonerated Jeremy must find some potential way for Jeremy to have been exonerated if a specific piece of evidence wasn't destroyed. Jeremy's lawyers couldn't figure out a way for any of it to have cleared him so I doubt anyone here who wants to allege it would be able to either. Of course his lawyers have the advantage of knowing what was destroyed but we don't because the attachments referenced in the various documents have not been uploaded on this site.
But since we know the evidence used to convict Jeremy we can figure out what is necessary to exonerate him. Exonerating him requires proving the moderator wasn't used. to kill Sheila. The only way to prove it wasn't used is to prove the blood removed from the moderator wasn't hers. The re is no way to do that because none of the blood was saved by the lab or the defense expert. The only other way to prove it wasn't used would be if someone were to confess they planted the blood and removed blood from the rifle. So establishing his innocence can't be accomplished by looking at any of the physical evidence retained in the case but rather hinges upon someone coming forward with credible evidence that tampering of evidence took place.
This is the factual reality of the situation
-
There is no need to be a cop to understand if there could be any potential use for the evidence all one needs is an understanding of the case. Indeed Jeremy's lawyers are the ones who would try to figure out some use but failed to find any use for anything except the moderator with the worthless. WHat did the defense cry about being destroyed? The blood samples they wanted to use for the DNA tests of the moderator. What else? They haven't found any way to allege they could have used other evidence to exonerate him.
Anyone who want to allege police destroyed evidence to prevent testing which could have exonerated Jeremy must find some potential way for Jeremy to have been exonerated if a specific piece of evidence wasn't destroyed. Jeremy's lawyers couldn't figure out a way for any of it to have cleared him so I doubt anyone here who wants to allege it would be able to either. Of course his lawyers have the advantage of knowing what was destroyed but we don't because the attachments referenced in the various documents have not been uploaded on this site.
But since we know the evidence used to convict Jeremy we can figure out what is necessary to exonerate him. Exonerating him requires proving the moderator wasn't used. to kill Sheila. The only way to prove it wasn't used is to prove the blood removed from the moderator wasn't hers. The re is no way to do that because none of the blood was saved by the lab or the defense expert. The only other way to prove it wasn't used would be if someone were to confess they planted the blood and removed blood from the rifle. So establishing his innocence can't be accomplished by looking at any of the physical evidence retained in the case but rather hinges upon someone coming forward with credible evidence that tampering of evidence took place.
This is the factual reality of the situation
No your just making stuff up and speculating to attempt to join the dots
-
No your just making stuff up and speculating to attempt to join the dots
No making things up is what you do. The process of how the decision was made of what to destroy has been explained. Whiddon was told to make the decision himself based on what would not be needed. He wasn't told what to destroy initially he was told to make the decisions himself. He balked and said he lacked the expertise to know so someone else had to evaluate what would be needed. If Whiddon's superiors had decided to destroy evidence to deny its use to the defense then the superiors would have decided what needed to be destroyed straight away not have given Whiddon the discretion to decide himself.
First the crying from you and others was you wanted to know how the decision was made regarding what to destroy, now that the answer is out there you and other Jeremy supporters are MAKING UP that police destroyed the evidence because they knew there were advances in science which would enable to evidence to be used to establish Jeremy's innocence. What basis is there to make the allegation? None.
I have issued a challenge to Jan and you and anyone else who wants to assert that police intentionally destroyed evidence to prevent it from establishing Jeremy is innocent. That challenge is to identify something that was destroyed which had the potential to establish Jeremy's innocence and explain how it could have potentially established his innocence. If you can't even think up a way for some piece of evidence that was destroyed to establish his innocence through new scientific testing unavailable at the time of trial then you have no argument at all.
But you have demonstrated time and again you have no valid arguments to make only parroting of the lies and tlaking points contained on the JB campaign site.
-
No making things up is what you do. The process of how the decision was made of what to destroy has been explained. Whiddon was told to make the decision himself based on what would not be needed. He wasn't told what to destroy initially he was told to make the decisions himself. He balked and said he lacked the expertise to know so someone else had to evaluate what would be needed. If Whiddon's superiors had decided to destroy evidence to deny its use to the defense then the superiors would have decided what needed to be destroyed straight away not have given Whiddon the discretion to decide himself.
First the crying from you and others was you wanted to know how the decision was made regarding what to destroy, now that the answer is out there you and other Jeremy supporters are MAKING UP that police destroyed the evidence because they knew there were advances in science which would enable to evidence to be used to establish Jeremy's innocence. What basis is there to make the allegation? None.
I have issued a challenge to Jan and you and anyone else who wants to assert that police intentionally destroyed evidence to prevent it from establishing Jeremy is innocent. That challenge is to identify something that was destroyed which had the potential to establish Jeremy's innocence and explain how it could have potentially established his innocence. If you can't even think up a way for some piece of evidence that was destroyed to establish his innocence through new scientific testing unavailable at the time of trial then you have no argument at all.
But you have demonstrated time and again you have no valid arguments to make only parroting of the lies and tlaking points contained on the JB campaign site.
Whatever Scippy
I'm not making any claims for or against Jeremy in this argument. I'm just pointing out that your making things up because your claiming things that you cannot possibly know. ::)
-
Whatever Scippy
I'm not making any claims for or against Jeremy in this argument. I'm just pointing out that your making things up because your claiming things that you cannot possibly know. ::)
Point out what I made up and establish it was just made up. Let's see if you know how to actually present an argument and know how to attempt to prove it.
-
The only way to prove it wasn't used is to prove the blood removed from the moderator wasn't hers.
Wrong as usual. The real point is that the prosecution failed to prove that the silencer WAS used. Unfortunately 10 of the jury voted banking on the prosecution's evidence to be honest and truthful, when in actual fact the silencer was "allegedly" found by the relatives, an interested party as it were they who wanted Jeremy to be convicted. One still wonders what Boutflour meant when he stated that he "had something up his sleeve", that would get Jeremy convicted?
-
I've wondered that for long enough Mr G. A shifty thing to say if ever there was.
I bet Jeremy never even gave a thought to using a phrase like that,let alone having said it to the rentagob ex.girlfriend, seeing that he was alleged to have said everything else " connected to the murders ".
-
Wrong as usual. The real point is that the prosecution failed to prove that the silencer WAS used. Unfortunately 10 of the jury voted banking on the prosecution's evidence to be honest and truthful, when in actual fact the silencer was "allegedly" found by the relatives, an interested party as it were they who wanted Jeremy to be convicted. One still wonders what Boutflour meant when he stated that he "had something up his sleeve", that would get Jeremy convicted?
How do we know he said that? (By the way - welcome back :)).
-
Caroline,it's the same as asking how we knew JM said half the things that she did,thinking they were true. However,we now know that she did say some of these things as she didn't care at the time whether they were true or not,although erring on the side of caution when it came to an outright accusation ??
Whatever we hear was to further blacken Jeremy anyway,whether these things were said or not.
-
Caroline,it's the same as asking how we knew JM said half the things that she did,thinking they were true. However,we now know that she did say some of these things as she didn't care at the time whether they were true or not,although erring on the side of caution when it came to an outright accusation ??
Whatever we hear was to further blacken Jeremy anyway,whether these things were said or not.
So we don't actually 'know' that he did say it? There are lots and lots of things here that we 'thought; we knew which have turned out to be nothing more than complete myth. Unless it's documented then we don't know whether or not it was actually said.
-
So we don't actually 'know' that he did say it? There are lots and lots of things here that we 'thought; we knew which have turned out to be nothing more than complete myth. Unless it's documented then we don't know whether or not it was actually said.
I've asked before. Got no answer, so I filed it under myth.
-
I've asked before. Got no answer, so I filed it under myth.
I think that's where it belongs.
-
So we don't actually 'know' that he did say it? There are lots and lots of things here that we 'thought; we knew which have turned out to be nothing more than complete myth. Unless it's documented then we don't know whether or not it was actually said.
So what you are saying in effect that just because Mugford's testimony was documented then it must be true?
I thought I had read it on the forum and I believe it was documented?
-
So what you are saying in effect that just because Mugford's testimony was documented then it must be true?
I thought I had read it on the forum and I believe it was documented?
Errrr where did I say that? You are completely missing my point - whether Mugford is telling the truth or not, people can quote her and it can be checked by referring to her statements. You comment on Boutflour can be checked where? You know yourself that people have said things here and it has been quoted so often that it's taken as fact. I like to check what was 'actually' said (be it the truth or not) not what someone 'might' have said.
-
I've asked before. Got no answer, so I filed it under myth.
The 'I've got something up my sleeve' quote is also in my filing cabinet. Under 'M' for 'Mysterious'.
-
Hi
I have done this in the past, and will again.
here is the link
http://www.essex.pcc.police.uk/2015/02/essex-police-challenge-comes-to-witham/
Nick Alston has stated he will not support a request for Essex Police to show that they have not framed JB.
All would take is the release of the original reports from the team surrounding the farm house.
I believe its a good idea to have a long documented history of giving Essex Police the opportunity to come clean.
As you all know I have been in contact with officers who were inside the farmhouse and have been threatened by Essex Police for doing this.
This was done to try and keep what happened a secret,this is one of the most darkest acts in UK policeing.
Essex Police have Framed Jeremy Bamber.
No, he managed that all on his own. (http://images.zaazu.com/img/clap-animated-animation-clap-smiley-emoticon-000340-medium.gif)
-
Point out what I made up and establish it was just made up. Let's see if you know how to actually present an argument and know how to attempt to prove it.
I already have pointed this out. What you have said about Essex police in regards to the destruction of the evidence is totally your speculation and guesswork.
1. Essex police and the Metropolitan police don't reveal such information to outsiders.
2. There has never been a public inquest or inquiry into why the evidence was destroyed
3. The Essex or Metropolitan police have not randomly got in contact with you to spill the beans
Therefore the only alternative is that you would have to have been high up in the police to have been informed of the information you have claimed. But you never have been in such position in the police force.
Therefore its fair to conclude what you have claimed is nothing but speculation and guesses that you have portrayed as factual events.
I rest my case.
I look forward to your essay ::)
-
I already have pointed this out. What you have said about Essex police in regards to the destruction of the evidence is totally your speculation and guesswork.
1. Essex police and the Metropolitan police don't reveal such information to outsiders.
2. There has never been a public inquest or inquiry into why the evidence was destroyed
3. The Essex or Metropolitan police have not randomly got in contact with you to spill the beans
Therefore the only alternative is that you would have to have been high up in the police to have been informed of the information you have claimed. But you never have been in such position in the police force.
Therefore its fair to conclude what you have claimed is nothing but speculation and guesses that you have portrayed as factual events.
I rest my case.
I look forward to your essay ::)
Whiddon's statement posted on this site explains how the process went about. It was posted by Jeremy supporters who were given access to it by Jeremy and the defense. So your points have no validity at all. You want to pretend the document isn't here and ignore the ramifications because you have egg on your face as a result of Jeremy's supporters having it and being able to post it.
Far from speculating I was using evidence posted by Jeremy supporters and you want to ignore that evidence so you can baselessly attack me. You are just making yourself look foolish.
My points were all logical including that the only way to even begin to hope to suggest police destroyed evidence to keep it from being tested to prove Jeremy's innocence would require the person making the claim to identify HOW testing of a particular item destroyed using some new science could establish his innocence. No one is able to do that because there is no new testing of anything that could accomplish such. The only way to prove me wrong is to identify a test using new science of an item destroyed that could establish his innocence. I dare you to try proving me wrong.
-
another document
-
I would ask them why photos and negatives missing? Used for lectures? Really?
-
Whiddon's statement posted on this site explains how the process went about. It was posted by Jeremy supporters who were given access to it by Jeremy and the defense. So your points have no validity at all. You want to pretend the document isn't here and ignore the ramifications because you have egg on your face as a result of Jeremy's supporters having it and being able to post it.
Far from speculating I was using evidence posted by Jeremy supporters and you want to ignore that evidence so you can baselessly attack me. You are just making yourself look foolish.
My points were all logical including that the only way to even begin to hope to suggest police destroyed evidence to keep it from being tested to prove Jeremy's innocence would require the person making the claim to identify HOW testing of a particular item destroyed using some new science could establish his innocence. No one is able to do that because there is no new testing of anything that could accomplish such. The only way to prove me wrong is to identify a test using new science of an item destroyed that could establish his innocence. I dare you to try proving me wrong.
Whiddon's statement doesn't prove anything about the situation in 1996. More to the point highlighted above how can I prove to you your wrong? Your head is too far up your backside to ever see its a possibility. And what makes an attempt so daring? all you will do is reply with a huge essay to try and change the subject or make up more reasons why you are correct.
You have been proved mistaken and contradictory many times by myself and others. its not important what information you ignore or admit to wrongdoings what's important is that other people can see that your information is more or less a fraud for lack of a better word
-
Whiddon's statement doesn't prove anything about the situation in 1996. More to the point highlighted above how can I prove to you your wrong? Your head is too far up your backside to ever see its a possibility. And what makes an attempt so daring? all you will do is reply with a huge essay to try and change the subject or make up more reasons why you are correct.
You have been proved mistaken and contradictory many times by myself and others. its not important what information you ignore or admit to wrongdoings what's important is that other people can see that your information is more or less a fraud for lack of a better word
In your imagination you have proved me wrong. Anytime you are challenged to back up your assertions with evidence you are unable to do so. You can't identify what i was proved wrong about let alone demonstrate it.
Whiddon's statement explained the process and answers the questions regarding the instructions he was given of what should be gotten rid of either by giving it back to the rightful owner or destroying it. He was told that they would not retain items that the lawyers at trial had found no value for. No use of such items had been found prior to, during or after the trial and it was felt they never would have any value.
The CCRC ended up erroneously thinking DNA tests would serve some function and thus wanted the blood samples but that had been destroyed. No one has come up with an well supported argument that anything that was destroyed could have helped establish Jeremy's innocence. No one has been able to articulate a way for anything destroyed to have held information that could have exonerated him. Unless someone can articulate such there is no significance in the destruction of such evidence.
-
another document
I wonder if there was ever an answer from Special Branch ? Your guess is as good as mine. :o
-
How do you know what present day testing would have revealed if there was no opportunity to carry out those tests . And of course it is significant as it was carried out against the guidelines that EP had themselves drawn up . And why were special branch involved?
-
I've asked before. Got no answer, so I filed it under myth.
Apparently it was written in Anne Eatons notes - her words that DB said to her .
Whether someone wants to search it out is up to you but that is the source - allegedly
-
Quite a few questions to put to EP in their open question time. Some hope of getting a reply let alone any answers. If not,the answer is to go higher. ;)
-
In your imagination you have proved me wrong. Anytime you are challenged to back up your assertions with evidence you are unable to do so. You can't identify what i was proved wrong about let alone demonstrate it.
Whiddon's statement explained the process and answers the questions regarding the instructions he was given of what should be gotten rid of either by giving it back to the rightful owner or destroying it. He was told that they would not retain items that the lawyers at trial had found no value for. No use of such items had been found prior to, during or after the trial and it was felt they never would have any value.
The CCRC ended up erroneously thinking DNA tests would serve some function and thus wanted the blood samples but that had been destroyed. No one has come up with an well supported argument that anything that was destroyed could have helped establish Jeremy's innocence. No one has been able to articulate a way for anything destroyed to have held information that could have exonerated him. Unless someone can articulate such there is no significance in the destruction of such evidence.
If believing that makes you feel better ::) I'm not going round in circles. just read the counterclaims and arguments against you in the previous discussions. What you think is of secondary importance what's most important is that everyone else can read this forum and make their own minds up.
-
Just bringing back this thread as I don't want to lose track of it.
Bambergate has put a LOT of work into seeking the truth about this case and has investigated where none of us would dream about doing,so I think it only right for the thread not to sink to the bottom of the pile.
-
Apparently it was written in Anne Eatons notes - her words that DB said to her .
Whether someone wants to search it out is up to you but that is the source - allegedly
I think that is where I saw it as well?
-
Apparently it was written in Anne Eatons notes - her words that DB said to her .
Whether someone wants to search it out is up to you but that is the source - allegedly
So he actually said something up his sleeve 'to get Jeremy convicted'?
-
I think that is where I saw it as well?
It did appear in AE's notes. I put my theory to the test about it yesterday,but as usual,it faded into oblivion. I know exactly how Jeremy feels when nobody listens. :( Head against a brick wall job.
-
So he actually said something up his sleeve 'to get Jeremy convicted'?
Why else would he have something up his sleeve? He certainly managed to incriminate him by allegedly finding "the" silencer?
-
Why else would he have something up his sleeve? He certainly managed to incriminate him by allegedly finding "the" silencer?
It would seem that AE had tried everything else to MAKE EP change their minds but they weren't having any and they certainly didn't like " Taff " for throwing them out of his office after he told AE to stop writing.
-
Why else would he have something up his sleeve? He certainly managed to incriminate him by allegedly finding "the" silencer?
So he didn't actually mention 'conviction'? He could have been referring to anything. However, DB couldn't have engineered the silencer evidence on his own. I don't think we can assume anything
You accused me of using supposition yesterday and that's what this is. However, the supposition in this instance is added to a sentence he 'might' have said without knowing what was actually meant. This is how so many things get taken as fact when in fact they started life here in opinion or supposition.
-
Can anyone explain in such a huge murder case,why there's no forensic evidence ?
-
Can anyone explain in such a huge murder case,why there's no forensic evidence ?
There is forensic evidence you just ignore it because it establishes Jeremy is guilt y and you hate to face that reality.
The forensic evidence establishes Sheila didn't load a gun, didn't fire a gun, didn't beat anyone, didn't kill anyone else and didn't kill herself.
The forensic evidence proves someone else was at WHF who killed everyone and then left the scene. Since you prefer believing Sheila killed everyone you ignore it. It amounts to dishonesty on your part to deny it exists. Saying you don't believe such evidence though you have no way to refute it would be one thing. But you always go the extra mile and say it doesn't exist. You not only demonstrate your extreme bias when you do that but dishonesty because you have been reminded countless time it exists and when challenged to refute the evidence you have failed miserably.
His lawyers don't have the luxury of living in fantasyland they have to face this evidence and are forced to try to find a way to refute it. To date they have been unable to do so and unless they can they have no hope of establishing Jeremy's innocence and getting him out of prison.
-
So he actually said something up his sleeve 'to get Jeremy convicted'?
no don't think so.
-
I'd have seen the evidence if there'd been any. ::) This is why I asked the question.
-
Just because 5 people are dead at the scene doesn't tell me anything apart from the fact that they were all shot.
-
I'd have seen the evidence if there'd been any. ::) This is why I asked the question.
To be fair Lookout, Scipio has just told you what the evidence was/is, whether you chose to accept it or not is another story but you asked the question.
-
To be fair Lookout, Scipio has just told you what the evidence was/is, whether you chose to accept it or not is another story but you asked the question.
I won't even acknowledge his posts when he kicks off in insulting mode.
-
I won't even acknowledge his posts when he kicks off in insulting mode.
Here you go Lookout - without the insults. :)
"The forensic evidence establishes Sheila didn't load a gun, didn't fire a gun, didn't beat anyone, didn't kill anyone else and didn't kill herself."
-
Here you go Lookout - without the insults. :)
"The forensic evidence establishes Sheila didn't load a gun, didn't fire a gun, didn't beat anyone, didn't kill anyone else and didn't kill herself."
Thanks for trying though I doubt it will work.
But yes the forensic evidence merely proves Sheila (and the other victims) didn't do it but rather someone who left the scene did it. The forensic evidence alone doesn't establish the identity of the person(s) who did it and left the scene. Circumstantial evidence and testimonial evidence from Julie established the killer was Jeremy.
If lookout wants to try refuting the forensic evidence she can do so to her heart's content but just saying it doesn't exist doesn't accomplish such.
-
To be fair Lookout, Scipio has just told you what the evidence was/is, whether you chose to accept it or not is another story but you asked the question.
Erm, no. He has just given his opinion of what he thinks the forensic evidence shows. I don't think he is right. Taking also into consideration that there is absolutely no forensic evidence that puts JB at the crime scene at the time of the murders.
-
Yes,I think I'm entitled to my own personal opinion without the need for any prompting from someone who thinks he's right ALL the time.
-
Erm, no. He has just given his opinion of what he thinks the forensic evidence shows. I don't think he is right. Taking also into consideration that there is absolutely no forensic evidence that puts JB at the crime scene at the time of the murders.
It is what the experts at trial said the evidence shows which to this day has not been successfully rebutted by the defense.
-
It is what the experts at trial said the evidence shows which to this day has not been successfully rebutted by the defense.
Do you have the trial transcript that depicts the experts testimonies at hand?
-
Erm, no. He has just given his opinion of what he thinks the forensic evidence shows. I don't think he is right. Taking also into consideration that there is absolutely no forensic evidence that puts JB at the crime scene at the time of the murders.
And that's your opinion. However, there was no gun residue found on Sheila and to have fired the rifle around 25 times it's highly unlikely that there would be no gun residue on her hands and clothes.
-
And that's your opinion. However, there was no gun residue found on Sheila and to have fired the rifle around 25 times it's highly unlikely that there would be no gun residue on her hands and clothes.
Which of course is very strange, as most of the residue is expelled from the muzzle end of the gun. If that is so and it IS so then it is logical that Sheila could not fail to get residue on her. So forgive me in thinking that they were not being very truthful on that one.
-
Apparently it was written in Anne Eatons notes - her words that DB said to her .
Whether someone wants to search it out is up to you but that is the source - allegedly
I've just had a good luck and I can't find it. There is a lot though so will carry on.
The first mention I found for it was in 2011.
Ann Eaton notes - David told me he had got something up his sleeve
What did David Boutflour mean when he told Ann that "he had got something up his sleeve" when Jeremy was trying to get sureties for bail when he was first arrested? How odd, that these comments should be made around the time the silencer was handed over to Essex police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985?
What did Ann Eaton, think her brother meant?
But not backed up by any document.
-
I've just had a good luck and I can't find it. There is a lot though so will carry on.
The first mention I found for it was in 2011.
But not backed up by any document.
Cheers for that Mat - according to Mike's post, it was said (if it was said) after Jeremy was arrested anyway.
-
Which of course is very strange, as most of the residue is expelled from the muzzle end of the gun. If that is so and it IS so then it is logical that Sheila could not fail to get residue on her. So forgive me in thinking that they were not being very truthful on that one.
1) you are ignoring that PGSR and soot are expelled through the ejection port and vents (those holes adjacent to the ejection port which exist for gases and PGSR to escape through). That is how the shooter gets PGSR and soot on their hands and clothing and after 25 shots would have a good amount on them. Hugging the weapon as she fired would have resulted in PGSR and soot on her gown.
This photo is from the photo section of this website
(http://s18.postimg.org/sl1nyrqih/FA16.jpg)
2) you are ignoring that her fatal wound was a soft contact wound so how would GSR get on her clothing if it was propelled directly into her wound?
Her not-fatal wound was determined to be either a soft contact wound or close contact which means the distance between the barrel and her neck was not much so the unburned gunpowder would go mostly in and around the wound. Unburned powder gets less concentrated the further the gun is fired from the victim. Use a flashlight to simulate it. Stick the flashlight against the wall to simulate a contact wound. Now move it away. The further away the bigger circle on the wall. It would have to be fired at a good distance for the cone of unburned gunpowder to extend to her gown when shot in the neck. She wasn't shot from far enough away for that to happen. Had she been shot from far enough away for unburned powder to get on her gown from either shot then that would be ABSOLUTE proof she was murdered because her arms are not long enough to hold the gun that far away.
(http://s15.postimg.org/j08aprdu3/contact.jpg)
In case you can't read the print it states:
"A loose contact wound results when the muzzle end of the weapon is not pressed firmly against the body, but instead is held loosely in contact with the body at the moment of discharge. Such wounds are characterized by a wide, yet desne, deposit of soot encircling the central perforation, and the absense of significant searing, obvious muzzle imprint, or significant powder tattooing. If powder tattooing is present, the tattoo marks or grains of gunpowder are usually within the ring of soot."
"By definition, near contact gunshot wounds occur when the muzzle of the weapon is held near, but not in contact with, the body surface, and yet close enough that significant powder tattooing does not occur."
A photo of sooting:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUN004.html
-
Cheers for that Mat - according to Mike's post, it was said (if it was said) after Jeremy was arrested anyway.
Do you know what,if we went through all the " if it was saids ",there wouldn't be a case because the majority of evidence was on hearsay anyway. :o
-
I've already said why there was little or no residue.It was because the bullets were copper-plated.
-
I've just had a good luck and I can't find it. There is a lot though so will carry on.
The first mention I found for it was in 2011.
But not backed up by any document.
There IS a document somewhere,I've seen it and I'm almost sure it was written by AE,signed and counter-signed. I'll find it if it kills me ( oh good I hear you say )
-
During the time of the murders,The Times newspaper had reported that the jobs were at risk of three senior officers with the Essex Police Force. I wonder who they were ?
Then in the NOTW,it had stated that police may have bungled by destroying vital clues.
These were prints from 1985,as in one newspaper,the Gazette,the public were mounting their concerns over the way the case was being handled.
-
Erm,here's a good one. " The judge A.Arlidge QC told the Trial Judge and Defence Council in Chambers,and this was repeated in Open Court that " Julie Mugford has given me her assurance that she has not sold her story to a newspaper,and has no intention of doing so ".
JM did so on the 9th of October 1986.
-
During the time of the murders,The Times newspaper had reported that the jobs were at risk of three senior officers with the Essex Police Force. I wonder who they were ?
Then in the NOTW,it had stated that police may have bungled by destroying vital clues.
These were prints from 1985,as in one newspaper,the Gazette,the public were mounting their concerns over the way the case was being handled.
Erm,here's a good one. " The judge A.Arlidge QC told the Trial Judge and Defence Council in Chambers,and this was repeated in Open Court that " Julie Mugford has given me her assurance that she has not sold her story to a newspaper,and has no intention of doing so ".
JM did so on the 9th of October 1986.
Good as it MAY be, neither will make a guilty man innocent nor an innocent man guilty. All it can do is bring them to court. The rest is down to "learned counsel."
-
However,in JM's 2002 witness statement,she had to admit to having been to the newspapers, which was later ruled in breach of guidelines by the Press Complaints Council,but she was never made to pay back the money.
JM must have known about her large sum of money quite early on because it's known that she stopped work in the March-1986 then ran up a large overdraft until the trial in 1986,so she'd been BOUND by what was to be an act of betrayal and a greed for money.
Also the £ 400 that Jeremy had given to her for a holiday was cashed in the September of 1986,7 days after she'd been taken into custody after accusing Jeremy of hiring a hitman ? Happy to spend money from a " murderer " then ??
-
However,in JM's 2002 witness statement,she had to admit to having been to the newspapers, which was later ruled in breach of guidelines by the Press Complaints Council,but she was never made to pay back the money.
JM must have known about her large sum of money quite early on because it's known that she stopped work in the March-1986 then ran up a large overdraft until the trial in 1986,so she'd been BOUND by what was to be an act of betrayal and a greed for money.
Also the £ 400 that Jeremy had given to her for a holiday was cashed in the September of 1986,7 days after she'd been taken into custody after accusing Jeremy of hiring a hitman ? Happy to spend money from a " murderer " then ??
Lookout as you and I are quite aware the Law has nothing to do with justice. ;)
-
Lookout as you and I are quite aware the Law has nothing to do with justice. ;)
You're telling me,Mr G.
-
DB and PE had both told the police and the court that they'd seen Sheila handling a gun. EP knew anyway,so why was the court led to believe that she couldn't do so ? We all know that PE had told COLP about Scotland and the shoot that went on there,but this piece of evidence which was handwritten went missing after the typed version which had been disclosed to the IPCC and the Defence.
-
DB and PE had both told the police and the court that they'd seen Sheila handling a gun. EP knew anyway,so why was the court led to believe that she couldn't do so ? We all know that PE had told COLP about Scotland and the shoot that went on there,but this piece of evidence which was handwritten went missing after the typed version which had been disclosed to the IPCC and the Defence.
Yes I'm afraid these "respectable" people are believed too readily.
-
Yes I'm afraid these "respectable" people are believed too readily.
Of course they are. Respectability might have counted for something in the early 1900's,but certainly not the mid-80's.
-
The ages relating to Sheila,26/27 ? must have been altered to the right age.Were they,and who altered them ? This was only the start of getting things wrong,so are we to believe that EVERYTHING was right about the case ?
-
For as long as there are differences in the ages to which Sheila was supposed to have been,there will forever be the uncertainty as to whether there were indeed two separate calls made.
-
I've already said why there was little or no residue.It was because the bullets were copper-plated.
1) whether they were jacketed or not has to do with whether SHeila's hands would have lead on them from loading the bullets. Jacketed bullets still result in PGSR and soot getting on the shooter.
2) You are factually wrong as usual. The bullets at WHF were not jacketed (copper-coated)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9Ag8AGIAAARCgJ.jpg:large)
-
Ah well,brains aren't everything. In fact,in your case they're nothing.
-
Ah well,brains aren't everything. In fact,in your case they're nothing.
It would be nice if you would use yours and thus to stop asserting claims already pointed out to you in the past as false.
-
Erm, no. He has just given his opinion of what he thinks the forensic evidence shows. I don't think he is right. Taking also into consideration that there is absolutely no forensic evidence that puts JB at the crime scene at the time of the murders.
Yes and no alibi which put him anywhere else at the time they were committed.
-
It would be nice if you would use yours and thus to stop asserting claims already pointed out to you in the past as false.
Lookout keeps repeating the same old tired mantra that there is no forensic evidence in the case yet we know very well that the forensic evidence is in fact substantial.
There never could be any forensics connecting Jeremy directly to the murders because his prints and DNA would be all over the house and the rifle in any event. Wearing gloves during the murders would have prevented any further contamination. The rifle appeared to be wiped clean of fingerprints simply because the killer wore gloves while handling it.
Julie never did do a deal with the newspapers but her lawyer interceded and made an arrangement on her behalf in order to keep the Press at arms length. Very sensible really.
-
Lookout keeps repeating the same old tired mantra that there is no forensic evidence in the case yet we know very well that the forensic evidence is in fact substantial.
Quite true that such is her mantra but when corrected about a specific factual point she still usually ends up repeating the erroneous claim in the future anyway. In this particular instance the claim that the bullets were "copper coated" (jacketed). Only 2 days ago I corrected her on that. It is one of the facts not in dispute so she should not be saying it over and over.
-
Lookout keeps repeating the same old tired mantra that there is no forensic evidence in the case yet we know very well that the forensic evidence is in fact substantial.
There never could be any forensics connecting Jeremy directly to the murders because his prints and DNA would be all over the house and the rifle in any event. Wearing gloves during the murders would have prevented any further contamination. The rifle appeared to be wiped clean of fingerprints simply because the killer wore gloves while handling it.
Julie never did do a deal with the newspapers but her lawyer interceded and made an arrangement on her behalf in order to keep the Press at arms length. Very sensible really.
Kindly list ALL the forensic evidence involving Jeremy.
-
Kindly list ALL the forensic evidence involving Jeremy.
There doesn't have to be any forensic evidence involving Jeremy. Jeremy put himself in the farme when he mentioned the phone call. If Sheila didn't go crazy with a gun, then Nevill didn't call Jeremy and if Nevill didn't call - how did Jeremy know 'there was something wrong at the farm'?
-
There doesn't have to be any forensic evidence involving Jeremy. Jeremy put himself in the farme when he mentioned the phone call. If Sheila didn't go crazy with a gun, then Nevill didn't call Jeremy and if Nevill didn't call - how did Jeremy know 'there was something wrong at the farm'?
I fully understand that you wish to keep Jeremy locked up,but how do you know that Neville didn't make that call ?
-
I fully understand that you wish to keep Jeremy locked up,but how do you know that Neville didn't make that call ?
Conversely, would you have Jeremy released purely on the possibility that Neville made the call?
-
Conversely, would you have Jeremy released purely on the possibility that Neville made the call?
At this point-------------yes,I would.
-
At this point-------------yes,I would.
So I expect you can understand why some of us are AS vehement when it comes to keeping him locked up.
-
It's alright saying " he's guilty " and ending it there,but I'm afraid Jeremy will NEVER give in,nor end his fight for justice,and rightly so.
Two words are all the opposition mutter,but think how many words Jeremy has used over the years in order to prove once and for all that he's an innocent man. Which has been the hardest,those two meaningless words or the millions of words that have kept Jeremy going through the years ?
Would anyone else be as determined as Jeremy has been.? I don't think so. He's not doing it all for the fun of it,or to pass the time. He's doing what we all would " attempt " to do and that's to see justice done.
When you know yourself that you're telling the truth,it's hard when you're just one voice in a crowd. He's got no family to rely on------------nobody,just those who are content to leave him where he is.
-
So I expect you can understand why some of us are AS vehement when it comes to keeping him locked up.
Well when you consider that a man who was proved to have killed two police officers has been set free who many think is still a danger to the public, then we do begin to wonder why Bamber is still behind bars just because you changed your mind about him, who was not so long ago vehemently defending him?
-
Well when you consider that a man who was proved to have killed two police officers has been set free who many think is still a danger to the public, then we do begin to wonder why Bamber is still behind bars just because you changed your mind about him, who was not so long ago vehemently defending him?
.........."We do begin to wonder why Bamber is still behind bars just because you changed your mind about him"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your words imply that it's MY fault he's still behind bars. I wasn't aware that I was so powerful.
-
There's more " power " in a NO vote under these circumstances,than a yes one !
-
.........."We do begin to wonder why Bamber is still behind bars just because you changed your mind about him"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your words imply that it's MY fault he's still behind bars. I wasn't aware that I was so powerful.
Don't be silly, of course I don't think that. But I was reminding you of your former stance where you vehemently defended him, but now because you have changed your mind you are equally vehement to keep him behind bars. But in reality nothing has changed the evidence has not changed and neither has Bamber. The only thing that has changed is your opinion of him.
-
Don't be silly, of course I don't think that. But I was reminding you of your former stance where you vehemently defended him, but now because you have changed your mind you are equally vehement to keep him behind bars. But in reality nothing has changed the evidence has not changed and neither has Bamber. The only thing that has changed is your opinion of him.
Yes, it is. My views on all else, rellies, Julie, police, remain very much as they were.
-
Yes and no alibi which put him anywhere else at the time they were committed.
Just because there isn't an alibi doesn't mean a thing. You should know that ? Or,judging by your answer,you clearly don't.
-
Yes, it is. My views on all else, rellies, Julie, police, remain very much as they were.
Mine remain the same since the trial and it ain't because I am emotionally involved either. It is because of the shoddy way in which the so called evidence was handled and those testimonies and that evidence that should not have been allowed in court. My opinion does not only rely upon whether a phone call did or did not happen, or upon whether he knew how much was in his fathers wallet.
-
Just because there isn't an alibi doesn't mean a thing. You should know that ? Or,judging by your answer,you clearly don't.
Any competent criminal would make sure he did have an alibi. I simply cannot see how a man can be both intelligent and smart at the same time as being stupid?
-
Yes, it is. My views on all else, rellies, Julie, police, remain very much as they were.
Now you're being silly. You can't have your cake and eat it. EVERYONE was right when Jeremy got his conviction. How can it be that you remain to have doubts about all those people who put Jeremy where he is ? I suggest you use these peoples' notes/statements,etc in a "process of elimination " as to their parts during the case. In other words,list any " misdemeanors " then balance them against the evidence that got Jeremy convicted and then look at the case from another angle and see what you come up with that blames Jeremy.
-
Mine remain the same since the trial and it ain't because I am emotionally involved either. It is because of the shoddy way in which the so called evidence was handled and those testimonies and that evidence that should not have been allowed in court. My opinion does not only rely upon whether a phone call did or did not happen, or upon whether he knew how much was in his fathers wallet.
If the phone call didn't happen - Jeremy is guilty - Oh sorry, you're not really concerned about that! The only reason the crime scene was handled as it was, was because Jeremy had everyone thinking his father called him and that Sheila had gone crazy with a gun. They thought it was a murder/suicide because that's what Jeremy fed them. However, I'm sure you're not concerned with that either! Jeremy is where his is because of his own devices and because he wasn't half as clever as he thought he was!
-
Now you're being silly. You can't have your cake and eat it. EVERYONE was right when Jeremy got his conviction. How can it be that you remain to have doubts about all those people who put Jeremy where he is ? I suggest you use these peoples' notes/statements,etc in a "process of elimination " as to their parts during the case. In other words,list any " misdemeanors " then balance them against the evidence that got Jeremy convicted and then look at the case from another angle and see what you come up with that blames Jeremy.
I think he was set up. I think there was collusion. But it doesn't mean he's innocent.................IMO.
-
I think he was set up. I think there was collusion. But it doesn't mean he's innocent.................IMO.
Well if you think he was " set up " ( which I don't think,funnily enough ) then think about how he was allegedly set-up and take it from there. You can't be guilty and set-up. It doesn't make sense.
-
Well if you think he was " set up " ( which I don't think,funnily enough ) then think about how he was allegedly set-up and take it from there. You can't be guilty and set-up. It doesn't make sense.
Makes eminent sense to me, Lookout.
-
Makes eminent sense to me, Lookout.
Set up by whom though ?
-
Kindly list ALL the forensic evidence involving Jeremy.
I have already listed the forensic evidence many times including here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6505.0.html
Forensic evidence is not required to secure a conviction. HOWEVER, there was forensic evidence in this case and that evidence proves someone who fled the scene murdered the victims.
Circumstantial and testimonial evidence establish that person who fled was Jeremy. The testimonial evidence came from Julie and also form Jeremy himself. Jeremy himself attempted to frame his sister by claiming he left the gun and bullets out and receiving a call from Nevill. The call proves he knew about the murders before anyone else and only someone would involved would be in a position to know. Worse by staging the bullets after the murders he proved he was at the scene after the murders.
Those who ignore this and decide to believe he is innocent are running on emotion and bias not logic.
-
Any competent criminal would make sure he did have an alibi. I simply cannot see how a man can be both intelligent and smart at the same time as being stupid?
1) Someone who commits a crime by definition can't have a legitimate alibi to prove they were somewhere else at the time they have to lie and make up a false alibi
2) Jeremy did just that and made up being at his home asleep and claimed his father called him and his claim he received such call was supposed to be his alibi.
The evidence establishing Sheila wasn't involved in committing the crimes and her body was staged to make it appear she had committed suicide caused his alibi to backfire and it helped establish he was the killer because he had no way to know about the murders unless he was the killer and would not have made up a call from Nevill blaming Sheila unless he was the one who staged her body to make it look like she committed suicide.
The argument he has to be innocent because no one can make the mistakes attributed to him is a nonsense argument.
-
Set up by whom though ?
Have you NEVER considered the possibility?
-
Have you NEVER considered the possibility?
Nope.
-
Nope.
Well, at least, having looked at it all round, I was able to consider every possibility.
-
1) Someone who commits a crime by definition can't have a legitimate alibi to prove they were somewhere else at the time they have to lie and make up a false alibi
2) Jeremy did just that and made up being at his home asleep and claimed his father called him and his claim he received such call was supposed to be his alibi.
The evidence establishing Sheila wasn't involved in committing the crimes and her body was staged to make it appear she had committed suicide caused his alibi to backfire and it helped establish he was the killer because he had no way to know about the murders unless he was the killer and would not have made up a call from Nevill blaming Sheila unless he was the one who staged her body to make it look like she committed suicide.
The argument he has to be innocent because no one can make the mistakes attributed to him is a nonsense argument.
The call was clearly supposed to be his alibi - it's saying 'hey everyone. I was at home when my dad called me - he was alive then and I was with police later, so it couldn't be me, but if you're interested, he did say Sheila had gone crazy and something about a gun?' ???
-
Nope.
If you want to believe he was set up without any evidence to establish it that is your business, it demonstrates though her point of your position being emotionally based. It is false hope to believe he will be pardoned without credible evidence to establish he was set up. Hopefully you can live with your hope not being realized.
-
But no one has PROVED that call did not happen.
It could have happened.
He never mentioned any shots or anyone being injured at the time.
Considering the amount of discussion about was the phone off the hook. Did he make another call. Would it have been engaged? Did JB pick up the phone at the other end ? Did his answer machine register it? how could the police listen in? Could they have traced the call at all? What records would have been kept by BT etc etc etc
Then because of all the talk about the above he must have been very clever to work out EXACTLY what would happen - and when it boils down to it if the police had gone straight in then it would have been obvious the crime had been committed a few hours before and therefore he would have had no alibi.
-
If you want to believe he was set up without any evidence to establish it that is your business, it demonstrates though her point of your position being emotionally based. It is false hope to believe he will be pardoned without credible evidence to establish he was set up. Hopefully you can live with your hope not being realized.
I'm afraid it's too easy to admit that it was a set-up,and I don't do easy.
I've already previously explained what went on that caused a flood of people calling it a set up. It wasn't. Without being " emotionally biased " ( a stupid thought ) it was EP's crackpot way of turning the case around from a murder/suicide to a murder of all the family. Two entirely different set-ups from the same force who conducted the investigation. The only difference being,that we haven't got the original files from when " Taff " Jones was first appointed to attend.
As soon as " Taff " was removed from the case ?? things started going awry,as I reckon that the officers present had bitten off more than they could chew and my belief was that they were relieved to get help from the relatives to lighten the load of what appeared to EP a state of confusion because they literally couldn't find a thing that tied Jeremy with the murders.
It was sheer incompetence by EP to have allowed the relatives a free rein instead of the officers doing what should have been,their job.
Could anyone see that happening today ?
-
But no one has PROVED that call did not happen.
It could have happened.
He never mentioned any shots or anyone being injured at the time.
Considering the amount of discussion about was the phone off the hook. Did he make another call. Would it have been engaged? Did JB pick up the phone at the other end ? Did his answer machine register it? how could the police listen in? Could they have traced the call at all? What records would have been kept by BT etc etc etc
Then because of all the talk about the above he must have been very clever to work out EXACTLY what would happen - and when it boils down to it if the police had gone straight in then it would have been obvious the crime had been committed a few hours before and therefore he would have had no alibi.
He said he got a phone so as to distance himself from the crime scene. Just saying he was home and knew nothing isn't much of an alibi, so he makes up a story that his father called when it all kicked off. In order to strengthen this 'notion', he leaves the phone off the hook at WHF. Scene set, line baited - hooked in; and so they were ......... initially. However, it's all pretty contrived and I guess EP came to realise that.
Jeremy fed information about guns and people going crazy banking on them not going in. However, why police know that he had no alibi? If they hadn't been dead long at that point, He could just as easily have claimed that Sheila must have shot them all straight after his fathers call. Time of death pin pointing, isn't that accurate.
-
He said he got a phone so as to distance himself from the crime scene. Just saying he was home and knew nothing isn't much of an alibi, so he makes up a story that his father called when it all kicked off. In order to strengthen this 'notion', he leaves the phone off the hook at WHF. Scene set, line baited - hooked in; and so they were ......... initially. However, it's all pretty contrived and I guess EP came to realise that.
Jeremy fed information about guns and people going crazy banking on them not going in. However, why police know that he had no alibi? If they hadn't been dead long at that point, He could just as easily have claimed that Sheila must have shot them all straight after his fathers call. Time of death pin pointing, isn't that accurate.
then they could have gone in within say 40 mins or less if they had got their finger out - and they would expect blood still running from all wounds and no sign of rigor. And now we are attributing JB with knowledge of how Time of Death would have been decided. And I still think EP had the knowledge/personnel at their disposal how to do that, they just did not do it.
I think if you think he was guilty and fitted up - why would they need to do that? You would think they would have sufficient evidence somewhere.
BTW - let me make it quite clear if something turns up that
PROVES the call did not happen
PROVES the moderator is not a red herring
The experts start agreeing on the forensic and ballistic evidence - not happened so far -
Then I am quite willing to accept his guilt - But at the moment all I see is contrasting expert opinions.
And JM evidence looks simply contrived to me - If EP coached her to "get their man" then it could be justified? But only if they knew 100% he did it , and so far I can not see they had the competence to be that sure
IMO(:
-
But no one has PROVED that call did not happen.
It could have happened.
He never mentioned any shots or anyone being injured at the time.
Considering the amount of discussion about was the phone off the hook. Did he make another call. Would it have been engaged? Did JB pick up the phone at the other end ? Did his answer machine register it? how could the police listen in? Could they have traced the call at all? What records would have been kept by BT etc etc etc
Then because of all the talk about the above he must have been very clever to work out EXACTLY what would happen - and when it boils down to it if the police had gone straight in then it would have been obvious the crime had been committed a few hours before and therefore he would have had no alibi.
How is there a realistic possibility the phone call happened?
1) Julie stated that Jeremy planned in advance to say he received a phone call from WHF to provide himself with an alibi and admitted he was responsible for the murders and framed Sheila.
2) Julie's claims are supported by evidence including evidence that proves Sheila didn't load the gun and wield it so why would would Nevill call Jeremy to claim she did so let alone call to claim she did so and ask Jeremy to come help?
3) Even if she had the gun it would make no sense to call Jeremy. There would be only 2 reasons to call Jeremy- 1) if Jeremy had a better rapport with Sheila than Nevill did and thus to ask Jeremy to come help calm her down or 2) if Sheila were too strong for Nevill to overpower but Jeremy was strong enough to do so and thus he would ask Jeremy for help. Neither of these are the case.
4) If Nevill were too scared to disarm Sheila by hand why would he call his son to ask his son to also be in harms way? Moreover, if scared to do so by hand then he could have used one of the multitude of weapons available to confront her. The kitchen was loaded with knives, guns and less lethal weapons to choose from and if he had access to the phone then he would have the ability to access those weapons.
5) It is neither realistic that June would stay in bed through the commotion nor that Nevill would be left alone in the kitchen by Sheila where he could access the phone and weapons.
6) There is no realistic way Nevill would have gotten to the phone prior to any shooting. It is quite clear that the initial shooting that took place was in the bedroom against the parents. The suggestion by various supporters during the course of the appeal that the first victims were the boys and then the parents woke up and were attacked is not credible. That would mean the gun had only 2 bullets left and Sheila would have been overpowered before she could load again had that been the case. Nor is it credible that Sheila would take the phone from his hand and hand it up then immediately take it back off the hook and march him upstairs so she could shoot him. She would have shot him upon finding him on the phone. It is very clear the killer went in the master bedroom and shot both parents killing June but not Nevill. After the gun was empty either Nevill fled to the kitchen with the killer in pursuit or the killer fled to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit. They struggled in the kitchen, Nevill was beaten unconscious then the killer reloaded and killed him. The killer reloaded fully then killed the boys and Sheila and the gun was empty. There was no occasion for a phone call.
7) Other evidence establishes Jeremy tried to frame his sister. He tried to frame her with the phony story about leaving the gun and bullets out (which he clearly staged because he left too many bullets out for his story to be true), by lying to the initial responders telling them she was proficient with all the guns in the house, and other similar lies including telling Colin that the family was forcing Sheila to give up custody of the boys. He even lied about calling police before Julie which is very damning because had he actually received the call claimed he would have either rushed over or called 999. Knowing this he lied and said he called police right away but in fact he called Julie before police.
It is his word alone that a call was made and there is no reason at all to believe his word in light of all the above evidence. The notion that a third party got Nevill to call Jeremy and finger Sheila is absurd. If Sheila didn't kill everyone then the call was clearly made up and Jeremy was the killer.
-
If the phone call didn't happen - Jeremy is guilty - Oh sorry, you're not really concerned about that! The only reason the crime scene was handled as it was, was because Jeremy had everyone thinking his father called him and that Sheila had gone crazy with a gun. They thought it was a murder/suicide because that's what Jeremy fed them. However, I'm sure you're not concerned with that either! Jeremy is where his is because of his own devices and because he wasn't half as clever as he thought he was!
Ah! I see, you have descended to the depths of misquoting me and then criticising me for something I didn't say. The reason I said , " My opinion does not only rely upon whether a phone call did or did not happen, or upon whether he knew how much was in his fathers wallet."
was because that telephone call could of happened or could not have happened depending on what "belief" you choose to take, not that I was not concerned about it.
I am concerned about it because it is so easy to reject that it happened just on the whim that you don't believe it. In other words it is so easy to say that Bamber is guilty just by saying that the phone call never happen.
Now I don't know how justice works in your head. But in our court system a man is considered innocent until proven guilty. But if that court chooses to dismiss a piece of evidence because it does nt fit into their chosen scenario then in my mind that systen has ceased to be just. As far as I am conce3rned the prosecution did not succeed in "proving" the phone call didn't happen. I remember when you used to believe this yourself Caroline. But now you appear to be content to reject certain evidence just because you have changed you mind from innocent to guilty.
Yet I fond it rather strange that you believe the silencer evidence to be a set-up. But at the same time fail to follow the consequences of believing that through. For the silencer evidence was one of the mainstays of the prosecution's case and was definitely instrumental in bringing in a guilty verdict.
-
He said he got a phone so as to distance himself from the crime scene. Just saying he was home and knew nothing isn't much of an alibi, so he makes up a story that his father called when it all kicked off. In order to strengthen this 'notion', he leaves the phone off the hook at WHF. Scene set, line baited - hooked in; and so they were ......... initially. However, it's all pretty contrived and I guess EP came to realise that.
Jeremy fed information about guns and people going crazy banking on them not going in. However, why police know that he had no alibi? If they hadn't been dead long at that point, He could just as easily have claimed that Sheila must have shot them all straight after his fathers call. Time of death pin pointing, isn't that accurate.
That is just your own opinion built upon the assumption that the telephone call didn't happen.
-
then they could have gone in within say 40 mins or less if they had got their finger out - and they would expect blood still running from all wounds and no sign of rigor. And now we are attributing JB with knowledge of how Time of Death would have been decided. And I still think EP had the knowledge/personnel at their disposal how to do that, they just did not do it.
I think if you think he was guilty and fitted up - why would they need to do that? You would think they would have sufficient evidence somewhere.
BTW - let me make it quite clear if something turns up that
PROVES the call did not happen
PROVES the moderator is not a red herring
The experts start agreeing on the forensic and ballistic evidence - not happened so far -
Then I am quite willing to accept his guilt - But at the moment all I see is contrasting expert opinions.
And JM evidence looks simply contrived to me - If EP coached her to "get their man" then it could be justified? But only if they knew 100% he did it , and so far I can not see they had the competence to be that sure
IMO(:
No, I'm not attributing anything to him - I'm no expert but I know that even now it's not possible to determin and exact time of death but if I were planning to kill someone (which I never would), it's one of the things I'd check out. I'm sure they did have crime TV then - things like Columbo would give you some pretty basic knowledge. But it's not something that's difficult to find out.
Why would they need to fit him up? To make sure he didn't walk - guess you can never have enough evidence.
-
That is just your own opinion built upon the assumption that the telephone call didn't happen.
Well, to be fair, it's not just my opinion or Jeremy wouldn't have been convicted.
-
Well, to be fair, it's not just my opinion or Jeremy wouldn't have been convicted.
I'm sure logged/timed telephone calls would have been the last thing on Jeremy's mind at that time.
-
I'm sure logged/timed telephone calls would have been the last thing on Jeremy's mind at that time.
Oh, I think he was banking on it being logged! As for the times, he should have had a better memory, you need one when you don't tell the truth!
-
Ah! I see, you have descended to the depths of misquoting me and then criticising me for something I didn't say. The reason I said , was because that telephone call could of happened or could not have happened depending on what "belief" you choose to take, not that I was not concerned about it.
I am concerned about it because it is so easy to reject that it happened just on the whim that you don't believe it. In other words it is so easy to say that Bamber is guilty just by saying that the phone call never happen.
Now I don't know how justice works in your head. But in our court system a man is considered innocent until proven guilty. But if that court chooses to dismiss a piece of evidence because it does nt fit into their chosen scenario then in my mind that systen has ceased to be just. As far as I am conce3rned the prosecution did not succeed in "proving" the phone call didn't happen. I remember when you used to believe this yourself Caroline. But now you appear to be content to reject certain evidence just because you have changed you mind from innocent to guilty.
Yet I fond it rather strange that you believe the silencer evidence to be a set-up. But at the same time fail to follow the consequences of believing that through. For the silencer evidence was one of the mainstays of the prosecution's case and was definitely instrumental in bringing in a guilty verdict.
You certainly don't remember me believing the phone call, what you remember is me 'making excuses' because I believed him to be innocent for other reason (namely the silencer evidence being fake). I tried to convince myself that the phone call happened but (and I have mentioned it many times), I ALWAYS had a problem with it. The difference between the silencer and the phone Grahame, is that Jeremy himself claimed it happened which means that if it didn't (and I don't believe it did), he's guilty of killing five people. If the silencer was faked it still doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent - it just means he didn't use a silencer.
-
And I guess that would open up another can of worms. Was it ever right for the police to
falsify evidence
coach witnesses
Change documents
withhold evidence.
to get their man?
we know they did it in the 80s.
-
Oh, I think he was banking on it being logged! As for the times, he should have had a better memory, you need one when you don't tell the truth!
I think if he'd been too precise I'd have been suspicious.
-
I don't think anyone was accurate with their times really.
-
You certainly don't remember me believing the phone call, what you remember is me 'making excuses' because I believed him to be innocent for other reason (namely the silencer evidence being fake). I tried to convince myself that the phone call happened but (and I have mentioned it many times), I ALWAYS had a problem with it. The difference between the silencer and the phone Grahame, is that Jeremy himself claimed it happened which means that if it didn't (and I don't believe it did), he's guilty of killing five people. If the silencer was faked it still doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent - it just means he didn't use a silencer.
What it means Caroline is that if the silencer evidence was faked there should be a retrial, as you will have to ask that if thee was sufficient evidence without the silencer evidence then why feel the need to fake it? So if the silencer evidence was faked there would have to be an inquiry and then charges brought against the perpetrators of this false evidence. This will also bring into the question the entire prosecution case and no doubt the possibility of other evidence being thrown out. It will again put you in the unhappy position of having to question everything else the prosecution had to say as it were they would ok'd the evidence in the first place. I propose that if the silencer evidence could be proved to be false then Bamber would be released immediately.
-
What it means Caroline is that if the silencer evidence was faked there should be a retrial, as you will have to ask that if thee was sufficient evidence without the silencer evidence then why feel the need to fake it? So if the silencer evidence was faked there would have to be an inquiry and then charges brought against the perpetrators of this false evidence. This will also bring into the question the entire prosecution case and no doubt the possibility of other evidence being thrown out. It will again put you in the unhappy position of having to question everything else the prosecution had to say as it were they would ok'd the evidence in the first place. I propose that if the silencer evidence could be proved to be false then Bamber would be released immediately.
Exactly.
-
I too am of the same view,even if I'd been on the side of guilty,that in all fairness due to the sloppy work that was EP,a re-trial should be in order. Guilty or not,under these circumstances nobody would/should argue.
-
What it means Caroline is that if the silencer evidence was faked there should be a retrial, as you will have to ask that if thee was sufficient evidence without the silencer evidence then why feel the need to fake it? So if the silencer evidence was faked there would have to be an inquiry and then charges brought against the perpetrators of this false evidence. This will also bring into the question the entire prosecution case and no doubt the possibility of other evidence being thrown out. It will again put you in the unhappy position of having to question everything else the prosecution had to say as it were they would ok'd the evidence in the first place. I propose that if the silencer evidence could be proved to be false then Bamber would be released immediately.
Sorry Grahame, not sure why you're telling me this, I have already said (many times) that I think there should be a retrial. I know what the implications of faking it are but in order to bring such a case, you would have to prove it. 30 years after the event, it's almost an impossibility. However, even if it could be proven, it still doesn't PROVE Jeremy is innocent and until someone can do that, I would NOT want the possible killer of five people to walk free - would you?
-
Sorry Grahame, not sure why you're telling me this, I have already said (many times) that I think there should be a retrial. I know what the implications of faking it are but in order to bring such a case, you would have to prove it. 30 years after the event, it's almost an impossibility. However, even if it could be proven, it still doesn't PROVE Jeremy is innocent and until someone can do that, I would NOT want the possible killer of five people to walk free - would you?
No I wouldn't want to see a killer walk free. Neither would I want someone to lie in order to convict someone just because they think they are guilty.
-
No I wouldn't want to see a killer walk free. Neither would I want someone to lie in order to convict someone just because they think they are guilty.
Would you consider releasing a guilty person on the grounds that lies had been told in order to convict them?
-
There must be loads of killers on the loose because of poor detecting skills,or half-wits who feel that 15 years max is enough time spent in prison for a killer. It's no wonder those who are released go on to murder again.I wonder how many times this happens ? There are those we read about,but for every one of those there'll be more that we don't hear/read about.
It's because of past mistakes/MOJ's made by the police that we don't have the death penalty,of which I'm a firm believer in. Why not ? Isn't it barbaric to kill another human being,be it an adult,or worst of all a child ( including child rape ) ? I put monsters like this in the same category as a mad dog,and have no feelings for the destruction of either. Killers aren't human. To " kill " someone by administering a lethal injection is ridding the country of those who have no place in the human race and therefore,like rubbish,would never be missed,nor would the public have to pay taxes toward keeping these monsters.
We're ALL encouraging and contributing towards these murderers by keeping them alive,and they know that they'll be looked after,unlike the poverty-stricken families in this country who are lucky to see 3 meals a week,let alone 3 a day. I get so incensed by this screwed-up system of ours.
-
There must be loads of killers on the loose because of poor detecting skills,or half-wits who feel that 15 years max is enough time spent in prison for a killer. It's no wonder those who are released go on to murder again.I wonder how many times this happens ? There are those we read about,but for every one of those there'll be more that we don't hear/read about.
It's because of past mistakes/MOJ's made by the police that we don't have the death penalty,of which I'm a firm believer in. Why not ? Isn't it barbaric to kill another human being,be it an adult,or worst of all a child ( including child rape ) ? I put monsters like this in the same category as a mad dog,and have no feelings for the destruction of either. Killers aren't human. To " kill " someone by administering a lethal injection is ridding the country of those who have no place in the human race and therefore,like rubbish,would never be missed,nor would the public have to pay taxes toward keeping these monsters.
We're ALL encouraging and contributing towards these murderers by keeping them alive,and they know that they'll be looked after,unlike the poverty-stricken families in this country who are lucky to see 3 meals a week,let alone 3 a day. I get so incensed by this screwed-up system of ours.
It's just as well for Jeremy, then, that we don't still have a death sentence.
-
It's just as well for Jeremy, then, that we don't still have a death sentence.
If I'd have had no interest in the case,it wouldn't have mattered to me.
-
If I'd have had no interest in the case,it wouldn't have mattered to me.
I'm sure I must have it wrong, but it SOUNDS as if you're saying that despite that you believe Jeremy is innocent, if you'd had no interest in the case, it wouldn't have mattered to you that an innocent man had been put to death for a crime you didn't believe he'd committed.
-
It's just as well for Jeremy, then, that we don't still have a death sentence.
During my early teens,hanging was still in place and for those which were broadcast/publicised I just took it that it was the thing to do,and never gave a thought that it could/would be the wrong person in the gallows. It was a part of life where you saw people getting their just desserts for a crime they'd committed,unlike today. ::)
-
Would you consider releasing a guilty person on the grounds that lies had been told in order to convict them?
I don't think that would necessarily be the outcome - but I think they would deserve a re-trial at least. If the verdict was still guilty without the lies - then it would not happen anyway.
-
I'm sure I must have it wrong, but it SOUNDS as if you're saying that despite that you believe Jeremy is innocent, if you'd had no interest in the case, it wouldn't have mattered to you that an innocent man had been put to death for a crime you didn't believe he'd committed.
That's what I said,yes. Because I've actually taken the trouble to follow the case up on Jeremy is different to if I hadn't bothered,is what I'm saying.
If I hadn't have followed the case,and been as " involved " as I am,then as far as I'd be concerned if we'd still had hanging in-situ,it wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have been just another hanging.
I remember my dad talking about James Hanratty in the early 60's,and dad said,oh dear,they're wrong.I didn't know about the case,but I also remember mum who was adamant that he should hang,because everyone else had said so,that he'd committed murder.
However,donkeys years later I don't know how many years ago,he was proved innocent and duly posthumously pardoned.
Sad,and a shock for the families,but he'd already been charged and went through all the channels of being found guilty,etc,the same as Jeremy,and if I didn't know any different now,and thought that Jeremy was the murderer,would his loss have affected anyone ? The answer is no,because people put their faith in the law.
-
That's what I said,yes. Because I've actually taken the trouble to follow the case up on Jeremy is different to if I hadn't bothered,is what I'm saying.
If I hadn't have followed the case,and been as " involved " as I am,then as far as I'd be concerned if we'd still had hanging in-situ,it wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have been just another hanging.
I remember my dad talking about James Hanratty in the early 60's,and dad said,oh dear,they're wrong.I didn't know about the case,but I also remember mum who was adamant that he should hang,because everyone else had said so,that he'd committed murder.
However,donkeys years later I don't know how many years ago,he was proved innocent and duly posthumously pardoned.
Sad,and a shock for the families,but he'd already been charged and went through all the channels of being found guilty,etc,the same as Jeremy,and if I didn't know any different now,and thought that Jeremy was the murderer,would his loss have affected anyone ? The answer is no,because people put their faith in the law.
Lookout, it is hard for me to understand that you can be in favour of the death penalty when in the same breath you talk about someone who was wrongly executed. That is serious SHIT!!! Murder actually.
-
Lookout, it is hard for me to understand that you can be in favour of the death penalty when in the same breath you talk about someone who was wrongly evecuted. That is serious SHIT!!! Murder actually.
I completely agree - I'm glad we don't have the DP, but if we had, Jeremy certainly wouldn't be here now!
-
I completely agree - I'm glad we don't have the DP, but if we had, Jeremy certainly wouldn't be here now!
No,Jeremy wouldn't be here,but would anyone care ?? What's the difference in him being incarcerated until he dies. ?
-
That's what I said,yes. Because I've actually taken the trouble to follow the case up on Jeremy is different to if I hadn't bothered,is what I'm saying.
If I hadn't have followed the case,and been as " involved " as I am,then as far as I'd be concerned if we'd still had hanging in-situ,it wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have been just another hanging.
I remember my dad talking about James Hanratty in the early 60's,and dad said,oh dear,they're wrong.I didn't know about the case,but I also remember mum who was adamant that he should hang,because everyone else had said so,that he'd committed murder.
However,donkeys years later I don't know how many years ago,he was proved innocent and duly posthumously pardoned.
Sad,and a shock for the families,but he'd already been charged and went through all the channels of being found guilty,etc,the same as Jeremy,and if I didn't know any different now,and thought that Jeremy was the murderer,would his loss have affected anyone ? The answer is no,because people put their faith in the law.
Lookout, I'm ALMOST speechless. That you can shrug your shoulders and say if an innocent man is found to have been put to death he'll be granted a posthumous pardon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW will a posthumous pardon release his family from the shame and humiliation of having, for years, been thought to be related to a guilty man and deprived of the emotional and financial support his presence with them may have provided!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Hello lookout if Jeremy is innocent and was wrongly convicted he has some hope of being released.
-
No,Jeremy wouldn't be here,but would anyone care ?? What's the difference in him being incarcerated until he dies. ?
Hope. Life.
-
I remember my dad talking about James Hanratty in the early 60's,and dad said,oh dear,they're wrong.I didn't know about the case,but I also remember mum who was adamant that he should hang,because everyone else had said so,that he'd committed murder.
However,donkeys years later I don't know how many years ago,he was proved innocent and duly posthumously pardoned.
Sad,and a shock for the families,but he'd already been charged and went through all the channels of being found guilty,etc,the same as Jeremy,and if I didn't know any different now,and thought that Jeremy was the murderer,would his loss have affected anyone ? The answer is no,because people put their faith in the law.
James Hanratty did not receive a posthumous pardon. The CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal a few years ago but that appeal was very firmly rejected upon the basis of new LCN DNA test results.
-
James Hanratty did not receive a posthumous pardon. The CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal a few years ago but that appeal was very firmly rejected upon the basis of new LCN DNA test results.
I remember that, it proved his was guilt. There was another guy who admitted to being responsible, guess he was just an attention seeker.
-
Hello lookout if Jeremy is innocent and was wrongly convicted he has some hope of being released.
Absolutely Susan.
-
Lookout, I'm ALMOST speechless. That you can shrug your shoulders and say if an innocent man is found to have been put to death he'll be granted a posthumous pardon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW will a posthumous pardon release his family from the shame and humiliation of having, for years, been thought to be related to a guilty man and deprived of the emotional and financial support his presence with them may have provided!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's called being emotionally detached,April. If I didn't know,or know of a person who's been put to death,then it doesn't matter does it ?
-
James Hanratty did not receive a posthumous pardon. The CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal a few years ago but that appeal was very firmly rejected upon the basis of new LCN DNA test results.
I didn't know much about the case,ngb,so I was only really assuming that that was the case.
You see,I didn't even know about the rejection either. Goodness me.
-
Lookout, I'm ALMOST speechless. That you can shrug your shoulders and say if an innocent man is found to have been put to death he'll be granted a posthumous pardon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW will a posthumous pardon release his family from the shame and humiliation of having, for years, been thought to be related to a guilty man and deprived of the emotional and financial support his presence with them may have provided!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posthumous pardons are worthless except to descendants of the person pardoned. It certainly does no good to the dead person who was jailed for the crime or put to death. The descendants feel better by it but no one else really cares.
With respect to child rapists, I don't think they can be cured and believe they should rot in prison forever unless their conviction is overturned and if there is ironclad evidence proving they committed the rapes I would be fine with the death penalty. But I would want more than just testimony from kids which can be manipulated I want corroborating evidence of guilt before the death penalty would be able to be applied.
-
James Hanratty did not receive a posthumous pardon. The CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal a few years ago but that appeal was very firmly rejected upon the basis of new LCN DNA test results.
It was Bentley,not Hanratty.
-
It's called being emotionally detached,April. If I didn't know,or know of a person who's been put to death,then it doesn't matter does it ?
It certainly matters to someone, if their innocent relative is butchered by the state just to appease the masses and it would matter to me a great deal! That's called 'empathy'!!
-
It's called being emotionally detached,April. If I didn't know,or know of a person who's been put to death,then it doesn't matter does it ?
Which you certainly don't appear to be re Jeremy. You labour the point about how badly he's been treated but seem to be void of feelings for an innocent who has been murdered by the state and those of their family.
-
Which you certainly don't appear to be re Jeremy. You labour the point about how badly he's been treated but seem to be void of feelings for an innocent who has been murdered by the state and those of their family.
You'd be surprised April. No emotion towards Jeremy whatsoever.It wouldn't matter if it was Joe Egg. It's the injustice that's staring me in the face which enrages me.Jeremy could be anyone,it could even be a Jane,I'd still feel the same having read yards of information attached to the case. I tend not to think of the person themselves,but their background from childhood onwards to get an overall idea of what he or she's about.
-
You'd be surprised April. No emotion towards Jeremy whatsoever.It wouldn't matter if it was Joe Egg. It's the injustice that's staring me in the face which enrages me.Jeremy could be anyone,it could even be a Jane,I'd still feel the same having read yards of information attached to the case. I tend not to think of the person themselves,but their background from childhood onwards to get an overall idea of what he or she's about.
But everything you say of him belies that claim. Every time you tell us that "Jeremy would/would never have" you speak as if you know him intimately. Indeed, at times, it sounds as if you know him in greater depth than any one else here which is odd for one as detached as you claim to be.
-
But everything you say of him belies that claim. Every time you tell us that "Jeremy would/would never have" you speak as if you know him intimately. Indeed, at times, it sounds as if you know him in greater depth than any one else here which is odd for one as detached as you claim to be.
I don't know him at all.I only know of him. It's the case which interests me more than the man,although certain things along the way,particularly in his childhood,I can relate to a lot,so I put myself in his shoes as I look back to my own childhood days,and Sheila's too,and I suppose because of that and the way that I was brought up,has helped me to judge what kind of a person he is.
My past work was a good learning curve as regards being detached.
-
I don't know him at all.I only know of him. It's the case which interests me more than the man,although certain things along the way,particularly in his childhood,I can relate to a lot,so I put myself in his shoes as I look back to my own childhood days,and Sheila's too,and I suppose because of that and the way that I was brought up,has helped me to judge what kind of a person he is.
My past work was a good learning curve as regards being detached.
As do ALL our past experiences but does yours REALLY equip you to adamantly proclaim that Jeremy would have shot them cleanly and efficiently -I use that as an example because I found the claim quite extraordinary- you would need an in depth knowledge of someone to know what was their shooting capability.
-
As do ALL our past experiences but does yours REALLY equip you to adamantly proclaim that Jeremy would have shot them cleanly and efficiently -I use that as an example because I found the claim quite extraordinary- you would need an in depth knowledge of someone to know what was their shooting capability.
Jeremy knew how to shoot vermin,but that's about it so far as I'm concerned. Anyone who had serious thoughts on killing humans would have obtained a suitable gun,not a less-powerful rifle that had to be fired in such a way as to make sure that everyone was dead.
Had Jeremy KNOWN ALL the facts about Sheila's illness,then yes,I'd have said that it WOULD have been him without doubt,but as it happened neither he,nor anyone else knew just what she WAS capable of.
The killings were carried out in the most MAD and frenzied way,that it could only have been executed by someone with very deep emotional problems,and from where I'm sitting,only one person fitted that criteria and that was Sheila.
I make no apologies for saying that Jeremy is innocent,just to fit in with everyone else's views. Like the 2 jury members who obviously had their own personal views,didn't mean that they were " emotionally attached " in any way,or even knew the man.
-
Jeremy knew how to shoot vermin,but that's about it so far as I'm concerned. Anyone who had serious thoughts on killing humans would have obtained a suitable gun,not a less-powerful rifle that had to be fired in such a way as to make sure that everyone was dead.
Had Jeremy KNOWN ALL the facts about Sheila's illness,then yes,I'd have said that it WOULD have been him without doubt,but as it happened neither he,nor anyone else knew just what she WAS capable of.
The killings were carried out in the most MAD and frenzied way,that it could only have been executed by someone with very deep emotional problems,and from where I'm sitting,only one person fitted that criteria and that was Sheila.
I make no apologies for saying that Jeremy is innocent,just to fit in with everyone else's views. Like the 2 jury members who obviously had their own personal views,didn't mean that they were " emotionally attached " in any way,or even knew the man.
Surely, what you are saying is, if YOU had serious thoughts about killing someone, YOU would have obtained what YOU believed to be a suitable weapon. It would probably make YOUR weapon of choice different from the weapon SELECTED for use.
I argue that there was HUGE rage behind what happened, but that doesn't necessarily denote emotional problems.
I would NEVER expect anyone to change their views JUST to follow everyone else's line of thought.............................but I WOULD view holding on to one's own view as perverse if it's done out of refusal to acknowledge that there could be some truth in the views of others.
-
Surely, what you are saying is, if YOU had serious thoughts about killing someone, YOU would have obtained what YOU believed to be a suitable weapon. It would probably make YOUR weapon of choice different from the weapon SELECTED for use.
I argue that there was HUGE rage behind what happened, but that doesn't necessarily denote emotional problems.
I would NEVER expect anyone to change their views JUST to follow everyone else's line of thought.............................but I WOULD view holding on to one's own view as perverse if it's done out of refusal to acknowledge that there could be some truth in the views of others.
C,mon April,my choice of weapon would have been a bit easier to have handled as well as more powerful instead of leaving the mess which was a bloodbath by using a .22 for killing rats and rabbits. I'd have taken more care by not ramming rounds of bullets into someone. The way those murders were carried out was horrendous.
Even police/vets use care when shooting a mad dog,or putting a horse down. This WHF killing was madness personified.
I'm NOT being perverse in any way just because I don't agree with any of the views of others. What a strange mind you have ?
I just firmly believe that Jeremy is innocent and I certainly don't see anything wrong in that ? Thank God I'm a level-headed person is all I can say.
-
Hello lookout you are of course allowed to have your own thoughts and beliefs maybe different from mine to an extent but I respect you for your firm stance on your views. IMO the use of the 22 rifle was to make it more convincing a novice had carried out the murders and not somebody who was use to handling weapons.
-
C,mon April,my choice of weapon would have been a bit easier to have handled as well as more powerful instead of leaving the mess which was a bloodbath by using a .22 for killing rats and rabbits. I'd have taken more care by not ramming rounds of bullets into someone. The way those murders were carried out was horrendous.
Even police/vets use care when shooting a mad dog,or putting a horse down. This WHF killing was madness personified.
I'm NOT being perverse in any way just because I don't agree with any of the views of others. What a strange mind you have ?
I just firmly believe that Jeremy is innocent and I certainly don't see anything wrong in that ? Thank God I'm a level-headed person is all I can say.
What excuse would Jeremy have to leave a shot gun out? I guess instead of rabbits, he could have said their were a few marauding elephants out in the yard? :D
-
Hello lookout you are of course allowed to have your own thoughts and beliefs maybe different from mine to an extent but I respect you for your firm stance on your views. IMO the use of the 22 rifle was to make it more convincing a novice had carried out the murders and not somebody who was use to handling weapons.
Well said Susan we are all allowed our own thought and opinions and should be able to debate these opinions without feeling bullied or disrespected.
I can see your point about the .22 rifle and accept it is a possibility like Alias I am of the Middle ground, too many assumptions and not enough hard fact to form an opinion.
-
Hi Susan. At the very beginning I looked at the aspect of a " copy-cat " type murder where it could have been possible that Jeremy had emulated Sheila's illness,but it didn't work for me with so many other things involved. There was more to it than just sitting back with those thoughts and saying to yourself well that's that,that's how he did it.
Jeremy would have known,probably,that's what people would have thought. He was intelligent enough to have worked that one out.
Intelligent,though he was/is, his attitude got him locked up. It was arrogant and cavalier towards the law,and police don't like that. I don't much care for it myself and can understand why the police must have been riled,as I probably would have been. ;D ;D ;D My own brother was an arrogant sod,always so cock-sure of himself,but he got on in life all the same. I could have choked him for it many a time ;D ;D
This is why I don't see Jeremy as a killer,because of the attitude he displayed. I remember years ago during a personality exam I was doing,I failed on one slide which was shown during the exam. It showed two people sitting at a meeting. One was sitting upright and looked attentive,the other slouched in his chair. I was asked who the confident one was.I answered the former------------wrong ! I tried to argue the toss but it was no good until I realised that the tutor was right. The one slouched,showing a bored expression was the confident one. Which years later I only came to realise.
-
Hi Susan. At the very beginning I looked at the aspect of a " copy-cat " type murder where it could have been possible that Jeremy had emulated Sheila's illness,but it didn't work for me with so many other things involved. There was more to it than just sitting back with those thoughts and saying to yourself well that's that,that's how he did it.
Jeremy would have known,probably,that's what people would have thought. He was intelligent enough to have worked that one out.
Intelligent,though he was/is, his attitude got him locked up. It was arrogant and cavalier towards the law,and police don't like that. I don't much care for it myself and can understand why the police must have been riled,as I probably would have been. ;D ;D ;D My own brother was an arrogant sod,always so cock-sure of himself,but he got on in life all the same. I could have choked him for it many a time ;D ;D
This is why I don't see Jeremy as a killer,because of the attitude he displayed. I remember years ago during a personality exam I was doing,I failed on one slide which was shown during the exam. It showed two people sitting at a meeting. One was sitting upright and looked attentive,the other slouched in his chair. I was asked who the confident one was.I answered the former------------wrong ! I tried to argue the toss but it was no good until I realised that the tutor was right. The one slouched,showing a bored expression was the confident one. Which years later I only came to realise.
You don't always describe Jeremy as intelligent though Lookout?
Your example just describes how confident Jeremy was about getting away with it.
-
Hello lookout
I hear what you say and who am I to say you are wrong as I told Jan last night I look at this case from every angle and my thoughts change daily. You may have seen the post I made to Scipio last night about the Romeo killer he reminded me so much of Jeremy he was nice to look at confident liked the high life but had little funds and people said he had never shown any signs of violence in his life but killed his Father and nearly his Mother for money in the most horrendous fashion. Incidents like this make me think perhaps Jeremy is no different and he shows himself as two different people. Why was Sheila so clean and according to Caroline after seeing the original photograph of Ralph Bamber she said Sheila could not have inflicted such injuries to her Dad. I think this case will never be explained and we will all be left wondering unless the new books due out in the summer provide us with new evidence to convince us one way or another.
-
What excuse would Jeremy have to leave a shot gun out? I guess instead of rabbits, he could have said their were a few marauding elephants out in the yard? :D
But HE didn't leave a shot-gun out,unless you know differently of course.I believe all the guns were scattered about ?
-
You don't always describe Jeremy as intelligent though Lookout?
Your example just describes how confident Jeremy was about getting away with it.
I've always said he was intelligent----------but not clever. Also I've described him as being gormless too,which he most likely was at not being sharp enough to notice that his relatives disliked him intensely or would one day gang up on him. He took everyone at face value in other words.
Jeremy was showing the confidence that he DIDN'T do it,hence his arrogant remark to the officer by telling him that it was " for him to find out ". Something which my own brother would have said.
-
But HE didn't leave a shot-gun out,unless you know differently of course.I believe all the guns were scattered about ?
That's not what I meant - you said you wouldn't have used a .22 - so what would you have used? A shotgun?
-
I've always said he was intelligent----------but not clever. Also I've described him as being gormless too,which he most likely was at not being sharp enough to notice that his relatives disliked him intensely or would one day gang up on him. He took everyone at face value in other words.
Jeremy was showing the confidence that he DIDN'T do it,hence his arrogant remark to the officer by telling him that it was " for him to find out ". Something which my own brother would have said.
He said that in court. Fair enough - I don't agree and I don't understand your reasoning and I obviously think quite the reverse.
-
He said that in court. Fair enough - I don't agree and I don't understand your reasoning and I obviously think quite the reverse.
That's fine. It's healthy to have opposing views.
-
I have great admiration for those who " stick to their guns " ( sorry,pun ) such as Jeremy has done.It shows courage and determination in seeking the truth,in which there can't be anything wrong in that.
-
I have great admiration for those who " stick to their guns " ( sorry,pun ) such as Jeremy has done.It shows courage and determination in seeking the truth,in which there can't be anything wrong in that.
And that's the most important thing - whatever that might be. I imagine that even those believing in innocence don't want a guilty man released?
-
C,mon April,my choice of weapon would have been a bit easier to have handled as well as more powerful instead of leaving the mess which was a bloodbath by using a .22 for killing rats and rabbits. I'd have taken more care by not ramming rounds of bullets into someone. The way those murders were carried out was horrendous.
Even police/vets use care when shooting a mad dog,or putting a horse down. This WHF killing was madness personified.
I'm NOT being perverse in any way just because I don't agree with any of the views of others. What a strange mind you have ?
I just firmly believe that Jeremy is innocent and I certainly don't see anything wrong in that ? Thank God I'm a level-headed person is all I can say.
Lookout, I've looked back at what I said. It seems that you misunderstood me. NOWHERE did I say that YOU were perverse. NOWHERE in the offending sentence did I refer to "you".
You seem to have much more than a working knowledge than I of firearms, my ONLY knowledge being that if it's capable of firing bullets into people/animals, it kills. Its' efficiency or otherwise is beyond me.
-
Lookout, I've looked back at what I said. It seems that you misunderstood me. NOWHERE did I say that YOU were perverse. NOWHERE in the offending sentence did I refer to "you".
You seem to have much more than a working knowledge than I of firearms, my ONLY knowledge being that if it's capable of firing bullets into people/animals, it kills. Its' efficiency or otherwise is beyond me.
Bit of a difference in a handgun and a .22 rifle I feel. ;D The rifle was used by someone who WASN'T used to handling them,particularly when it came to shooting humans.
This is what I have a HUGE problem with.
-
Lookout, I've looked back at what I said. It seems that you misunderstood me. NOWHERE did I say that YOU were perverse. NOWHERE in the offending sentence did I refer to "you".
You seem to have much more than a working knowledge than I of firearms, my ONLY knowledge being that if it's capable of firing bullets into people/animals, it kills. Its' efficiency or otherwise is beyond me.
To whom were you referring then? Just curious.
-
To whom were you referring then? Just curious.
I don't think April was referring to anyone in particulat, I read it as the 'idea' of holding on to one's own view simply for the sake of it (or not wanting to admit to being wrong) is 'perverse'. So it could be applied to 'anyone'
-
He said that in court. Fair enough - I don't agree and I don't understand your reasoning and I obviously think quite the reverse.
Or of course he knew they didn't have a case against him and therefore trusted in British justice. But didn't account for Mugford's lies, or a fake silencer.
-
I don't think April was referring to anyone in particulat, I read it as the 'idea' of holding on to one's own view simply for the sake of it (or not wanting to admit to being wrong) is 'perverse'. So it could be applied to 'anyone'
Thank-you, Caroline :)
-
I don't think April was referring to anyone in particulat, I read it as the 'idea' of holding on to one's own view simply for the sake of it (or not wanting to admit to being wrong) is 'perverse'. So it could be applied to 'anyone'
It wasn´t clear from the post. I thought she was calling Lookout "perverse". So did Lookout it seems.
But now that´s cleared up....
-
Or of course he knew they didn't have a case against him and therefore trusted in British justice. But didn't account for Mugford's lies, or a fake silencer.
Oh he knew they faked the silencer because he didn't use it and Mugford might be made to look like an idiot because he fed her red herrings. He did indeed trust in British Justice - he trusted that he was clever enough to manipulate it - he wasn't!
-
Thank-you, Caroline :)
So why else would you say this if it wasn't pointed to lookout? some mysterious "phantom"?
I would NEVER expect anyone to change their views JUST to follow everyone else's line of thought.............................but I WOULD view holding on to one's own view as perverse if it's done out of refusal to acknowledge that there could be some truth in the views of others.
For lookout has been accused of this before by some.
-
Oh he knew they faked the silencer because he didn't use it and Mugford might be made to look like an idiot because he fed her red herrings. He did indeed trust in British Justice - he trusted that he was clever enough to manipulate it - he wasn't!
He trusted that false evidence should not be allowed into court. He trusted that the lies of Mugford would be seen for what they were. But he didn't bank of 10 gullible jurers either.
-
So why else would you say this if it wasn't pointed to lookout? some mysterious "phantom"? For lookout has been accused of this before by some.
Why is April suddenly everyone's punch bag? This getting silly!! >:(
-
Why is April suddenly everyone's punch bag? This getting silly!! >:(
Don't be silly Caroline it appears to me that lookout was the one who was being unfairly judged here. I am sue April is not being everyone's punchbag. But something here speaks of glass houses and stones?
-
So why else would you say this if it wasn't pointed to lookout? some mysterious "phantom"? For lookout has been accused of this before by some.
I hope I've got this wrong, but it's beginning to feel as if volcanoes are being constructed from pimples, as in, puggle long enough and there'll be an eruption.
-
Don't be silly Caroline it appears to me that lookout was the one who was being unfairly judged here. I am sue April is not being everyone's punchbag. But something here speaks of glass houses and stones?
Clarify!?
-
I hope I've got this wrong, but it's beginning to feel as if volcanoes are being constructed from pimples, as in, puggle long enough and there'll be an eruption.
Well the match was in your hand April. You can't blame anyone else if the mountain explodes.
-
Well the match was in your hand April. You can't blame anyone else if the mountain explodes.
I rather think you put one -where there previously wasn't- and then you lit it.
-
I rather think you put one -where there previously wasn't- and then you lit it.
Mole hills expanded by a little more digging!!
-
Mole hills expanded by a little more digging!!
Keep right on puggling!!
-
How can you feel like a victim when you have just expressed that you think that someone is "perverse" for refusing to change view?
Perhaps it was worded wrongly, but it came across as bullying of Lookout. If it wasn´t meant to be, I think I would choose to say, sorry for the way I worded the post, not play the victim.
-
How can you feel like a victim when you have just expressed that you think that someone is "perverse" for refusing to change view?
Perhaps it was worded wrongly, but it came across as bullying of Lookout. If it wasn´t meant to be, I think I would choose to say, sorry for the way I worded the post, not play the victim.
KEEP RIGHT ON PUGGLING.
-
Must be the effect I have on people. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Must be the effect I have on people. ;D ;D ;D ;D
But not something I've EVER accused you of, Lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
How can you feel like a victim when you have just expressed that you think that someone is "perverse" for refusing to change view?
Perhaps it was worded wrongly, but it came across as bullying of Lookout. If it wasn´t meant to be, I think I would choose to say, sorry for the way I worded the post, not play the victim.
Ignore it Alias. You will only get the blame for something they themselves have created. ;)
-
Ignore it Alias. You will only get the blame for something they themselves have created. ;)
You are right.
-
I suggest that April goes for a cup of tea and a lie down before she says anything else. ::)
It's strange,but I've had NONE of this sort of thing with " middle of the road " viewers.Just sayin'.
-
You three are goading and yet you can't see it - however, you're the first to cry bullying when it happens to you. From now on, I'll be as condescending as I damn well please because what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
-
You three are goading and yet you can't see it - however, you're the first to cry bullying when it happens to you. From now on, I'll be as condescending as I damn well please because what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Don't be stupid by showing your ignorance Caroline. You have a habit of talking down to people as well. A bit like your side kick scipio.
-
Don't be stupid by showing your ignorance Caroline. You have a habit of talking down to people as well. A bit like your side kick scipio.
I'd say you wee showing your stupidity and YOU talk down to people all of the time but the others aren't going to pick you up on it but it's about time someone DID!!
-
Do us all a favour and go and join the other ignorant trolls.
-
Do us all a favour and go and join the other ignorant trolls.
True colours!!
-
Think it's time everybody took a break, calmed down and concentrated on the case rather than personalities.
Sorry if I sound condescending or whatever but can't think of another way of saying it.
-
Do us all a favour and go and join the other ignorant trolls.
A fine example of living, breathing Christianity at work. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Think it's time everybody took a break, calmed down and concentrated on the case rather than personalities.
Sorry if I sound condescending or whatever but can't think of another way of saying it.
I think Grahame needs to be told to watch his language if Scip had used that language he'd have been banned!!
-
I think Grahame needs to be told to watch his language if Scip had used that language he'd have been banned!!
Yes, it appears that Grahame has carte blanche to say what he likes in the most vulgar and ungentlemany tones but Caroline and I can't express our opinions without being condemned. I consider that like every other poster here we should be allowed to air our opinions and agree/disagree with whomsoever we feel it appropriate.
-
Yes, it appears that Grahame has carte blanche to say what he likes in the most vulgar and ungentlemany tones but Caroline and I can't express our opinions without being condemned. I consider that like every other poster here we should be allowed to air our opinions and agree/disagree with whomsoever we feel it appropriate.
Nobody has carte blanche and where the line is crossed action is taken. In this case the offending words have been edited out. The mods try to be even handed and deal with problems fairly. As you know it can be difficult at times.
-
Nobody has carte blanche and where the line is crossed action is taken. In this case the offending words have been edited out. The mods try to be even handed and deal with problems fairly. As you know it can be difficult at times.
Yeh, and so can some posters ;)
-
I'd say you wee showing your stupidity and YOU talk down to people all of the time but the others aren't going to pick you up on it but it's about time someone DID!!
Don't be rediculous Caroline. I only talk roughly to those who think they're better than others. It's a pity no one picks you up on your rudeness a bit more. Oh I'm sorry this is why you are talking like this. Silly me.
-
Nobody has carte blanche and where the line is crossed action is taken. In this case the offending words have been edited out. The mods try to be even handed and deal with problems fairly. As you know it can be difficult at times.
Edit. I will PM this to you NGB, instead of putting it on the board as tensions seem to be high enough.
-
True colours!!
Probably
-
A fine example of living, breathing Christianity at work. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one's perfect, not even you.
-
I think Grahame needs to be told to watch his language if Scip had used that language he'd have been banned!!
Don't be silly Caroline that is an unfair critisism of the admin. Idid it because I just don't care if I get banned. If I am I certainly won't go on about it as being so unfair like you do. Silly woman.
-
Yeh, and so can some posters ;)
Look in a mirror sometimes April. At least I acknowledge I'm not good.
-
Don't be stupid by showing your ignorance Caroline. You have a habit of talking down to people as well. A bit like your side kick scipio.
A moment ago you said she was kissing my feet now you say I am just a side-kick. Make up your mind.
-
Hi
I have done this in the past, and will again.
here is the link
http://www.essex.pcc.police.uk/2015/02/essex-police-challenge-comes-to-witham/
Nick Alston has stated he will not support a request for Essex Police to show that they have not framed JB.
All would take is the release of the original reports from the team surrounding the farm house.
I believe its a good idea to have a long documented history of giving Essex Police the opportunity to come clean.
As you all know I have been in contact with officers who were inside the farmhouse and have been threatened by Essex Police for doing this.
This was done to try and keep what happened a secret,this is one of the most darkest acts in UK policeing.
Essex Police have Framed Jeremy Bamber.
Questions in by 12th of March. I'm reminding myself btw. ;D ;D ;D
-
Noted a remark from the author/investigative journalist/true crime writer/trial watcher/criminologist.News about crime,punishment and justice.-----------Ian Hitchings.
The remark being : " If the evidence put before the jury is flawed,because it's inaccurate or incomplete,then you'll get a flawed verdict ".
Ian is a supporter of Jeremy.
-
All having an afternoon nap ? That's nice. :o
-
All having an afternoon nap ? That's nice. :o
Posts have been deleted, but who cares anyway?
-
All having an afternoon nap ? That's nice. :o
I am working..... :)
-
I am working..... :)
me too .
And watching the puppy who has just pulled up some parquet flooring :(
-
me too .
And watching the puppy who has just pulled up some parquet flooring :(
Ooops! How is your new baby, jan?
-
Posts have been deleted, but who cares anyway?
They haven't been deleted, they've been moved to Hidden Threads ;)
-
Posts have been deleted, but who cares anyway?
I didn't even notice. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Shows how much interest I take.
-
Ooops! How is your new baby, jan?
pretty good on the whole . Just normal puppy behaviour . :)
-
It's alright saying " he's guilty " and ending it there,but I'm afraid Jeremy will NEVER give in,nor end his fight for justice,and rightly so.
Two words are all the opposition mutter,but think how many words Jeremy has used over the years in order to prove once and for all that he's an innocent man. Which has been the hardest,those two meaningless words or the millions of words that have kept Jeremy going through the years ?
Would anyone else be as determined as Jeremy has been.? I don't think so. He's not doing it all for the fun of it,or to pass the time. He's doing what we all would " attempt " to do and that's to see justice done.
When you know yourself that you're telling the truth,it's hard when you're just one voice in a crowd. He's got no family to rely on------------nobody,just those who are content to leave him where he is.
He should have thought about that BEFORE he murdered five innocents!!!
-
He should have thought about that BEFORE he murdered five innocents!!!
Now how did I expect to receive your two penn'orth at some point ? Love the one-liners by the way. ::)
-
He should have thought about that BEFORE he murdered five innocents!!!
And just how exactly is your post really necessary?
-
And just how exactly is your post really necessary?
It's because it's me,Mr G. Some show quite an aversion to my posts. Can't think why. :D
-
It's because it's me,Mr G. Some show quite an aversion to my posts. Can't think why. :D
They let the monkey out the cage at specific times I think? ;D (wait for it. This post will be gone with the wind) ;)
-
They let the monkey out the cage at specific times I think? ;D (wait for it. This post will be gone with the wind) ;)
Talking of gone with the wind, remind me Mr Gee, how many times have you reinvented yourself? :D
-
Talking of gone with the wind, remind me Mr Gee, how many times have you reinvented yourself? :D
Most likely not as many times as others have. :o
-
I've received an acknowledgement from my e-mail to Essex Police,so here's hoping that I receive at least one answer to the questions I've forwarded.
-
I've received an acknowledgement from my e-mail to Essex Police,so here's hoping that I receive at least one answer to the questions I've forwarded.
Blimey! Good on yer! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I've received an acknowledgement from my e-mail to Essex Police,so here's hoping that I receive at least one answer to the questions I've forwarded.
What did you ask?
-
I've received an acknowledgement from my e-mail to Essex Police,so here's hoping that I receive at least one answer to the questions I've forwarded.
Do you never tire of making excuses for a double child murderer?
-
What did you ask?
What is the largest ocean in the world? :-\
-
Blimey! Good on yer! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Very polite it is too,Patti. ;)
-
Do you never tire of making excuses for a double child murderer?
Not an excuse in sight. I don't believe in them.
-
Not an excuse in sight. I don't believe in them.
Do you think Daniel and Nicolas would thank you for supporting their killer.
(http://i.imgur.com/TQv2Noh.jpg?1)
Twins Daniel and Nicholas Caffell, shot multiple times in the face and head by Jeremy Bamber as they slept.
-
Do you think Daniel and Nicolas would thank you for supporting their killer.
I don't do emotional blackmail either. That's for liars !
-
I don't do emotional blackmail either. That's for liars !
So let's see, you ignore the mountain of evidence which implicates Jeremy Bamber in the murders, you subscribe to the, 'Jeremy's innocent' mantra, based on nothing more than a gut feeling and still you expect to be taken seriously?
You really need a new hobby lookout, how about wingsuit flying?
-
So let's see, you ignore the mountain of evidence which implicates Jeremy Bamber in the murders, you subscribe to the, 'Jeremy's innocent' mantra, based on nothing more than a gut feeling and still you expect to be taken seriously?
Where is this " mountain of evidence " that you keep on about ?
BTW,it's slightly more that just a gut-feeling that I have. ::)
-
Where is this " mountain of evidence " that you keep on about ?
BTW,it's slightly more that just a gut-feeling that I have. ::)
That's exactly the question Jeremy Bamber has been asking and he knows he did it.
ETA. Offer up a single fact which points to his innocence if you can?
-
So let's see, you ignore the mountain of evidence which implicates Jeremy Bamber in the murders, you subscribe to the, 'Jeremy's innocent' mantra, based on nothing more than a gut feeling and still you expect to be taken seriously?
Should someone be ashamed of their beliefs John or is it their right to have beliefs? I doubt Lookout would support a child murderer, I doubt anyone would in their right mind.
Its the points of law and the way the case was handled from the onset which causes some people to remain unsure that it was a sound conviction and have doubts..There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Just because someone has been convicted it does not necessarily mean they are guilty in the eyes of those that do not believe the conviction is sound. If everyone had the same opinion, then those that were innocent at the time of conviction would never stand a chance or that conviction being overturned.
I do agree that Jeremy is a convicted killer in the eyes of the law, but when there are doubts, surely people have the right to say so without being ridiculed. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That's exactly the question Jeremy Bamber has been asking and he knows he did it.
ETA. Offer up a single fact which points to his innocence if you can?
Never mind about choosing the easy way out.I asked you for this mountain of evidence,not Jeremy.
When you can furnish me with the evidence,then I'll tell you why he's innocent.
-
What is the largest ocean in the world? :-\
Naughty! Hilarious, but naughty! ;D
Never mind about choosing the easy way out.I asked you for this mountain of evidence,not Jeremy.
When you can furnish me with the evidence,then I'll tell you why he's innocent.
The evidence can be found on this board, Lookout. In the COA documents in the CCRC's rejections. Just because it isn't YOU agree with doesn't mean it's not evidence.
-
Should someone be ashamed of their beliefs John or is it their right to have beliefs? I doubt Lookout would support a child murderer, I doubt anyone would in their right mind.
Its the points of law and the way the case was handled from the onset which causes some people to remain unsure that it was a sound conviction and have doubts..There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Just because someone has been convicted it does not necessarily mean they are guilty in the eyes of those that do not believe the conviction is sound. If everyone had the same opinion, then those that were innocent at the time of conviction would never stand a chance or that conviction being overturned.
I do agree that Jeremy is a convicted killer in the eyes of the law, but when there are doubts, surely people have the right to say so without being ridiculed. ;D ;D ;D ;D
The problem is that most Jeremy supporters can't raise any reasonable doubts. Mike makes up nonsense and lookout demonstrates day in and out she is wildly ignorant of the facts of the case. She constantly posts made up things from people as being facts. Worst of all though, she always claims there was no evidence against Jeremy, and when the evidence is recounted to her in great detail she doesn't refute any of it she just responds saying it doesn't amount to evidence in her eyes.
That doesn't amount to debating the case it amounts to her living in denial and propagandizing in favor of Jeremy merely. When pushed to shove Lookout says that Jeremy is innocent because Jeremy is a great guy who would never do such a hideous thing as to kill his family. That's her argument at its core.
If people want to be Jeremy advocates more power to them but when they decide to take on that responsibility it would be nice if they would be effective ones who could articulate rational cogent reasons for believing he is innocent and try to effectively challenge the case made against Jeremy instead of ineffective ones who just post made up claims, red herrings and instead of trying to refute the evidence simply deny the evidence exists or denies it proves anything.
-
Never mind about choosing the easy way out.I asked you for this mountain of evidence,not Jeremy.
When you can furnish me with the evidence,then I'll tell you why he's innocent.
The evidence that proves Sheila wasn't responsible shows points to Jeremy as the only other suspect because of the phone call. Jeremy put himself in the frame by inventing the phone call. People can ask why he would invent the call, why didn't he just say nothing? The answer is obvious;because he wanted the police to believe he was tucked up in bed when it all kicked off and if he was home, he couldn't have been at WHF killing his family. He simply didn't think it through or realise that if there was suspicion, the phone call put him in the frame.
-
Naughty! Hilarious, but naughty! ;D
The evidence can be found on this board, Lookout. In the COA documents in the CCRC's rejections. Just because it isn't YOU agree with doesn't mean it's not evidence.
What evidence would that be Mat? Where is the evidence that places him at the crime scene? Where are his fingerprints in the bedrooms? Where are his fingerprints on the windows? Where are the witnesses? Where are the fibers/hairs? Where is his fingerprints on the silencer? Show me that he was there!
People keep asking Lookout for proof of evidence when clearly there is none. Not one piece of forensic evidence which places him at the crimes scene.
The evidence that convicted him was the statement from a rejected girlfriend who lifted her dress showing her knickers for the News of the World on the day of his conviction, earning herself 25,0000.
Oh and the blood inside a silencer....a silencer that was not found by the police, which was removed from the crime scene, handled, placed into a bag, then handed over to Jones who sat most of the night drinking whisky with the family. The silencer was then taken to the police station where it was once again looked at handled before it went to the lab....Is it possible it was contaminated, yes beyond a doubt...any cough, sneeze or anyone handling that silencer could have contaminated it.
From the onset he was guilty, by those who thought he was. The invention that he rode a bike in a wet suit, without flippers is extraordinarily bizarre. "Why was he not killed himself" another bizarre comment.
Sheila did not know how to use a rifle...is pure poppycock! Colin himself said she would never allow the children to play with toy guns, yet there was toy gun in the living room...I suppose that belonged to one of the farm workers......Just sayin!!
-
What evidence would that be Mat? Where is the evidence that places him at the crime scene? Where are his fingerprints in the bedrooms? Where are his fingerprints on the windows? Where are the witnesses? Where are the fibers/hairs? Where is his fingerprints on the silencer? Show me that he was there!
People keep asking Lookout for proof of evidence when clearly there is none. Not one piece of forensic evidence which places him at the crimes scene.
The evidence that convicted him was the statement from a rejected girlfriend who lifted her dress showing her knickers for the News of the World on the day of his conviction, earning herself 25,0000.
Oh and the blood inside a silencer....a silencer that was not found by the police, which was removed from the crime scene, handled, placed into a bag, then handed over to Jones who sat most of the night drinking whisky with the family. The silencer was then taken to the police station where it was once again looked at handled before it went to the lab....Is it possible it was contaminated, yes beyond a doubt...any cough, sneeze or anyone handling that silencer could have contaminated it.
From the onset he was guilty, by those who thought he was. The invention that he rode a bike in a wet suit, without flippers is extraordinarily bizarre. "Why was he not killed himself" another bizarre comment.
Sheila did not know how to use a rifle...is pure poppycock! Colin himself said she would never allow the children to play with toy guns, yet there was toy gun in the living room...I suppose that belonged to one of the farm workers......Just sayin!!
It's the evidence that shows Sheila didn't do it that goes against him - because of the phone call.
-
It's the evidence that shows Sheila didn't do it that goes against him - because of the phone call.
Rubbish! Utter rubbish and here is me thinking that you of all people would be the last person to say that.
You nor me cannot prove a call was made or not. ???
-
What evidence would that be Mat? Where is the evidence that places him at the crime scene? Where are his fingerprints in the bedrooms? Where are his fingerprints on the windows? Where are the witnesses? Where are the fibers/hairs? Where is his fingerprints on the silencer? Show me that he was there!
You're asking me what evidence convicted Bamber? Don't you know? No matter what side of the fence you're on it's clear what led to the conviction.
If his fingerprints were there - then you would just say of course they were there, he spent time there. He was there the night of the murders, it was his family home.
Again, the silencer.... YOU may not believe it. But so what? You may not believe Julie's testimony but so what? It's there, it was admissable in court. You can disagree with it but it doesn't change anything. Not believing the evidence, isn't evidence.
You can say that it is bizzare for people to mention bikes and wetsuit theories but I think it's perfectly normal for relatives to have theories of what happened and how it could of happened, I don't find that bizzare.
Rubbish! Utter rubbish and here is me thinking that you of all people would be the last person to say that.
You nor me cannot prove a call was made or not. ???
How is it rubbish? If Sheila didn't do it - then the phone call implicates only Jeremy.
-
Rubbish! Utter rubbish and here is me thinking that you of all people would be the last person to say that.
You nor me cannot prove a call was made or not. ???
I think, what Caroline means, is that there were only two people who could ever possibly have been in the frame, this is due to the phone call Jeremy claims he received.
Therefore anything which indicates that Sheila was not responsible, equally indicates that Jeremy was.
This was the courts perspective also.
-
Phone-call or not,wouldn't amount to the most important evidence. When Jeremy could no longer contact his father and if there'd been an engaged tone,he'd naturally have assumed that his father was contacting the police,which you would assume. Was it an engaged tone,or was it a drawn-out tone/signal which would indicate a handset having been left off its cradle ?
If it was an engaged tone which Jeremy had asserted,then it meant that someone was using the phone.
So Jeremy was jailed on his assumption that his father had rang the police ? Without other evidence,it's Jeremy's word against the prosecution.
Though it was a foregone conclusion over the " blood in the silencer debacle " that the judge had brainwashed everyone into saying it was Sheila's,so what chance Jeremy anyway ? May as well add a few more probably's and maybe's to the collection.
-
I think, what Caroline means, is that there were only two people who could ever possibly have been in the frame, this is due to the phone call Jeremy claims he received.
Therefore anything which indicates that Sheila was not responsible, equally indicates that Jeremy was.
This was the courts perspective also.
Incorrect Hartley for Caroline said that Jeremy put himself in the frame by inventing a phone call. A phone that cannot be proved either way.
-
I don't believe anyone believes Neville called Jeremy. There are 40 reasons not to -
Jeremy may not answer. Regardless of whether he heard the phone ringing or not.
Neville may not have time. Sheila was going crazy. There were five people inside WHF who were the priority.
He may not answer for a long time as was 'sleeping like a log'.
Neville may only get the answering machine.
Neville will assume the answering machine is switched on. Making it impossible for Jeremy to answer the phone within 3 - 8 rings as he was 'sleeping like a log'.
Jeremy did not like Sheila or understand her illness. So would just make things worse when trying to talk her down.
Sheila did not like Jeremy.
Another adult, June was available at WHF.
The rifle was not powerful, being used for vermin. Neville would know this. So Neville would tackle Sheila prior to shots being fired.
Sheila had 'limited'/ no experience with guns. So Neville would tackle Sheila prior to shots being fired.
Neville could restrain Sheila easily. If fully or even partially fit.
Neville and June together could restrain Sheila easily. If fully or even partially fit.
Jeremy was three miles away and not dressed.
The police had been called by Neville ten minutes earlier.
Neville would be putting his only son in danger.
Jeremy may be scared to go over. He told Liz Rimmington that Sheila was going 'back to the nut house' and told the police she had committed child abuse. Now Neville had told him she had 'gone crazy' with a gun.
Jeremy did not have a key to WHF so would have to smash the door down, or smash a window. Or shout through the letter box. Making Sheila more excitable. Neville may not have been aware that Jeremy could get in through windows.
Sheila would not be pleased to see him.
Jeremy would be reluctant to rush over if answering the phone. Having poor relations with all the family.
Jeremy may refuse to go over. Being tired and upset at being woken.Lookout said it was common for Sheila to have 'one of her turns' so he may have decided to go back to bed.
Jeremy may not rush over. Maybe wasting up to 26 minutes doing strange things.
Jeremy may just ring nearby farm workers and tell them to go over. Something Neville could do himself and may consider a better option.
Jeremy may just ring the Foakes's and tell them to go over. Something Neville could do and may consider a better option.
Neville calling someone would antagonise Sheila. She may even brutally beat someone.
Neville could call the Foakes's. Who were two adults living at WHF.
There was no time to make any calls if Sheila had 'gone' crazy with a gun.
When there was time to make a call Neville had the option of restraining Sheila. Getting June to assist.
There was no time to wait for someone to arrive. Sheila had 'gone 'crazy'.
Relations between the two were poor and getting worse. After Jeremy robbed the caravan site and spent the money.
Neville would be prepared to take a torso bullet in order to restrain Sheila. Knowing the gun was for shooting vermin/rabbits and a torso shot would not kill him.
The kitchen phone was downstairs. Meaning everyone would be left upstairs. Unless Sheila had accompanied him downstairs.
If the answering machine was switched off, as his supporters claim. Jeremy would not hear his downstairs phone. If his bedroom door was shut.
Neville was bigger and stronger than Jeremy and the head of the family.
Sheila would have to let Neville open the door when Jeremy arrives. Or Neville would have to put himself in danger by getting to the front door against Sheila's wishes.
Sheila is more likely to fire bullets if more people start pressurising her and arriving on the scene.
Neville would be aware that he was the person who always had most success in calming down an excited Sheila. If he couldn't, then someone who thought Sheila was a 'looney' certainly could not.
Jeremy was not known to be especially brave. So may refuse to go anywhere near the inside of WHF. Preferring to stay 50 yards from the entrance. This is what happened.
Neville would be implicating his son if there were any injuries or fatalities. As Jeremy would be first on the scene and first witness. This is what happened.
Jeremy was not known for being especially brave. So may have just phoned the police. Neville had either already done this. Or wanted to keep things private. Jeremy did in fact call the police.
It is not standard practice to call relations on the phone at 3am when you're life is in danger. There are no other examples of this happening.
-
Rubbish! Utter rubbish and here is me thinking that you of all people would be the last person to say that.
You nor me cannot prove a call was made or not. ???
Actually Patti your comment is rubbish! I don't need to prove YOU wrong, Jeremy needs to PROVE it happened. If he can do that, he'll be a free man. You might think it's rubbish but it happens to be a fact! You can discuss windows and bullet sizes all you like - but that won't turn any keys!!
-
I think, what Caroline means, is that there were only two people who could ever possibly have been in the frame, this is due to the phone call Jeremy claims he received.
Therefore anything which indicates that Sheila was not responsible, equally indicates that Jeremy was.
This was the courts perspective also.
That is exactly what I mean. Thanks Hartley! (Although I thought it was perfectly obvious).
-
Incorrect Hartley for Caroline said that Jeremy put himself in the frame by inventing a phone call. A phone that cannot be proved either way.
If he's the killer the phone call didn't happen.
Weren't you just saying that people have a right to believe what they choose without being 'ridiculed'? I imagine that includes NOT having a moderator calling their opinions 'utter rubbish'. I believe he invented the phone call - if you think he's guilty, it's a given! So it's not rubbish at all - but common sense! ::)
-
Incorrect Hartley for Caroline said that Jeremy put himself in the frame by inventing a phone call. A phone that cannot be proved either way.
I'm not sure how to explain it any other way.
If Sheila is innocent, then the phone call didn't take place.
That would mean that JB invented the phone call, which then puts him the frame and pretty much proves his guilt.
This is all on the basis that there is other evidence which eliminates Sheila.
Does that make sense?
-
Incorrect Hartley for Caroline said that Jeremy put himself in the frame by inventing a phone call. A phone that cannot be proved either way.
THis is a perfect example of precisely what I was saying about ineffective Jeremy advocates. All you are doing is closing your eyes to the case made against Jeremy. Aside from the fact that Appeal Court decisions, books and even postings from various people have laid out the case many times I have posted numerous threads that lay out the case quite clearly.
I noted the case has two different prongs. Prong 1 established that Sheila didn't load a gun, didn't shoot anyone else, didn't beat anyone else and can't have killed herself. Someone else was there who killed them and planted the gun on Sheila's body to frame her and then left.
Prong 2 established that Jeremy was that person who did it and a very large part of the evidence was the fact that Jeremy knew about the murders and claimed the reason why he learned about the trouble was because of Nevill called him to say Sheila was going crazy and had a gun. Since Sheila didn't commit the murders obviously she didn't have the gun. Why would Nevill call Jeremy and falsely blame Sheila? This means the call is not credible and that Jeremy must be the killer. Even his own lawyers conceded this. Additional evidence against Jeremy was provided by Julie's testimony as well as evidence he staged ammunition in the kitchen after the murders and other lies he told in an effort to implicate Sheila.
There was eve evidence he called Julie before police and lied about the order after realizing it looked bad to admit he called her first though he should not have called her at all.
Pretending there was no evidence Jeremy was involved is a waste of time the only way to establish his innocence is to refute the evidence that established Sheila didn't do anything. The defense needed to establish it was reasonably likely that Sheila did it and that Julie was reasonably likely to have been lying.
-
Phone-call or not,wouldn't amount to the most important evidence. When Jeremy could no longer contact his father and if there'd been an engaged tone,he'd naturally have assumed that his father was contacting the police,which you would assume. Was it an engaged tone,or was it a drawn-out tone/signal which would indicate a handset having been left off its cradle ?
If it was an engaged tone which Jeremy had asserted,then it meant that someone was using the phone.
So Jeremy was jailed on his assumption that his father had rang the police ? Without other evidence,it's Jeremy's word against the prosecution.
Though it was a foregone conclusion over the " blood in the silencer debacle " that the judge had brainwashed everyone into saying it was Sheila's,so what chance Jeremy anyway ? May as well add a few more probably's and maybe's to the collection.
The alleged phone call is the crux of the case - I'm shocked that people still can't see this after years of debate!! :o :o :o
-
Sadly,there's a lot of evidence which points to Sheila,and it's no use saying that Jeremy was emulating her actions when he allegedly killed everyone because he hadn't got a clue about her illness nor did he or his family realise just how ill she was.
When it was said that Sheila had deteriorated,was there anything put into place since this remark was made ? Not to my knowledge. There was no support written up,no follow up or change in medication ordered,so were we to understand that nothing more could be done ? That was the way it looked to me.
-
Sadly,there's a lot of evidence which points to Sheila, and it's no use saying that Jeremy was emulating her actions when he allegedly killed everyone because he hadn't got a clue about her illness nor did he or his family realise just how ill she was.
When it was said that Sheila had deteriorated,was there anything put into place since this remark was made ? Not to my knowledge. There was no support written up,no follow up or change in medication ordered,so were we to understand that nothing more could be done ? That was the way it looked to me.
What evidence do you think points to Sheila?
-
The alleged phone call is the crux of the case - I'm shocked that people still can't see this after years of debate!! :o :o :o
See what? ??? ;D
-
The alleged phone call is the crux of the case - I'm shocked that people still can't see this after years of debate!! :o :o :o
Of course that is obvious - but show me where someone has proved it did not happen?
It might seem unlikely - but it is still possible that it did happen because the fact is none of us know what happened - not 100%
So could the call from NB to Jeremy have happened ? Yes
Could someone have forced him to make the call - remote possibility .
If the call did not happen - of course he is guilty .
If police had the proof it did not happen I am sure they would have produced it by now because it would have saved them a lot of hassle over the years. So I don't see that we are missing the "obvious"
-
What evidence do you think points to Sheila?
Best not hold your breath Mat! :D
Lookout has a bee in her bonnet over Bamber but I have seen this all before. Lost count of the number of people who swore he was innocent over the years but came to realise the truth in the end.
For nearly thirty years the world has been promised new evidence and can breakthrough in this case but predictably it was always a damp squid. Even his last lawyer couldn't get past the evidence and the best he hoped for was that the conviction was unsafe.
-
Sadly,there's a lot of evidence which points to Sheila,and it's no use saying that Jeremy was emulating her actions when he allegedly killed everyone because he hadn't got a clue about her illness nor did he or his family realise just how ill she was.
When it was said that Sheila had deteriorated,was there anything put into place since this remark was made ? Not to my knowledge. There was no support written up,no follow up or change in medication ordered,so were we to understand that nothing more could be done ? That was the way it looked to me.
Sadly, I can see how Sheila's condition makes it possible for some to claim that she was responsible BUT if her"condition" is looked at from a different angle it's more than possible to see how she COULDN'T have done it.
We know that her meds had been DRASTICALLY reduced without any monitoring. Scipio tells us that 200 mg of Haloperidol was way to high a dose causing heaviness of limbs, lack of coordination and lethargy yet that dose had been HALVED and STILL she appeared to be suffering these symptoms. Could it be that those were the symptoms NOT of over medication but depression? If this WAS the case -and the circumstances of Sheila's life at that time do nothing to rule it out as a possibility- she could easily have been in that place in depression which is rather more safe for the sufferer than when it starts to lift. That place is so low that they don't possess the energy to inflict damage on themselves or others. When June told Pam that she was concerned about Sheila's lack of interest in helping in the house or doing things with the children she could just as easily have been describing depression as an incipient psychotic episode.
-
Of course that is obvious - but show me where someone has proved it did not happen?
It might seem unlikely - but it is still possible that it did happen because the fact is none of us know what happened - not 100%
So could the call from NB to Jeremy have happened ? Yes
Could someone have forced him to make the call - remote possibility .
If the call did not happen - of course he is guilty .
If police had the proof it did not happen I am sure they would have produced it by now because it would have saved them a lot of hassle over the years. So I don't see that we are missing the "obvious"
I agree, jan there is no proof at all that Nevill didn't call Jeremy, some people may find it unlikely etc. but they don't know the truth any more than anyone else does. There are always many possibilities just because some are unlikely doesn't mean they can be dismissed out of hand.
-
Sadly,there's a lot of evidence which points to Sheila,and it's no use saying that Jeremy was emulating her actions when he allegedly killed everyone because he hadn't got a clue about her illness nor did he or his family realise just how ill she was.
When it was said that Sheila had deteriorated,was there anything put into place since this remark was made ? Not to my knowledge. There was no support written up,no follow up or change in medication ordered,so were we to understand that nothing more could be done ? That was the way it looked to me.
What evidence? Of course Jeremy knew about her illness - he called her 'a nutter'.
-
What evidence do you think points to Sheila?
Were you not aware that she was ill, then, ?
In Sheila's mind latterly,she thought that everyone was colluding against her to take away her children. Her ex-husband,even her father who she once relied on for support.Everyone was projecting evil,in her mind. She saw her friend Freddie as the Devil. As for her mother,the relationship was always a bad one.
How is it you're so certain of Jeremy's guilt ? Because everyone else says so ??
-
Of course that is obvious - but show me where someone has proved it did not happen?
It might seem unlikely - but it is still possible that it did happen because the fact is none of us know what happened - not 100%
So could the call from NB to Jeremy have happened ? Yes
Could someone have forced him to make the call - remote possibility .
If the call did not happen - of course he is guilty .
If police had the proof it did not happen I am sure they would have produced it by now because it would have saved them a lot of hassle over the years. So I don't see that we are missing the "obvious"
Jan, would you be willing to see Jeremy released PURELY on the possibility that a call MAY have been made? I ask because it seems to me that THAT(alleged) call is the crux of the case. As for anyone being able to prove that something DIDN'T happen, I don't think it's yet possible to prove a negative.
-
THis is a perfect example of precisely what I was saying about ineffective Jeremy advocates. All you are doing is closing your eyes to the case made against Jeremy. Aside from the fact that Appeal Court decisions, books and even postings from various people have laid out the case many times I have posted numerous threads that lay out the case quite clearly.
I noted the case has two different prongs. Prong 1 established that Sheila didn't load a gun, didn't shoot anyone else, didn't beat anyone else and can't have killed herself. Someone else was there who killed them and planted the gun on Sheila's body to frame her and then left.
Prong 2 established that Jeremy was that person who did it and a very large part of the evidence was the fact that Jeremy knew about the murders and claimed the reason why he learned about the trouble was because of Nevill called him to say Sheila was going crazy and had a gun. Since Sheila didn't commit the murders obviously she didn't have the gun. Why would Nevill call Jeremy and falsely blame Sheila? This means the call is not credible and that Jeremy must be the killer. Even his own lawyers conceded this. Additional evidence against Jeremy was provided by Julie's testimony as well as evidence he staged ammunition in the kitchen after the murders and other lies he told in an effort to implicate Sheila.
There was eve evidence he called Julie before police and lied about the order after realizing it looked bad to admit he called her first though he should not have called her at all.
Pretending there was no evidence Jeremy was involved is a waste of time the only way to establish his innocence is to refute the evidence that established Sheila didn't do anything. The defense needed to establish it was reasonably likely that Sheila did it and that Julie was reasonably likely to have been lying.
Unfortunately I am not as tunneled as you when there could be an alternative Skip. My eyes are wide open, if fact they go beyond wide they are vastly open. ;D
You have noted eh? Well I make notes too and until I am convinced otherwise I shall keep to my opinion and no matter what epilogue you write I wont be budging until I am supplied with some sort of forensic evidence or official documents.
Its my opinion that no phone call can be proved one way or the other and to say it did or it did not happen is stalemate, for its unsafe to categorically say one way or the other. On the other hand its a case of what you and I believe.
Evidence speaks, assumptions go no where.
-
Were you not aware that she was ill, then, ?
In Sheila's mind latterly,she thought that everyone was colluding against her to take away her children. Her ex-husband,even her father who she once relied on for support.Everyone was projecting evil,in her mind. She saw her friend Freddie as the Devil. As for her mother,the relationship was always a bad one.
How is it you're so certain of Jeremy's guilt ? Because everyone else says so ??
So what if she had a history of mild mental illness. Many thousands of people suffer the same ailment but they don't go out and shoot their entire family. The person who did this crime planned it meticulously from start to finish, it was not a spur of the moment madness by a young woman who hated firearms and was in any event unfamiliar with such a weapon.
-
Of course that is obvious - but show me where someone has proved it did not happen?
It might seem unlikely - but it is still possible that it did happen because the fact is none of us know what happened - not 100%
So could the call from NB to Jeremy have happened ? Yes
Could someone have forced him to make the call - remote possibility .
If the call did not happen - of course he is guilty .
If police had the proof it did not happen I am sure they would have produced it by now because it would have saved them a lot of hassle over the years. So I don't see that we are missing the "obvious"
I don't believe the call happened and so in my view, he made it up which makes him guilty. The phone call (far from being 'utter rubbish or not important) is incredibly important and anyone who doesn't understand that - hasn't really understood the specifics of he case and that's a fact!
-
Was JM telling the truth ?
-
Was JM telling the truth ?
Only she and Jeremy know that.
-
I don't believe the call happened and so in my view, he made it up which makes him guilty. The phone call (far from being 'utter rubbish or not important) is incredibly important and anyone who doesn't understand that - hasn't really understood the specifics of he case and that's a fact!
Had Nevill phoned Jeremy and was forced at gunpoint to end the call then Jeremy would have heard Sheila in the background. After all and according to lookout, she was so ill that she didn't know what she was doing yet compos mentis enough to control the situation to her own liking.
I think NOT!
-
Was JM telling the truth ?
She had to! In any event much of what she said in her statement was backed up by others who had experienced the exact same behaviour. The police would never have used Julie's evidence if they thought for a minute that she was making it all up. Her admission that she was involved in the Osea Caravan Park break-in and robbery went a very long way to enhancing her credibility. Add to this the fact that she came clean over the cheque fraud and the drug selling and it becomes abundantly clear that she was perceived as a reliable witness, something which was later borne out in the courtroom.
-
Hello Maggie I quite agree nobody can prove one way or the other whether the alleged phone call did take place. I have always found it so strange that he phoned Julie first and she told him to go back to bed then he spent ages looking for the phone number of the local police station surely in view of what his Father had told him he would have either gone round to the farm at speed to see what was going on or he would have used the 999 facility. Guess we all base things on what we would have done.
-
Of course that is obvious - but show me where someone has proved it did not happen?
It might seem unlikely - but it is still possible that it did happen because the fact is none of us know what happened - not 100%
So could the call from NB to Jeremy have happened ? Yes
Could someone have forced him to make the call - remote possibility .
If the call did not happen - of course he is guilty .
If police had the proof it did not happen I am sure they would have produced it by now because it would have saved them a lot of hassle over the years. So I don't see that we are missing the "obvious"
I already posted how multiple evaluations of the phone call issue. The evaluations reveal it is not reasonably likely that the call occurred. You hide your head in the sand pretending there is a reasonable chance it occurred because you are biased. An objective look at the issue though proves you to be wrong:
1) Nevill would have no reason to call Jeremy-
A) The evidence establishes Sheila was doing the horrible thins claimed
B) Jeremy would not be able to help clam Sheila down if she had been going crazy he would simply have exacerbated the situation so why would Nevill call him?
C) Nevill would be able to physically handle Sheila himself and if he needed to take physical action and hf he did need help he would have enlisted June. She was already there. Time is of the essence if he needed to act. The time to wake Jeremy and for him to arrive would be too late
D) If things were really bad he would have armed himself the air rifle would have not been fatal so he had that choice, the shotgun and other weapons to use
2) It is not credible that Nevill would call Jeremy after Sheila began shooting people. Had she begun shooting he would have known it could not be "kept within the family" and would have known that ambulances needed to be summoned. Moreover, he would have told Jeremy to come in harms way to be shot along with the rest of them. Also he would have told Jeremy that she had opened fire and that medical help was needed. The claim he said she was going crazy and had the gun clearly suggests she had it but hadn't used it yet.
3)Nevill would not have had the opportunity to call Jeremy before the shooting began
A) It is neither credible that Sheila would have allowed her father to be alone in the kitchen so he could phone police, grab weapons or run out the door nor that June would stay in bed during all this
B) The bedroom had no phone in it (because Jeremy removed it) so a call could not have been made from there
C) It is not credible that Sheila caught Nevill on the phone and instead of shooting him she hung the phone up, took it back off the hook then marched him upstairs so she could kill both of her parents together.
4) Nevill would not have been able to call Jeremy after the shooting began
A) By the time Nevill got downstairs to the kitchen where the phone was he was injured in a manner that precluded him from speaking
B) The event began with the killer going into the master bedroom and opening fire on both parents. There would not have been any opportunity for Nevill to call Jeremy from the kitchen before the shooting began.
5) If Jeremy truly received the call he claimed to have received then he would have either rushed over or dialed 999 right away. He called Julie before calling police though he had no good reason to call her at all. He lied about this and falsely claimed he called police first. He didn't call police right away he just lied and said he did. He never called 999 at all mind you he took the time to look up police station numbers. After getting no answer at the first station because it was so late he decided to look up another instead of calling 999. When asked why he did his he claimed he didn't know dialing 999 would be faster. He didn't know dialing 999 would be faster than looking up numbers? NOT CREDIBLE His other actions that night were also inconsistent with honestly receiving the call claimed.
6) Julie's testimony that he told her his plan involved making up receiving a phonecall from Nevill and her testimony he didn't receive any call and was responsible for the murders.
You ignore all this because you don't want to face it just like you make excuses to pretend Jeremy isn't the one who replaced the kitchen phone with the bedroom phone then hid it. The excuses you come up with are NOT CREDIBLE and do not amount to a reasonable likelihood that Nevill phoned Jeremy.
-
So what if she had a history of mild mental illness. Many thousands of people suffer the same ailment but they don't go out and shoot their entire family. The person who did this crime planned it meticulously from start to finish, it was not a spur of the moment madness by a young woman who hated firearms and was in any event unfamiliar with such a weapon.
Mild mental illness ? Thousands of people don't tell their GP that their children could harm or have sex with them.Get real----------Sheila had a psychotic illness which is by no means mild.She was also a self-harmer,and had previously suffered anorexia.
Sheila possibly suffered post-partum psychosis after her abortions/miscarriages/live births,which went untreated,or was passed off as a depressive illness after giving birth,again which wasn't treated,then would in turn manifest itself into something more severe-------------which it did. A diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was made which WASN'T mild,and her condition was exacerbated by snorting cocaine and smoking cannabis,heavily for the last 12 months of her life.
June too had been diagnosed with religious psychosis,a condition which was harder to contain than Sheila's illness.
-
Unfortunately I am not as tunneled as you when there could be an alternative Skip. My eyes are wide open, if fact they go beyond wide they are vastly open. ;D
You have noted eh? Well I make notes too and until I am convinced otherwise I shall keep to my opinion and no matter what epilogue you write I wont be budging until I am supplied with some sort of forensic evidence or official documents.
Its my opinion that no phone call can be proved one way or the other and to say it did or it did not happen is stalemate, for its unsafe to categorically say one way or the other. On the other hand its a case of what you and I believe.
Evidence speaks, assumptions go no where.
You are ignoring the evidence in this case and instead making ridiculous assumptions. You should take your own advice and stop making assumptions and start paying attention the evidence. My tunnel vision is to actually take the evidence into account INCLUDING the evidence that establishes the killer walked into the master bedroom shot June in bed and then shot Nevill 4 times, the gun was empty then they struggled over the weapon before the killer managed to gain sole control and beat Nevill unconscious...
You say I am making assumption by relying on the various pieces of evidence that establish this is what happened. You want to ignore the evidence and make ridiculous assumptions that make it possible for Jeremy to be innocent.
If you want to establish his innocence then you need to refute evidence not just make up the claim that the evidence people are citing is simply unsupported allegations. What is cited is more than just unsupported allegations it is things supported by credible evidence.
-
Mild mental illness ? Thousands of people don't tell their GP that their children could harm or have sex with them.Get real----------Sheila had a psychotic illness which is by no means mild.She was also a self-harmer,and had previously suffered anorexia.
Sheila possibly suffered post-partum psychosis after her abortions/miscarriages/live births,which went untreated,or was passed off as a depressive illness after giving birth,again which wasn't treated,then would in turn manifest itself into something more severe-------------which it did. A diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was made which WASN'T mild,and her condition was exacerbated by snorting cocaine and smoking cannabis,heavily for the last 12 months of her life.
June too had been diagnosed with religious psychosis,a condition which was harder to contain than Sheila's illness.
She was in recovery so let's hear no more bullshit lookout. Sheila was looking forward to a new beginning with her family, a new beginning which was a very big threat to Jeremy Bamber. All of a sudden he was about to lose a huge chunk of his inheritance so his hand was very much forced. What better opportunity did he have to get rid of them all at once? ...coincidence? Hardly!
Remember the pills he was going to use on them? How he was going to burn down the house but thought better of it when he realised that all those antiques would also burn. If anyone had a mental illness I fear you can lay that particular affliction at the feet of Jeremy Bamber.
-
You are ignoring the evidence in this case and instead making ridiculous assumptions. You should take your own advice and stop making assumptions and start paying attention the evidence. My tunnel vision is to actually take the evidence into account INCLUDING the evidence that establishes the killer walked into the master bedroom shot June in bed and then shot Nevill 4 times, the gun was empty then they struggled over the weapon before the killer managed to gain sole control and beat Nevill unconscious...
You say I am making assumption by relying on the various pieces of evidence that establish this is what happened. You want to ignore the evidence and make ridiculous assumptions that make it possible for Jeremy to be innocent.
If you want to establish his innocence then you need to refute evidence not just make up the claim that the evidence people are citing is simply unsupported allegations. What is cited is more than just unsupported allegations it is things supported by credible evidence.
What are my ridiculous assumptions? List them!
-
Mild mental illness ? Thousands of people don't tell their GP that their children could harm or have sex with them.Get real----------Sheila had a psychotic illness which is by no means mild.She was also a self-harmer,and had previously suffered anorexia.
Sheila possibly suffered post-partum psychosis after her abortions/miscarriages/live births,which went untreated,or was passed off as a depressive illness after giving birth,again which wasn't treated,then would in turn manifest itself into something more severe-------------which it did. A diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was made which WASN'T mild,and her condition was exacerbated by snorting cocaine and smoking cannabis,heavily for the last 12 months of her life.
June too had been diagnosed with religious psychosis,a condition which was harder to contain than Sheila's illness.
I know that both anorexia and self harm have previously been hinted at but there doesn't seem to be proof of either. Self harmers don't usually put their fists through windows -a blade does a good enough job- although those feeling frustrated and in a foul temper might.
-
She was in recovery so let's hear no more bullshit lookout. Sheila was looking forward to a new beginning with her family, a new beginning which was a very big threat to Jeremy Bamber. All of a sudden he was about to lose a huge chunk of his inheritance so his hand was forced.
Go on,resort to swearing.Your sort do when they're losing the argument. ::) Pathetic.
Recovering ? Looking forward to a new beginning with her family ? Where've you been ?
Sheila had deteriorated as I've already stated----------it's what was written in the hospital report. Her medication,intramuscularly had been halved,but her other medication hadn't been adjusted in conjunction with the reduced Haldol,so that was a big mistake in itself. Not that she'd been taking any !
There was no threat to Jeremy's future at all.He didn't have a care in the world,good job,good wages,a rent-free home,girls falling over him.No wonder he didn't know what went on.Does a 24 year old want to know about illnesses,etc ? No ! Not in my books he wouldn't. Jeremy was doing what all 24 year olds do.
Jeremy wasn't bothered about any inheritance at all.Only those who've gained were bothered !!
-
I know that both anorexia and self harm have previously been hinted at but there doesn't seem to be proof of either. Self harmers don't usually put their fists through windows -a blade does a good enough job- although those feeling frustrated and in a foul temper might.
Self-harmers DO put their hands/fists through windows or they wouldn't do it. Someone in a temper would think twice.
-
I know that both anorexia and self harm have previously been hinted at but there doesn't seem to be proof of either. Self harmers don't usually put their fists through windows -a blade does a good enough job- although those feeling frustrated and in a foul temper might.
Absolutely correct, if Sheila had been a threat to the twins she would never have been permitted custody.
In any event, killing five family members in one go in the manner in which the WHF murders were carried out requires a cold calculated approach and a specific knowledge of that particular firearm, something which Sheila Caffell most certainly never had. And that is without even mentioning the scuffle in the kitchen which was so violent that a piece was broken off the murder weapon and marks left around the range. To even suggest that Sheila was involved in such a struggle with a much taller, stronger man and came away from it completely unmarked and unscathed is contrary to common sense.
-
She had to! In any event much of what she said in her statement was backed up by others who had experienced the exact same behaviour. The police would never have used Julie's evidence if they thought for a minute that she was making it all up. Her admission that she was involved in the Osea Caravan Park break-in and robbery went a very long way to enhancing her credibility. Add to this the fact that she came clean over the cheque fraud and the drug selling and it becomes abundantly clear that she was perceived as a reliable witness, something which was later borne out in the courtroom.
Good job I know different then,isn't it ?
-
What are my ridiculous assumptions? List them!
He concludes what your assumptions are by using his own assumptions as facts. Scip in a nutshell
-
Sheila was looking forward to a new beginning with her family
source please?
-
Self-harmers DO put their hands/fists through windows or they wouldn't do it. Someone in a temper would think twice.
No they wouldn't - people have killed other people because they have been so angry they couldn't help themselves. Just because someone punches a wall or puts there hand through a window, doesn't make them a self-harmer and there is NO EVIDENCE that Sheila was a self-harmer!!
-
Absolutely correct, if Sheila had been a threat to the twins she would never have been permitted custody.
Marks found on the twins bore testament at how good a mother Sheila was when they were in her care. This is why Colin wanted FULL custody of them and sought Neville's permission to do so.
-
What are my ridiculous assumptions? List them!
They abound but in this particular instance you are assuming the phone call was realistically possible though the evidence says otherwise. Instead of evaluating the evidence to see whether it is realistically possible you simply assume it is ad assume there is a 50/50 chance either way.
-
I know that both anorexia and self harm have previously been hinted at but there doesn't seem to be proof of either. Self harmers don't usually put their fists through windows -a blade does a good enough job- although those feeling frustrated and in a foul temper might.
True but there are many other ways of self harming such as drug taking. Violent temper tantrums are a common side effect or symptom of schizophrenia.
-
No they wouldn't - people have killed other people because they have been so angry they couldn't help themselves. Just because someone punches a wall or puts there hand through a window, doesn't make them a self-harmer and there is NO EVIDENCE that Sheila was a self-harmer!!
I've read that Sheila was a self-harmer.Injuring themselves makes them feel better. It's in one of the doctors testimonies.
-
I've read that Sheila was a self-harmer.Injuring themselves makes them feel better. It's in one of the doctors testimonies.
Yes, you have mentioned this before but I have seen no evidence of it and her body shows no sign of it either. Self harmers always have scarring for obvious reasons - Sheila did not.
-
I don't believe the call happened and so in my view, he made it up which makes him guilty. The phone call (far from being 'utter rubbish or not important) is incredibly important and anyone who doesn't understand that - hasn't really understood the specifics of he case and that's a fact!
You don't have to shout.
I don't think there is anyone who does not understand that . So I am not quite sure where you are coming from unless you have proof it did not happen.
-
She was in recovery so let's hear no more bullshit lookout. Sheila was looking forward to a new beginning with her family, a new beginning which was a very big threat to Jeremy Bamber. All of a sudden he was about to lose a huge chunk of his inheritance so his hand was very much forced. What better opportunity did he have to get rid of them all at once? ...coincidence? Hardly!
Remember the pills he was going to use on them? How he was going to burn down the house but thought better of it when he realised that all those antiques would also burn. If anyone had a mental illness I fear you can lay that particular affliction at the feet of Jeremy Bamber.
Isn't it interesting, the different ways in which we all see Sheila. I wonder who she was really.
I don't believe she was looking forward to a happy life with the family. Not the English one, anyway. I think, when her biological mother left she took with her all Sheila's hopes of what might have been and she may have been left with what was. Certainly, she seems to have accepted religion but I suspect more to please June than herself. I get the feeling that she may have had to work very hard at pleasing June and may even have tried to persuade the boys to do the same.
I can't go along with Jeremy having a mental illness. I'll settle for personality disorder, though.
-
You don't have to shout.
I don't think there is anyone who does not understand that . So I am not quite sure where you are coming from unless you have proof it did not happen.
Patti called my earlier post 'utter rubbish' and Lookout just claimed the call wasn't important. Clearly some people are either trying to play the importance down or they just don't understand it. Oh and I'm not shouting - I'm not even talking, I'm typing.
-
Marks found on the twins bore testament at how good a mother Sheila was when they were in her care. This is why Colin wanted FULL custody of them and sought Neville's permission to do so.
She reared them mostly on her own didn't she? Quite frankly, three or four bullet holes in the head renders your arguments laughable if the whole thing wasn't so sad.
You have NO evidence which supports Jeremy Bamber which isn't that surprising really but do keep on trying. Many legal eagles before you have attempted to do what you are doing but they have all similarly failed, the best that even they could have hoped for was a retrial on the basis that the conviction was unsafe. Not even that succeeded as the evidence against Jeremy is unassailable.
-
No they wouldn't - people have killed other people because they have been so angry they couldn't help themselves. Just because someone punches a wall or puts there hand through a window, doesn't make them a self-harmer and there is NO EVIDENCE that Sheila was a self-harmer!!
I put my fist through a window once and it wasn't on purpose. I was locked out of the store after walking someone to her car and punched the window to try to get attention of the night crew chief. I didn't expect the window to break. Colin didn't go into enough detail about the alleged window incident to evaluate things fairly but nothing about it suggests she did it with the intent to cut herself.
-
I've read that Sheila was a self-harmer.Injuring themselves makes them feel better. It's in one of the doctors testimonies.
If we are to assume that cutting was her method of choice for self harming, where were the scars to prove it? Putting her hand through a window ONCE doesn't make anyone a self harmer.
-
Isn't it interesting, the different ways in which we all see Sheila. I wonder who she was really.
I don't believe she was looking forward to a happy life with the family. Not the English one, anyway. I think, when her biological mother left she took with her all Sheila's hopes of what might have been and she may have been left with what was. Certainly, she seems to have accepted religion but I suspect more to please June than herself. I get the feeling that she may have had to work very hard at pleasing June and may even have tried to persuade the boys to do the same.
I can't go along with Jeremy having a mental illness. I'll settle for personality disorder, though.
IMO Jeremy would have had to have had a severe personality disorder to do what he did and then coolsy stand outside the farmhouse that night. I have never seen any mention of juvenile delinquency or violence etc. which is the normal history of someone with such a disorder.
-
Patti called my earlier post 'utter rubbish' and Lookout just claimed the call wasn't important. Clearly some people are either trying to play the importance down or they just don't understand it. Oh and I'm not shouting - I'm not even talking, I'm typing.
fine I take it back if that was your interpretation of her post .
And we are all just typing but usually exclamation marks are for the full effect
so there!!!!!!
-
Isn't it interesting, the different ways in which we all see Sheila. I wonder who she was really.
I don't believe she was looking forward to a happy life with the family. Not the English one, anyway. I think, when her biological mother left she took with her all Sheila's hopes of what might have been and she may have been left with what was. Certainly, she seems to have accepted religion but I suspect more to please June than herself. I get the feeling that she may have had to work very hard at pleasing June and may even have tried to persuade the boys to do the same.
I can't go along with Jeremy having a mental illness. I'll settle for personality disorder, though.
I don't particularly care what people say about her. I pay attention to the pertinent issues regarding her her body and to a lesser degree her medication. She could have been the worst person in the world but if the evidence proves she didn't kill herself or anyone else then it would still make no difference how horrible she was. Some people seem to want to not pay attention to the evidence that matters and instead evaluate this case based on their perceptions of Jeremy and Sheila. It's not a valid basis to evaluate the case but worse those perceptions are largely shaped by innuendo.
I don't see any way to get enough info to accurately evaluate what they were like in full and see no reason to even bother to try to look for such information because it is not relevant to the issue of guilt.
-
True but there are many other ways of self harming such as drug taking. Violent temper tantrums are a common side effect or symptom of schizophrenia.
They could also be the result of living with a man who doesn't earn a regular wage, can't pay the bills causing them to rely on the parents Sheila may have liked to be more independent of, AND cheats if the going gets too rough for him.
-
They could also be the result of living with a man who doesn't earn a regular wage, can't pay the bills causing them to rely on the parents Sheila may have liked to be more independent of, AND cheats if the going gets too rough for him.
True.
-
If we are to assume that cutting was her method of choice for self harming, where were the scars to prove it? Putting her hand through a window ONCE doesn't make anyone a self harmer.
It was from reading about the scar to one of her hands that I realised it must have been the window fiasco.
We don't yet know of any other injury that she's put herself through.
-
fine I take it back if that was your interpretation of her post .
And we are all just typing but usually exclamation marks are for the full effect
so there!!!!!!
People get offended by caps, now by exclamation marks - perhaps people shouldn't take posts they don't agree with 'personally. Use as many as you like - I promise, I won't even flinch!
-
It was from reading about the scar to one of her hands that I realised it must have been the window fiasco.
We don't yet know of any other injury that she's put herself through.
With evidence like that Jeremy is sure to be released by the summer.
-
l would ask them - have things changed since the 80s?
Imagine you lived in a country which last year had 3,000 allegations of police corruption. Worse, imagine that of these 3,000 allegations only half of them were properly investigated — because for police officers in this country, corruption was becoming routine. Imagine that the police increasingly used their powers to crack down not on criminals but on anyone who dared speak out against them. What sort of a country is this? Well, it’s Britain I’m afraid — where what was once the finest, most honest service in the world is in danger of becoming rotten.
Some of this was revealed in a little-noticed report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, which went on to deliver some even more shocking news. Nearly half of 17,200 officers and staff surveyed said that if they discovered corruption among their colleagues and chose to report it, they didn’t believe their evidence would be treated in confidence and would fear ‘adverse consequences’. This appalling lack of protection for whistle-blowers — often amounting to persecution — has become commonplace throughout the public services and creates a climate in which dishonesty and malpractice flourish.
The second report, compiled by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, bears this out. It says there has been a sharp increase over the past five years in the number of police officers dealing heroin, cocaine and amphetamines and an equally startling rise in the number of officers abusing their power ‘for sexual gratification’ — in other words bullying or cajoling suspects, witnesses and even victims into having sex with them.
Just this week, in fact, it emerged that the Met suspended 73 coppers, community support officers and other staff on corruption charges in the past two years. They cited drug crimes, bribery, theft, fraud, sexual misconduct and — everybody’s favourite — un-authorised disclosure of information. Eleven were convicted in court, but what happened to the others? The Met spokesman said rather blandly that some were allowed to resign or retire (presumably with full pension rights) and some were dismissed
-
IMO Jeremy would have had to have had a severe personality disorder to do what he did and then coolsy stand outside the farmhouse that night. I have never seen any mention of juvenile delinquency or violence etc. which is the normal history of someone with such a disorder.
Not all psychopaths show signs of violence. But Jeremy has been described as a tease and a bully at school, he stole money from his family business and sold drugs.
-
They abound but in this particular instance you are assuming the phone call was realistically possible though the evidence says otherwise. Instead of evaluating the evidence to see whether it is realistically possible you simply assume it is ad assume there is a 50/50 chance either way.
Are you being ironic deliberately?
You criticise people for supposedly making assumptions yet you assume that Patti assumes a 50/50 possibility either way. Where does Patti claim that it is a 50/50 chance? Are you just assuming that she does because you have no real examples of Patti's assumptions?
You also assume that Patti has not evaluated the evidence, based only on the fact that she disagrees with your own assumptions.
The assumption that the phone call was possible is reasonable and a long winded biased diatribe from scipio does not change anything.
-
It was from reading about the scar to one of her hands that I realised it must have been the window fiasco.
We don't yet know of any other injury that she's put herself through.
You have no idea how she got any of her scars.
I broke a giant window and don't have a scar from the cuts. I don't have any scars on my hands from any the fights I was involved in either though they got cut on teeth and other things. The only scar on my hand was obtained from the metal rails of a banker's box cutting me. So instead of scar with a cool story behind it, I got my most noticeable scar while getting something from a file.
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/electronics/detail-page/c26-B00006IC3O-1-l.jpg)
-
IMO Jeremy would have had to have had a severe personality disorder to do what he did and then coolsy stand outside the farmhouse that night. I have never seen any mention of juvenile delinquency or violence etc. which is the normal history of someone with such a disorder.
Apparently Brett Collins said Jeremy was molested when he was 11 years old at Gresham boarding school. Children who get sexually abused specialy males are known to develop personality disorder later on in life
-
You have no idea how she got any of her scars.
I broke a giant window and don't have a scar from the cuts. I don't have any scars on my hands from any the fights I was involved in either though they got cut on teeth and other things. The only scar on my hand was obtained from the metal rails of a banker's box cutting me. So instead of scar with a cool story behind it, I got my most noticeable scar while getting something from a file.
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/electronics/detail-page/c26-B00006IC3O-1-l.jpg)
So once again you dispute what a doctor has to say. ::)
-
I don't particularly care what people say about her. I pay attention to the pertinent issues regarding her her body and to a lesser degree her medication. She could have been the worst person in the world but if the evidence proves she didn't kill herself or anyone else then it would still make no difference how horrible she was. Some people seem to want to not pay attention to the evidence that matters and instead evaluate this case based on their perceptions of Jeremy and Sheila. It's not a valid basis to evaluate the case but worse those perceptions are largely shaped by innuendo.
I don't see any way to get enough info to accurately evaluate what they were like in full and see no reason to even bother to try to look for such information because it is not relevant to the issue of guilt.
Guess what, Skippy? I don't particularly care that you don't particularly care what people say about her. In fact, I'm not particularly interested in your opinion any more than you're interested in mine. If you were you wouldn't be talking about how she might have been the worst person in the world with the underlying implication that I'd suggested she was other than a nice person. NOR have I suggested that she killed herself or anyone else.
When it comes to what makes people who they are, Skippy, you've said it yourself very succinctly "I.........see no reason to even bother to try to look for such information .................." I think it sums you up very well so I'll tell you what, you just carry on doing what you trained to do and allow me to carry on doing what I was trained to do. As neither appears to have anything in common with the other we should be able to avoid each others company, shouldn't we.
-
Apparently Brett Collins said Jeremy was molested when he was 11 years old at Gresham boarding school. Children who get sexually abused specialy males are known to develop personality disorder later on in life
Where did you read that David?
-
A Sociopath ?
-
A Sociopath ?
??
-
Are you being ironic deliberately?
You criticise people for supposedly making assumptions yet you assume that Patti assumes a 50/50 possibility either way. Where does Patti claim that it is a 50/50 chance? Are you just assuming that she does because you have no real examples of Patti's assumptions?
You also assume that Patti has not evaluated the evidence, based only on the fact that she disagrees with your own assumptions.
The assumption that the phone call was possible is reasonable and a long winded biased diatribe from scipio does not change anything.
Thank you Gringo...I was just about to type the same, but you have put it far better than I could. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
??
They're NEVER wrong.
They NEVER apologise.
They'll NEVER admit defeat no matter what.
They write endless lines of THEIR facts to get their point across, which you MUST believe or else you come in for a barrage of abuse and insults.
I'm sure there'll be other foibles to match the description. Others which we won't know of.
-
Apparently Brett Collins said Jeremy was molested when he was 11 years old at Gresham boarding school. Children who get sexually abused specialy males are known to develop personality disorder later on in life
PTSD and borderline personality disorder are a much more common occurrence with victims who are not treated efficiently:
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/borderline-personality-disorder-symptoms/
Such still would have little to do with his long term planning of their murders so he could have the family fortune all to himself.
-
IMO Jeremy would have had to have had a severe personality disorder to do what he did and then coolsy stand outside the farmhouse that night. I have never seen any mention of juvenile delinquency or violence etc. which is the normal history of someone with such a disorder.
Well, I know someone who insists he's guilty because he (allegedly!!!!!!!) broke a boy's arm. I asked from whom she'd learned it/where she'd read it. Naturally, she had no idea. NO!!!! I DON'T believe it...............but he DID have the reputation of a bully and a tease, BOTH of which COULD signify a PD.
-
They're NEVER wrong.
They NEVER apologise.
They'll NEVER admit defeat no matter what.
They write endless lines of THEIR facts to get their point across, which you MUST believe or else you come in for a barrage of abuse and insults.
I'm sure there'll be other foibles to match the description. Others which we won't know of.
You are largely describing yourself all you left out is that you refuse to see the facts as they really are.
-
You are largely describing yourself all you left out is that you refuse to see the facts as they really are.
There you go you see,blaming someone else. It's not ME who refuses to see facts !!
-
Are you being ironic deliberately?
You criticise people for supposedly making assumptions yet you assume that Patti assumes a 50/50 possibility either way. Where does Patti claim that it is a 50/50 chance? Are you just assuming that she does because you have no real examples of Patti's assumptions?
You also assume that Patti has not evaluated the evidence, based only on the fact that she disagrees with your own assumptions.
The assumption that the phone call was possible is reasonable and a long winded biased diatribe from scipio does not change anything.
I think it's reasonable to assume Patti meant 50/50, given that she said we can't tell if the call happened or not (got to be one or the other - 50/50). However maybe she didn't mean 50/50 and if not, perhaps she can clear that up by explaining what she did mean? Then we wouldn't need to assume. Also, it was Patti who claimed that believing the call didn't take place (and therefore assuming it meant Jeremy must be guilty) was 'utter rubbish'. Using your own argument, it is also reasonable to assume that the phone call didn't take place - so the 'utter rubbish' comment was also uncalled for and biased?
-
PTSD and borderline personality disorder are a much more common occurrence with victims who are not treated efficiently:
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/borderline-personality-disorder-symptoms/
Such still would have little to do with his long term planning of their murders so he could have the family fortune all to himself.
Actually Scip, abuse in childhood is one of the risk factors for psychopathy - but there are lots of other factors to consider alongside.
-
They're NEVER wrong.
They NEVER apologise.
They'll NEVER admit defeat no matter what.
They write endless lines of THEIR facts to get their point across, which you MUST believe or else you come in for a barrage of abuse and insults.
I'm sure there'll be other foibles to match the description. Others which we won't know of.
Lookout, that's VERY unkind. Mike has told us that everything he tells us IS the truth at the time he says it. It isn't HIS fault that the information keeps changing.
-
Lookout, that's VERY unkind. Mike has told us that everything he tells us IS the truth at the time he says it. It isn't HIS fault that the information keeps changing.
;D
-
Lookout, that's VERY unkind. Mike has told us that everything he tells us IS the truth at the time he says it. It isn't HIS fault that the information keeps changing.
Unless my sight's going,I don't see Mike here ? :o
-
You are largely describing yourself all you left out is that you refuse to see the facts as they really are.
I was thinking that.
Lookout, that's VERY unkind. Mike has told us that everything he tells us IS the truth at the time he says it. It isn't HIS fault that the information keeps changing.
Naughty step.
-
I was thinking that.
Naughty step.
Trust you to put your mutty in. ::) No show without Punch.
-
Are you being ironic deliberately?
You criticise people for supposedly making assumptions yet you assume that Patti assumes a 50/50 possibility either way. Where does Patti claim that it is a 50/50 chance? Are you just assuming that she does because you have no real examples of Patti's assumptions?
You also assume that Patti has not evaluated the evidence, based only on the fact that she disagrees with your own assumptions.
The assumption that the phone call was possible is reasonable and a long winded biased diatribe from scipio does not change anything.
I am not making any assumptions Patti stated the following:
Unfortunately I am not as tunneled as you when there could be an alternative Skip. My eyes are wide open, if fact they go beyond wide they are vastly open. ;D
...
Its my opinion that no phone call can be proved one way or the other and to say it did or it did not happen is stalemate, for its unsafe to categorically say one way or the other. On the other hand its a case of what you and I believe.
Evidence speaks, assumptions go no where.
I didn't make any assumptions, Patti was crystal clear.
Patti has never dealt with the issues I raised which establish the call was not reasonably likely to have occurred. Nor has any other Jeremy supporter despite being challenged to do so time and again.
Patti chooses to ignore such and just pretend there is no evidence that tells us whether the call happened or didn't and thus there is reasonable doubt over his guilt. It amounts to creating the fiction the call was possible to create the fiction there is reasonable doubt.
-
Were you not aware that she was ill, then, ?
In Sheila's mind latterly,she thought that everyone was colluding against her to take away her children. Her ex-husband,even her father who she once relied on for support.Everyone was projecting evil,in her mind. She saw her friend Freddie as the Devil. As for her mother,the relationship was always a bad one.
How is it you're so certain of Jeremy's guilt ? Because everyone else says so ??
Yes? So? Doesn't make her a killer. You don't have anything that makes her a killer - just you claim her illness does - it's circumstancial at best - yet you complain the Jeremy evidence is circumstancial.
-
Yes? So? Doesn't make her a killer. You don't have anything that makes her a killer - just you claim her illness does - it's circumstancial at best - yet you complain the Jeremy evidence is circumstancial.
It may not make her a killer but it could, 22% of women diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia murder, so it isn't an impossibility imo.
-
It may not make her a killer but it could, 22% of women diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia murder, so it isn't an impossibility imo.
But there would need to be more evidence to back up the claim. Sheila guilty just because she had paranoid schizophrenia is a stupid arguement unless there is something else to back it up. Injuries sustained on the night, GSR etc.
-
But there would need to be more evidence to back up the claim. Sheila guilty just because she had paranoid schizophrenia is a stupid arguement unless there is something else to back it up. Injuries sustained on the night, GSR etc.
As Jeremy Bamber didn't sustain any injuries either, why is it a stupid argument?
-
As Jeremy Bamber didn't sustain any injuries either, why is it a stupid argument?
I said "etc". For Bamber there was Julies testimony there was the silencer. What else was there for Sheila?
Standing up in court and presenting a Sheila is guilty case with the only evidence being "paranoid schizophrenia in her past".....
-
But there would need to be more evidence to back up the claim. Sheila guilty just because she had paranoid schizophrenia is a stupid arguement unless there is something else to back it up. Injuries sustained on the night, GSR etc.
And whilst a subdued, listless and lethargic Sheila who was taking no interest in her appearance, housework or her children MAY point to being over/under dosed/imminent psychotic episode, it could ALSO point to serious depression which COULD mean she simply wouldn't have had the energy to lift a knife and fork, let alone a gun.
-
I think it's reasonable to assume Patti meant 50/50, given that she said we can't tell if the call happened or not (got to be one or the other - 50/50). However maybe she didn't mean 50/50 and if not, perhaps she can clear that up by explaining what she did mean? Then we wouldn't need to assume. Also, it was Patti who claimed that believing the call didn't take place (and therefore assuming it meant Jeremy must be guilty) was 'utter rubbish'. Using your own argument, it is also reasonable to assume that the phone call didn't take place - so the 'utter rubbish' comment was also uncalled for and biased?
I would think it unreasonable to assume that Patti assumes that there is a 50/50 chance of the call happening. Patti believes JB innocent so therefore assumes the call happened.
Your reasoning is faulty anyway, assuming as it does that the only alternative to not knowing is a 50/50 chance. It is fair to say that we cannot tell whether the call occurred or not, but I would think it more reasonable to assume that Patti places the odds on whether it did or not somewhere between 90/10 and 100/0 given that she believes JB innocent.
Why would you care enough to know what odds Patti places on it anyway that you would make assumptions in the absence of Patti quoting an accurate percentage for the strength of her belief.
-
Hopefully Patti will answer for herself what her percentages are and the reasons why - then we can stop guessing. ;D
-
It may not make her a killer but it could, 22% of women diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia murder, so it isn't an impossibility imo.
It's all down to Dr Ferguson's report saying that Sheila had deteriorated. I would have liked him to have specified.
-
And whilst a subdued, listless and lethargic Sheila who was taking no interest in her appearance, housework or her children MAY point to being over/under dosed/imminent psychotic episode, it could ALSO point to serious depression which COULD mean she simply wouldn't have had the energy to lift a knife and fork, let alone a gun.
That is a possibility, am not denying it. However, am just saying that it isn't out of the question for a paranoid schizophrenic to kill in certain situations.
-
Hopefully Patti will answer for herself what her percentages are and the reasons why - then we can stop guessing. ;D
Why are you guessing? What difference does it make?
-
Why are you guessing? What difference does it make?
I haven't guessed.
Caroline/Scip say 50/50. You say 90/10 or 100/0.
-
I said "etc". For Bamber there was Julies testimony there was the silencer. What else was there for Sheila?
Standing up in court and presenting a Sheila is guilty case with the only evidence being "paranoid schizophrenia in her past".....
Julie's testimony ? ;D I shall pass on that. The silencer too was a bum steer--------anything else ?
-
Hopefully Patti will answer for herself what her percentages are and the reasons why - then we can stop guessing. ;D
Do you wonder what percentage other posters put on the call happening, or just Patti?
If it bothers you so much why don't you start a thread on it and then you could stop wondering. I am sure posters would be forthcoming.
-
I am not making any assumptions Patti stated the following:
I didn't make any assumptions, Patti was crystal clear.
Patti has never dealt with the issues I raised which establish the call was not reasonably likely to have occurred. Nor has any other Jeremy supporter despite being challenged to do so time and again.
Patti chooses to ignore such and just pretend there is no evidence that tells us whether the call happened or didn't and thus there is reasonable doubt over his guilt. It amounts to creating the fiction the call was possible to create the fiction there is reasonable doubt.
Why should I deal with anything that you raise? It takes me half the night to digest what you have posted. However, I do take on board some of the things you post and I quite agree with them.
The problem I have is being told by you that I am biased and do not demonstrate anything. Well, I have come to the decision that I am going to speak to you as you speak to me.
You twist and turn everything I say, to suit you and your glamorized beliefs because you cannot come to terms with anything that anyone puts too you. If I was to say the black is black you would write an epilogue saying it is not so.
I have said what I said about the phone call and it has gotten so twisted its enough to make me take the duster and polish the polished table. I am not going to continue to repeat myself either.
Contradiction. I am biased because I believe that there is no evidence to prove one way or the other that telephone from Nevill to Jeremy existed.... I wont shift on that opinion either, is that OK?
-
Do you wonder what percentage other posters put on the call happening, or just Patti?
If it bothers you so much why don't you start a thread on it and then you could stop wondering. I am sure posters would be forthcoming.
Huh? I didn't guess her percentage!! It was you, Caroline and Scip. I said hopefully she will answer for herself so you can all stop arguing over her percentages.
-
It's all down to Dr Ferguson's report saying that Sheila had deteriorated. I would have liked him to have specified.
I CAN understand that Dr F would have noticed a deterioration in her since she'd previously left his care. After all, deterioration was the reason she's returned to his care. But I really don't feel that he could have said of her, in his final report of her, that she's deteriorated, because had she still been in a deteriorated state, surely he wouldn't have allowed her to leave. If she had been well enough to leave, albeit, in his opinion, too soon, he couldn't have believed her to be deteriorated and because he didn't see her again, would have had no idea what was her state.
-
Hey gringo when Adam appears he will start a thread ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Patti's Percentages. What a hoot ;D
-
It may not make her a killer but it could, 22% of women diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia murder, so it isn't an impossibility imo.
Are you saying nearly 1 in 4 woman who are diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia commit murder? :o
That's a very high percentage. I don't know any better, but it sounds unbelievable. :-\
May I ask where such statistics originate?
-
Are you saying nearly 1 in 4 woman who are diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia commit murder? :o
That's a very high percentage. I don't know any better, but it sounds unbelievable. :-\
May I ask where such statistics originate?
22 percent does seem very high. Still, by her own figures (if true) leaves 88% of women with paranoid schizophrenia that don't.
-
I CAN understand that Dr F would have noticed a deterioration in her since she'd previously left his care. After all, deterioration was the reason she's returned to his care. But I really don't feel that he could have said of her, in his final report of her, that she's deteriorated, because had she still been in a deteriorated state, surely he wouldn't have allowed her to leave. If she had been well enough to leave, albeit, in his opinion, too soon, he couldn't have believed her to be deteriorated and because he didn't see her again, would have had no idea what was her state.
Dr Ferguson wasn't happy that Sheila left before her time but he couldn't have done anything about it because she hadn't been committed/sectioned,which I thought she had been.
It struck me that Dr Ferguson was at a loss what to do to be perfectly honest. He was working blindfold himself at times as I suspect that a lot of what Sheila had said and done was kept from him.
-
Are you saying nearly 1 in 4 woman who are diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia commit murder? :o
That's a very high percentage. I don't know any better, but it sounds unbelievable. :-\
May I ask where such statistics originate?
Hi Hartley, I do agree it does seem very high, I saw it on a recent tv programme. I haven't followed it up with research since so there may be conflicting figures, however it is clear that it isn't impossible for sufferers of paranoid schizophrenia to kill.
-
22 percent does seem very high. Still, by her own figures (if true) leaves 88% of women with paranoid schizophrenia that don't.
Actually it leaves 78% of women who don't. ;)
-
Hi Hartley, I do agree it does seem very high, I saw it on a recent tv programme. I haven't followed it up with research since so there may be conflicting figures, however it is clear that it isn't impossible for sufferers of paranoid schizophrenia to kill.
I don't know any better as I say, just curious really.
-
Mat forgive me if I am being dumb but should that not read 78% proves I read your posts hahaha
-
Actually it leaves 78% of women who don't. ;)
Haha, yes, but I got his point.
-
Mat forgive me if I am being dumb but should that not read 78% proves I read your posts hahaha
:o :o :o :o proves you can count too... just checking!! ;D ;D ;D
:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
Where did you read that David?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber#Life_and_career (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber#Life_and_career)
Under Early life and education - Beginning of the fourth paragraph is sais
"A close friend of his, Brett Collins, said Bamber was sexually assaulted when he was 11, around the time he started at Gresham's"
I would like some more sources to clarify this
-
hahaha Mat thought it was a trick question ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber#Life_and_career (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber#Life_and_career)
Under Early life and education - Beginning of the fourth paragraph is sais
"A close friend of his, Brett Collins, said Bamber was sexually assaulted when he was 11, around the time he started at Gresham's"
I would like some more sources to clarify this
I am always a bit sceptical, David as we never really know what is truth and what is hearsay. I think I've heard this before and have an inkling it may be a quote from a book. Not Lomax and pretty sure not Wilkes :-\
-
it hasnt really got any bearing on his guilt or innocence.
-
Why should I deal with anything that you raise? It takes me half the night to digest what you have posted. However, I do take on board some of the things you post and I quite agree with them.
The problem I have is being told by you that I am biased and do not demonstrate anything. Well, I have come to the decision that I am going to speak to you as you speak to me.
You twist and turn everything I say, to suit you and your glamorized beliefs because you cannot come to terms with anything that anyone puts too you. If I was to say the black is black you would write an epilogue saying it is not so.
I have said what I said about the phone call and it has gotten so twisted its enough to make me take the duster and polish the polished table. I am not going to continue to repeat myself either.
Contradiction. I am biased because I believe that there is no evidence to prove one way or the other that telephone from Nevill to Jeremy existed.... I wont shift on that opinion either, is that OK?
This provides a very good example for the stalemate that I have articulated is present on this board.
The things you say you have no need to deal and can't read because it takes too long constitute the evidence in the case that convicted Jeremy.
You refuse to make the effort to fully understand the case against Jeremy. You refuse to undertake a complete objective evaluation of the evidence. You have decided what you want to believe from a position of ignorance and in turn that means your opinion is not rationally based. The only way to make in informed rational decision is to learn the full case against Jeremy understand it and then either accept the evidence or refute it.
When you decide in advance of hearing and evaluating all the evidence and arguments what you want to believe it is driven by prejudice. The word comes from pre-judging which mean judging before you are in a reasonable position to make a decision.
This board consist of 3 main personalities- those trying to sway others to change their views like Adam and Mike, those like yourself who have decided what you want to believe no matter what and will not be moved no matter what evidence is pointed out to demonstrate otherwise and then those who want a real debate of the issues. Those who have decided their opinions are immovable no matter what evidence is brought to bear are not interested in the truth but rather interested in pretending the truth is what they want to believe no matter what.
If there were actual evidence that the blood in the moderator had been planted I would actually change my views of the case because I follow the evidence. People who want to desperately believe it was planted choose to believe it despite their being no evidence of it. These unsupported beliefs are then used to assert Jeremy is the victim of an MOJ and should be released though there isn't any evidence to establish such.
I readily admit I can't prove God exists. I readily admit that those who believe in God are taking a leap of father that is why it is called having faith when you believe in God. People who support Jeremy are taking a leap of faith but many don't want to admit that is what they are doing or refuse to face that is what they are doing.
-
Self praise is no recommendation !
-
I haven't guessed.
Caroline/Scip say 50/50. You say 90/10 or 100/0.
Can't you read? I said that, "it would be more reasonable to assume 90/10 or 100/0" given Patti's professed belief in JB's innocence. This was in response to scipio's unintentionally ironic post where he did assume 50/50.
I have assumed nothing of the sort. I have merely stated that scip's and Caroline's assumptions seem to only allow for 50/50 or 100/0 with nothing in between.
If you haven't guessed then why do you request that Patti clears it up so that "we can stop guessing".
Does we not include yourself?
-
Actually it leaves 78% of women who don't. ;)
Still, even if it was only 1% of woman with PS that kill, it would still be 'possible' that somebody with the illness 'could' kill.
Which I believe was your original point.
-
Hey gringo when Adam appears he will start a thread ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Patti's Percentages. What a hoot ;D
He could add one of his infamous polls Susan ::) ::) ::)
-
Maggie I thought I had read that in a book about Jeremy I have only read Colin's and I remember talk of Jeremy being a bully but will look again but I have read it somewhere.
-
gringo good idea I will have a word when he is on he will love it ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
This provides a very good example for the stalemate that I have articulated is present on this board.
The things you say you have no need to deal and can't read because it takes too long constitute the evidence in the case that convicted Jeremy.
You refuse to make the effort to fully understand the case against Jeremy. You refuse to undertake a complete objective evaluation of the evidence. You have decided what you want to believe from a position of ignorance and in turn that means your opinion is not rationally based. The only way to make in informed rational decision is to learn the full case against Jeremy understand it and then either accept the evidence or refute it.
When you decide in advance of hearing and evaluating all the evidence and arguments what you want to believe it is driven by prejudice. The word comes from pre-judging which mean judging before you are in a reasonable position to make a decision.
This board consist of 3 main personalities- those trying to sway others to change their views like Adam and Mike, those like yourself who have decided what you want to believe no matter what and will not be moved no matter what evidence is pointed out to demonstrate otherwise and then those who want a real debate of the issues. Those who have decided their opinions are immovable no matter what evidence is brought to bear are not interested in the truth but rather interested in pretending the truth is what they want to believe no matter what.
If there were actual evidence that the blood in the moderator had been planted I would actually change my views of the case because I follow the evidence. People who want to desperately believe it was planted choose to believe it despite their being no evidence of it. These unsupported beliefs are then used to assert Jeremy is the victim of an MOJ and should be released though there isn't any evidence to establish such.
I readily admit I can't prove God exists. I readily admit that those who believe in God are taking a leap of father that is why it is called having faith when you believe in God. People who support Jeremy are taking a leap of faith but many don't want to admit that is what they are doing or refuse to face that is what they are doing.
Clap Clap Clap ;D ;D ;D ;D
Get down off that pedestal Skipo for your posts are like bone China and are becoming more and more transparent with time.
I was discussing one point,. where as you are taking what I was saying as a whole reflection on this case.
-
Maggie I thought I had read that in a book about Jeremy I have only read Colin's and I remember talk of Jeremy being a bully but will look again but I have read it somewhere.
I haven't read Colin's so maybe it is in there? I thought Colin was close to Jeremy and they were like brothers before the murders so strange if he said he was a bully????
-
Can't you read? I said that, "it would be more reasonable to assume 90/10 or 100/0" given Patti's professed belief in JB's innocence. This was in response to scipio's unintentionally ironic post where he did assume 50/50.
I have assumed nothing of the sort. I have merely stated that scip's and Caroline's assumptions seem to only allow for 50/50 or 100/0 with nothing in between.
If you haven't guessed then why do you request that Patti clears it up so that "we can stop guessing".
Does we not include yourself?
I think something is being missed.
Taking the possibility of a call in isolation, there is no reasonable argument of whether it occurred or not.
It is only when you consider other evidence that you can form an opinion as to whether the call occurred or not. Obviously if you believe Sheila is guilty, then the call existed; if you believe JB is the killer, then it didn't.
The initial point being made, was that if JB is guilty and therefore no call took place, then by making up the call, he sealed his own fate.
That is clearly the case.
-
Still, even if it was only 1% of woman with PS that kill, it would still be 'possible' that somebody with the illness 'could' kill.
Which I believe was your original point.
It was :)
-
Maggie sorry I did not explain myself very well it was Jeremy's House master at school that said he was a bully sorry for misleading you :)
-
If there were actual evidence that the blood in the moderator had been planted I would actually change my views of the case because I follow the evidence. People who want to desperately believe it was planted choose to believe it despite their being no evidence of it. These unsupported beliefs are then used to assert Jeremy is the victim of an MOJ and should be released though there isn't any evidence to establish such.
When it comes to the silencer you need to realise that it was not collected by forensic law enforcement it was collected by individuals that wanted him convicted. Is this an item of evidence that you are prepared to follow 100%? Because I sure do not.
-
I think something is being missed.
Taking the possibility of a call in isolation, there is no reasonable argument of whether it occurred or not.
It is only when you consider other evidence that you can form an opinion as to whether the call occurred or not. Obviously if you believe Sheila is guilty, then the call existed; if you believe JB is the killer, then it didn't.
The initial point being made, was that if JB is guilty and therefore no call took place, then by making up the call, he sealed his own fate.
That is clearly the case.
I agree, that clearly is the case.
-
I agree, that clearly is the case.
I thought you were a supporter? :-\
-
I think something is being missed.
Taking the possibility of a call in isolation, there is no reasonable argument of whether it occurred or not.
It is only when you consider other evidence that you can form an opinion as to whether the call occurred or not. Obviously if you believe Sheila is guilty, then the call existed; if you believe JB is the killer, then it didn't.
The initial point being made, was that if JB is guilty and therefore no call took place, then by making up the call, he sealed his own fate.
That is clearly the case.
If Jeremy committed the crime do you think he would have hade a better chance of getting away with it if he just left WHF didn't call anyone, then just waited for the farmworkers to discover the bodies?
-
Isn't it interesting, the different ways in which we all see Sheila. I wonder who she was really.
I don't believe she was looking forward to a happy life with the family. Not the English one, anyway. I think, when her biological mother left she took with her all Sheila's hopes of what might have been and she may have been left with what was. Certainly, she seems to have accepted religion but I suspect more to please June than herself. I get the feeling that she may have had to work very hard at pleasing June and may even have tried to persuade the boys to do the same.
I can't go along with Jeremy having a mental illness. I'll settle for personality disorder, though.
Good post.
Personally I think that Sheila, if responsible for the killings, did them to "please" June - in a skewed, insane logic.
I think that might be the reason Sheila committed suicide in the room where June was lying dead. "Look mum, I ridded the world of all the evil, I am a good girl, now love me." - Yeah, I made that up, just a train of thoughts, I know I will be roasted over a slow fire! ;) ;) ;)
Devil´s children and all that. That started with June. She called Sheila the Devil´s child, who in turn called her sons the same - she just went further; they were "women haters, especially Nicholas", they were capable of raping and killing her.
Why the poor boys weren´t taken from her right there and then is a mystery to me.
In the doctors´ statements (especially Dr. Furgusson) you can read between the lines that a lot of "hand washing" was going on.
-
That's my thinking, too, Hartley. That he believed suspicion would fall on him. So took the steps to 1, create and alibi and 2, put himself in a position where he could set the scene, where he could make the comments about Sheila - maybe even try to stall the police outside - even be seen arriving at the farm.
-
She reared them mostly on her own didn't she? Quite frankly, three or four bullet holes in the head renders your arguments laughable if the whole thing wasn't so sad.
You have NO evidence which supports Jeremy Bamber which isn't that surprising really but do keep on trying. Many legal eagles before you have attempted to do what you are doing but they have all similarly failed, the best that even they could have hoped for was a retrial on the basis that the conviction was unsafe. Not even that succeeded as the evidence against Jeremy is unassailable.
The last half year, Colin had the twins mostly because Sheila couldn´t cope.
-
If Jeremy committed the crime do you think he would have hade a better chance of getting away with it if he just left WHF didn't call anyone, then just waited for the farmworkers to discover the bodies?
No. His best option was to ring the police and spend several hours insinuating Sheila.
Ringing the police from an his cottage, saying Neville phone him. Then arriving after the police is an alibi of sorts. But not a cast iron alibi. But he didn't think he needed one. As he told Julie, he was 'watertight' & it was an 'open & shut case'.
-
I think something is being missed.
Taking the possibility of a call in isolation, there is no reasonable argument of whether it occurred or not.
It is only when you consider other evidence that you can form an opinion as to whether the call occurred or not. Obviously if you believe Sheila is guilty, then the call existed; if you believe JB is the killer, then it didn't.
The initial point being made, was that if JB is guilty and therefore no call took place, then by making up the call, he sealed his own fate.
That is clearly the case.
Is there a reason why that is addressed to me? What have I said that differs from your conclusion?
-
I thought you were a supporter? :-\
You may find it hard to believe but I am not stupid mat, I am agreeing with Hartley that if you agree Sheila is guilty the call was made and if you believe Jeremy guilty then the call was not made ..... can't argue with that. As to what I believe, I have an open mind, how do I know what happened as I wasn't present. I am not good at black and white there are always too many possibilities imo.
-
Good post.
Personally I think that Sheila, if responsible for the killings, did them to "please" June - in a skewed, insane logic.
I think that might be the reason Sheila committed suicide in the room where June was lying dead. "Look mum, I ridded the world of all the evil, I am a good girl, now love me." - Yeah, I made that up, just a train of thoughts, I know I will be roasted over a slow fire! ;) ;) ;)
Devil´s children and all that. That started with June. She called Sheila the Devil´s child, who in turn called her sons the same - she just went further; they were "women haters, especially Nicholas", they were capable of raping and killing her.
Why the poor boys weren´t taken from her right there and then is a mystery to me.
In the doctors´ statements (especially Dr. Furgusson) you can read between the lines that a lot of "hand washing" was going on.
Good post Alias. I'm not even 100% sure that Sheila was schizophrenic. ?
-
Is there a reason why that is addressed to me? What have I said that differs from your conclusion?
Not inentionally, other than it looked like an argument was about to escalate.
I was just trying to bring the discussions back down again.
My apologies if you've taken offence. :-[
-
That's my thinking, too, Hartley. That he believed suspicion would fall on him. So took the steps to 1, create and alibi and 2, put himself in a position where he could set the scene, where he could make the comments about Sheila - maybe even try to stall the police outside - even be seen arriving at the farm.
That's a possibility but it requires nerves of steel and an ability to completely disassociate himself emotionally from killing his close family. Is he capable of this? There's nothing that proves he is but he could be, we have been told all psychological tests show he is not a psychopath, has no personality disorders and is sane. That is what we're told, we have no proof as far as I know that this isn't true.
-
If Jeremy committed the crime do you think he would have hade a better chance of getting away with it if he just left WHF didn't call anyone, then just waited for the farmworkers to discover the bodies?
What farm workers had keys to WHF to discover the bodies ?
Jeremy's WS says he arrived at WHF and went inside at 7.30 in the morning on the massacre day. So he would have been first on the scene after the massacre anyway. Making him a suspect as he would have to contact the police.
-
That's a possibility but it requires nerves of steel and an ability to completely disassociate himself emotionally from killing his close family. Is he capable of this? There's nothing that proves he is but he could be, we have been told all psychological tests show he is not a psychopath, has no personality disorders and is sane. That is what we're told, we have no proof as far as I know that this isn't true.
No we haven't. This was brought up two days ago.
-
What farm workers had keys to WHF to discover the bodies ?
Jeremy's WS says he arrived at WHF and went inside at 7.30 in the morning on the massacre day. So he would have been first on the scene after the massacre anyway. Making him a suspect as he would have to contact the police.
I asked this back in the day, Keira seemed to think someone was asked who would have been first on scene and that the answer was Jeremy. Can't remember what statement it was from.
-
One person suggested he leave the front open. Suggesting a burglar or random psychopath committed the massacre.
This has dozens of problems. Two threads created.
-
That's a possibility but it requires nerves of steel and an ability to completely disassociate himself emotionally from killing his close family. Is he capable of this? There's nothing that proves he is but he could be, we have been told all psychological tests show he is not a psychopath, has no personality disorders and is sane. That is what we're told, we have no proof as far as I know that this isn't true.
It does sound bizarre the prosecution version of events ???
-
One person suggested he leave the front open. Suggesting a burglar or random psychopath committed the massacre.
This has dozens of problems. Two threads created.
Why not burn the whole place down after he shoots them all?
-
One person suggested the leave the front open. Suggesting a burglar or psychopath committed the massacre.
This has dozens of problems. Two threads created.
Inadvertently, that's a good point.
In addition to the phone call, leaving the house apparently secure, also made the prospect of anybody else other than Jeremy or Sheila being responsible.
-
Why not burn the whole place down after he shoots them all?
If the murders were for financial gain, it would be somewhat counter productive.
-
No we haven't. This was brought up two days ago.
I must have missed the posts but I also said we have no proof as far as I know this isn't true.
Do you know different?
-
If the murders were for financial gain, it would be somewhat counter productive.
Insurance! Brand new mansion 8)
-
Insurance! Brand new mansion 8)
The property was rented.
But I take your point.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33705.html#msg33705
Page 5 of Jeremy's WS says he went into the farm house at 7.30 in the morning on the 6th August.
It would have been too suspicious if he drastically changed routine the morning after the massacre. Waiting hours for someone else to find the bodies.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33705.html#msg33705
Page 5 of Jeremy's WS says he went into the farm house at 7.30 in the morning on the 6th August.
It would have been too suspicious if he drastically changed routine the morning after the massacre. Waiting hours for someone else to find the bodies.
His best bet would be to manipulate his schizophrenic sister into actually doing it.
-
I must have missed the posts but I also said we have no proof as far as I know this isn't true.
Do you know different?
No! Which is is why I am not saying we've been told he is / isn't a physcopath!!
His best bet would be to manipulate his schizophrenic sister into actually doing it.
Or coming up with a plan to frame her for doing so. ;)
-
Why not burn the whole place down after he shoots them all?
Julie said he considered this. But there were valuable items which had been under insured. Someone might spot the fire and it may get stopped before the evidence has been destroyed. It was a big house and would be hard to burn down.
-
Inadvertently, that's a good point.
In addition to the phone call, leaving the house apparently secure, also made the prospect of anybody else other than Jeremy or Sheila being responsible.
Badly thought out imo.
-
Not inentionally, other than it looked like an argument was about to escalate.
I was just trying to bring the discussions back down again.
My apologies if you've taken offence. :-[
No offence taken, thanks for clarifying and no need to apologise :)
-
Badly thought out imo.
Yes, but I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing. :-\
-
Julie said he considered this. But there were valuable items which had been under insured. Someone might spot the fire and it may get stopped before the evidence has been destroyed. It was a big house and would be hard to burn down.
Ah Julie said ::)
-
Yes, but I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing. :-\
If he worked on it for a year it was a bit shoddy imo ;)
-
Hey gringo when Adam appears he will start a thread ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Patti's Percentages. What a hoot ;D
Sounds naughty!
-
Sounds naughty!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D London Girl ;D ;D
-
If he worked on it for a year it was a bit shoddy imo ;)
He may not have even done anything :(
-
He may not have even done anything :(
Maybe, but the evidence does suggest otherwise, well more than suggest 'in my opinion'.
-
Maybe, but the evidence does suggest otherwise, well more than suggest 'in my opinion'.
How much can you trust the evidence thou. Do you believe there could be foul play involved with the silencer?
-
Ah Julie said ::)
Well WHF was nof burnt down.
It would be strange that Jeremy would kill his parents for inheritance, but burn down a big, magnificent house.
-
Jeremy did speak to a friend about burning down WHF, prior to the massacre. Saying if everyone died, everything would be his.
-
How much can you trust the evidence thou. Do you believe there could be foul play involved with the silencer?
Well I knew nothing at all about the case, I was told 'what the situation was' by others, I set out to find out for myself and form my own opinion. I've been on this forum on and off almost since it's inception, arguably I know the case as well as anybody.
I've formed the opinion that I have regarding JB's guilt, based on my take on the information available.
I don't believe there was foul play of any kind regarding the sound moderator. There have been many claims made about the SM, from exhibit references, multiple SM's, the find date etc, etc. Every single claim has been found out to be a concoction.
The claims may sound compelling at first, but when you actually delve in to them, you can see that they are fantastical. It's not just a case of misunderstanding either, they are outright lies attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes. They are obviously not given any mileage, other than on these types of message boards.
That's where I am anyway.
-
Inadvertently, that's a good point.
In addition to the phone call, leaving the house apparently secure, also made the prospect of anybody else other than Jeremy or Sheila being responsible.
Inavertently! :'( That was me, so if I make a good point, it is per definition inadvertently.
Of course it was a good point - advertently. What super-idiot shoots someone twice, then proceeds to stage it as a suicide, crawls out a window, locks it from outside (never heard of such a thing anywhere else, but never mind, it didn´t have to be proven.....), then calls the cops with a made up claim about a phone call, which excludes anyone else but you or the victim you shot twice and staged as a suicide - what massive moron would do that?
In fact i made a brilliant point, if I may say so myself!
-
Inavertently! :'( That was me, so if I make a good point, it is per definition inadvertently.
Of course it was a good point - advertently. What super-idiot shoots someone twice, then proceeds to stage it as a suicide, crawls out a window, locks it from outside (never heard of such a thing anywhere else, but never mind, it didn´t have to be proven.....), then calls the cops with a made up claim about a phone call, which excludes anyone else but you or the victim you shot twice and staged as a suicide - what massive moron would do that?
In fact i made a brilliant point, if I may say so myself!
Well Done Alias. :D
-
I would think it unreasonable to assume that Patti assumes that there is a 50/50 chance of the call happening. Patti believes JB innocent so therefore assumes the call happened.
Your reasoning is faulty anyway, assuming as it does that the only alternative to not knowing is a 50/50 chance. It is fair to say that we cannot tell whether the call occurred or not, but I would think it more reasonable to assume that Patti places the odds on whether it did or not somewhere between 90/10 and 100/0 given that she believes JB innocent.
Why would you care enough to know what odds Patti places on it anyway that you would make assumptions in the absence of Patti quoting an accurate percentage for the strength of her belief.
You're arguing for arguing sake. I honestly don't care if she meant 50/50, 40/60 or just doesn't have a clue. But perhaps you should let her speak for herself?
-
I think something is being missed.
Taking the possibility of a call in isolation, there is no reasonable argument of whether it occurred or not.
It is only when you consider other evidence that you can form an opinion as to whether the call occurred or not. Obviously if you believe Sheila is guilty, then the call existed; if you believe JB is the killer, then it didn't.
The initial point being made, was that if JB is guilty and therefore no call took place, then by making up the call, he sealed his own fate.
That is clearly the case.
Which is what I said - more than once. ;D
-
Well I knew nothing at all about the case, I was told 'what the situation was' by others, I set out to find out for myself and form my own opinion. I've been on this forum on and off almost since it's inception, arguably I know the case as well as anybody.
I've formed the opinion that I have regarding JB's guilt, based on my take on the information available.
I don't believe there was foul play of any kind regarding the sound moderator. There have been many claims made about the SM, from exhibit references, multiple SM's, the find date etc, etc. Every single claim has been found out to be a concoction.
The claims may sound compelling at first, but when you actually delve in to them, you can see that they are fantastical. It's not just a case of misunderstanding either, they are outright lies attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes. They are obviously not given any mileage, other than on these types of message boards.
That's where I am anyway.
personally in your opinion why has he spent all this time trying to prove his innocence?
and how could he judge that he could commit such a crime and stand next to the police calmly telling lies when apparently he had never committed any sort of violent crime before?
Having once seen someone die in not such violent circumstances I think you would be in shock for hours let alone stand next to your potential jailers?
And if he is guilty and JM is telling the truth - how did she carry on for a month and ID those poor children?
-
That's a possibility but it requires nerves of steel and an ability to completely disassociate himself emotionally from killing his close family. Is he capable of this? There's nothing that proves he is but he could be, we have been told all psychological tests show he is not a psychopath, has no personality disorders and is sane. That is what we're told, we have no proof as far as I know that this isn't true.
In other words, being a psychopath.
-
Inavertently! :'( That was me, so if I make a good point, it is per definition inadvertently.
Of course it was a good point - advertently. What super-idiot shoots someone twice, then proceeds to stage it as a suicide, crawls out a window, locks it from outside (never heard of such a thing anywhere else, but never mind, it didn´t have to be proven.....), then calls the cops with a made up claim about a phone call, which excludes anyone else but you or the victim you shot twice and staged as a suicide - what massive moron would do that?
In fact i made a brilliant point, if I may say so myself!
I agree - if you wrote this as a plan you would be certified as insane .
-
In other words, being a psychopath.
worse!
-
Which is what I said - more than once. ;D
Yes you did. That's where I got it from. :D
-
Yes you did. That's where I got it from. :D
Good, I thought I as writing in hieroglyphics!! ;D ;D
-
Well I knew nothing at all about the case, I was told 'what the situation was' by others, I set out to find out for myself and form my own opinion. I've been on this forum on and off almost since it's inception, arguably I know the case as well as anybody.
I've formed the opinion that I have regarding JB's guilt, based on my take on the information available.
I don't believe there was foul play of any kind regarding the sound moderator. There have been many claims made about the SM, from exhibit references, multiple SM's, the find date etc, etc. Every single claim has been found out to be a concoction.
The claims may sound compelling at first, but when you actually delve in to them, you can see that they are fantastical. It's not just a case of misunderstanding either, they are outright lies attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes. They are obviously not given any mileage, other than on these types of message boards.
That's where I am anyway.
What do you make of the of evidence that suggests it may not have been used?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/04/jeremy-bamber-murders-ballistics-challenge (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/04/jeremy-bamber-murders-ballistics-challenge)
I'm also very suspicious that no photograph exists of the 1/4 inch long blood flake, plus the tests in 1999 couldn't find any trace of Shelia and also found the DNA of an unknown male how did that get in there?
-
personally in your opinion why has he spent all this time trying to prove his innocence?
and how could he judge that he could commit such a crime and stand next to the police calmly telling lies when apparently he had never committed any sort of violent crime before?
Having once seen someone die in not such violent circumstances I think you would be in shock for hours let alone stand next to your potential jailers?
And if he is guilty and JM is telling the truth - how did she carry on for a month and ID those poor children?
Heck, how can I answer that, most of that is derived from your own issues that you may take if you were to consider JB to be guilty.
Why he protests his innocence, I don't know, maybe he doesn't want to acknowledge what he's done, or perhaps he values his notorioty. Or maybe he has nothing better to do?
I honestly have no idea.
-
I agree - if you wrote this as a plan you would be certified as insane .
No you wont :o in a legal sense insanity means that you cannot distinguish right from wrong or fantasy from reality
-
What do you make of the of evidence that suggests it may not have been used?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/04/jeremy-bamber-murders-ballistics-challenge (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/04/jeremy-bamber-murders-ballistics-challenge)
I'm also very suspicious that no photograph exists of the 1/4 inch long blood flake, plus the tests in 1999 couldn't find any trace of Shelia and also found the DNA of an unknown male how did that get in there?
I think it's desperate, and I dont believe it to be true.
The CCRC dismissed it and the solicitor who put it together stopped representing Jeremy.
I actually think it was a clever attempt to find a loop hole in the prosecutions case, rather than provide evidence of innocence.
If further submissions show otherwise, then I'd look at it subjectively again.
-
I think it's desperate, and I dont believe it to be true.
The CCRC dismissed it and the solicitor who put it together stopped representing Jeremy.
I actually think it was a clever attempt to find a loop hole in the prosecutions case, rather than provide evidence of innocence.
If further submissions show otherwise, then I'd look at it subjectively again.
Its all gone very quiet of late. Does anyone know who is representing Bamber now?
Personally I don't think there will be any new evidence to make any new submissions... :-\
-
I'm also very suspicious that no photograph exists of the 1/4 inch long blood flake, plus the tests in 1999 couldn't find any trace of Shelia and also found the DNA of an unknown male how did that get in there?
I don't know whether such a photograph exists or not, either way I don't find that particularly suspicious.
The tests in 1999 found DNA which closely matched a blood relative of Sheila, but it is not sufficient in law to prove that it 'was' from Sheila. I think it's extremely likely however, that it was.
I always assumed the unidentified male DNA was one of the twins, but it's also possible that the highly sensitive LC tests picked up DNA that was from contamination over the years.
In the end, they couldn't even be sure the DNA was derived from blood, the results were largely meaningless.
-
Its all gone very quiet of late. Does anyone know who is representing Bamber now?
Personally I don't think there will be any new evidence to make any new submissions... :-\
I'm not sure anybody is at the moment. I don't know. :-\
-
You're arguing for arguing sake. I honestly don't care if she meant 50/50, 40/60 or just doesn't have a clue. But perhaps you should let her speak for herself?
My initial post was in response to scipio and was to point out that he himself makes assumptions to reach his conclusions whilst criticising others for doing so. The only reason I raised the issue of the 50/50 stance was to show that this was an assumption on his part.
You then supported scipio's assumption as being fact by saying, "I think it's reasonable to assume that Patti meant 50/50, given that she said we can't tell if the call happened or not ( got to be one or the other 50/50 )".
You now suggest that you, "don't care if she meant 50/50 or 40/60 or doesn't have a clue", yet previously you requested that Patti cleared it up by explaining, in order that, "we wouldn't need to assume".
As I said, my initial point was to show that scipio himself, and then later you, were making assumptions; something which you have both confirmed yourselves now anyway.
-
My initial post was in response to scipio and was to point out that he himself makes assumptions to reach his conclusions whilst criticising others for doing so. The only reason I raised the issue of the 50/50 stance was to show that this was an assumption on his part.
You then supported scipio's assumption as being fact by saying, "I think it's reasonable to assume that Patti meant 50/50, given that she said we can't tell if the call happened or not ( got to be one or the other 50/50 )".
You now suggest that you, "don't care if she meant 50/50 or 40/60 or doesn't have a clue", yet previously you requested that Patti cleared it up by explaining, in order that, "we wouldn't need to assume".
As I said, my initial point was to show that scipio himself, and then later you, were making assumptions; something which you have both confirmed yourselves now anyway.
Oh for gods sake give it a rest! ::) Let Patti answer for herself if she wants to - personally I couldn't give a rats!
-
If Jeremy committed the crime do you think he would have hade a better chance of getting away with it if he just left WHF didn't call anyone, then just waited for the farmworkers to discover the bodies?
Obviously a better chance of getting away with it than by committing the errors he did and then notifying police himself.
He still would have been faced with a serious problem when Julie cracked, had he both not told Julie anything and made the bodies be found naturally there would have been far less evidence against him. putting the moderator away still would have been a problem though in that it would revealed an attempt was made to frame Sheila by leaving the gun on her but she can't have done it.
An inept framing of Sheila still hurts. He would have needed to stage it as a break-in if not framing Sheila to have any real chance of getting away with it and that has its own pitfalls because killing the twins in their beds would not be consistent with a break-in. He would have needed to get the victims up and then to shoot them. Burglars don't go room to room shooting people in their sleep- people sleeping are not witnesses. Plus a burglar is not going to be likely to use a gun from the house to kill everyone they would bring their own weapon.
Without Julie's testimony and without Jeremy calling police you would have evidence that someone decided to assassinate the family and tried to frame Sheila. If the moderator was left on the gun and it was no where near Sheila so no attempt to frame her then they would simply know it was an assassination. The only one they knew who would profit from that is Jeremy and he had no alibi so motive and opportunity. He would be a prime suspect bu in some instances they don't try you with such evidence hey wait hoping to develop more down the road. That could be sufficient to convict but might not be enough it really depends on the jury you get. It is far less evidence than they had with him calling police so definitely would be a better position to be in though it is still somewhat risky. Obviously if he didn't attempt to frame Sheila
If it were successfully framed as a break-in then it is unlikely he could be convicted. If he screwed up making it look like a break-in then he is not in a good position because who would have a motive to kill everyone and make it look like a break-in? Only Jeremy. The best way to make it look like a break-in would be to obtain a different weapon to use than the one from the house and wake the twins up and shoot them out of bed.
When you add Julie's testimony to the mix no scenario is very good but surely it is better without him admitting he knew about the murders and botching the frame job of Sheila because then Julie's testimony has some validation.
Julie testifies he was planning to kill them when they were all staying there for the inheritance and he called her to say tonight was the night and admitted he was responsible. It is suggested the murderer tried to frame Sheila by hiding the moderator and leaving the gun on her. Who would want to assassinate them and try to frame Sheila? Only Jeremy. Are things great for Jeremy? No but with him calling police and thus establishing he knew about the crimes it is even worse.
Things are best for Jeremy if it were successfully staged like a break-in or successfully staged like Sheila did it because then there are other possible killers besides him.
If you spend a long time telling someone you want to kill someone- then don't kill such person. If you want to kill someone don't tell others about it. When you do you are setting yourself up for failure.
-
What do you make of the of evidence that suggests it may not have been used?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/04/jeremy-bamber-murders-ballistics-challenge (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/04/jeremy-bamber-murders-ballistics-challenge)
I'm also very suspicious that no photograph exists of the 1/4 inch long blood flake, plus the tests in 1999 couldn't find any trace of Shelia and also found the DNA of an unknown male how did that get in there?
The tests in 1999 were simply tests for the presence of blood no blood was detected because the lab already removed all visible blood in 1985 and in 1986 defense expert Lincoln removed all microscopic traces of blood that had been left behind by the lab. The DNA tests done in 2000 found Sheila's DNA, June's DNA and most likely the DNA of at least one of the twins. In addition there were up to 10 minor DNA contributors. There was DNA of at least 4 people and could have been as many as 15. How does non-blood based DNA get in a moderator? Through contamination of course. LCN testing is so sensitive that there are very specific protocols in place with respect to evidence collection, processing the evidence and evidence handling and storage afterwards in case retesting is needed. None of these protocols existed in 1985. Lincoln could have deposited DNA of every victim in there while he was processing it and the lab could as well. These were tiny DNA samples easily spread. Nevill could have contaminated it when he took it apart. The jurors could have contaminated the list is long. If the DNA had been blood based that would be different because contaminating the moderator with blood by accident is not something that the lab would have been able to do, nor could the jury have done that.
That still would not clear up whose DNA was removed in 1985 by the lab and 1986 by Lincoln only DNA testing the blood they removed could answer that.
-
Inavertently! :'( That was me, so if I make a good point, it is per definition inadvertently.
Of course it was a good point - advertently. What super-idiot shoots someone twice, then proceeds to stage it as a suicide, crawls out a window, locks it from outside (never heard of such a thing anywhere else, but never mind, it didn´t have to be proven.....), then calls the cops with a made up claim about a phone call, which excludes anyone else but you or the victim you shot twice and staged as a suicide - what massive moron would do that?
In fact i made a brilliant point, if I may say so myself!
I was being thick and have just understood your meaning. :-[
Inadvertently, was in reference to Adams post and not yours. Adam inadvertently made a good point.
It had nothing to do with your point. :D
-
The tests in 1999 were simply tests for the presence of blood no blood was detected because the lab already removed all visible blood in 1985 and in 1986 defense expert Lincoln removed all microscopic traces of blood that had been left behind by the lab. The DNA tests done in 2000 found Sheila's DNA, June's DNA and most likely the DNA of at least one of the twins. In addition there were up to 10 minor DNA contributors. There was DNA of at least 4 people and could have been as many as 15. How does non-blood based DNA get in a moderator? Through contamination of course. LCN testing is so sensitive that there are very specific protocols in place with respect to evidence collection, processing the evidence and evidence handling and storage afterwards in case retesting is needed. None of these protocols existed in 1985. Lincoln could have deposited DNA of every victim in there while he was processing it and the lab could as well. These were tiny DNA samples easily spread. Nevill could have contaminated it when he took it apart. The jurors could have contaminated the list is long. If the DNA had been blood based that would be different because contaminating the moderator with blood by accident is not something that the lab would have been able to do, nor could the jury have done that.
That still would not clear up whose DNA was removed in 1985 by the lab and 1986 by Lincoln only DNA testing the blood they removed could answer that.
Where did you get that from?
-
Why not burn the whole place down after he shoots them all?
That would give away they were all murdered and the prime suspects of burning a place down is someone who knows the victims. The whole point of framing Sheila was so that they would not know they were all murdered by someone outside the house who was still alive.
The only realistic chance of him getting away with it would be a decent framing of Sheila or decent staging of a break-in which I have already addressed some of the complications regarding. Making up crap to explain away the killing of 1 person is one thing, killing an entire family is quite another.
If he had removed the moderator before shooting Sheila and left it in the bedroom so it looked like she took it off before killing herself, had not staged too many bullets and Julie had not ratted him out then even though some were suspicious about the lack of evidence on Sheila the prosecutor probably would have still given Jeremy the benefit of the doubt and not ended up trying him. Had he additionally planted evidence on her body so she wasn't so clean then for sure they would have not tried him.
His idea of framing Sheila wasn't bad he just executed it poorly and made a gigantic mistake in telling Julie all about his plans.
It is a good thing that executing a plan like that is not easy and has so many pitfalls or we would be less safe.
-
Its all gone very quiet of late. Does anyone know who is representing Bamber now?
Personally I don't think there will be any new evidence to make any new submissions... :-\
The only recent news had been about attorneys representing the legalistic human rights arguments not anything about a substantive appeal. NGB mentioned a new submission being worked on but said the y would be working on them in private and not providing the public with their arguments like in the past.
Thus we have no way to know what they are working on let alone if they will ever finish putting it together and actually submit it.
-
Its all gone very quiet of late. Does anyone know who is representing Bamber now?
Personally I don't think there will be any new evidence to make any new submissions... :-\
Patti I'm sure there was a name on here for the latest representative for Jeremy. A lawyer who also has the help with others. There was also mention of new " exciting " evidence ( Jeremy's words ) so something must have come to light.
Would anyone think it worth bothering about if they were 100% sure of his guilt ? I don't think so.
-
The only recent news had been about attorneys representing the legalistic human rights arguments not anything about a substantive appeal. NGB mentioned a new submission being worked on but said the y would be working on them in private and not providing the public with their arguments like in the past.
Thus we have no way to know what they are working on let alone if they will ever finish putting it together and actually submit it.
I don't believe the CCRC will even accept any new submissions because they did a very thorough final review the last time and decided even then that a referral to the CoA was a waste of time.
There aren't many who still believe Bamber's bleatings and that in itself is a magnificent result for justice. In the end and according to the very extensive evidence Jeremy Bamber was indeed guilty as charged!
-
Pity it wasn't queried about the " mistakes " made during phone conversations that the police had received,i.e, your sister-----------my daughter. Age 26/27 ?
If two phone-calls didn't happen,and it was a mistake on behalf of EP,wouldn't anyone ask themselves how many more mistakes the police made ?
Why would Jeremy have given the right age one minute,then the wrong age in the following call if it was he who'd allegedly called from WHF ? Daughter/Sister would have fitted,but not the different ages.
-
For any honest person "‘message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead, Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410’s’" would be enough to rule out a call from Neville, the document CLEARLY states it isn't.
-
You might be happy,but I'm not-------simple as that. Depends whose side you're on,doesn't it ?
-
Heck, how can I answer that, most of that is derived from your own issues that you may take if you were to consider JB to be guilty.
Why he protests his innocence, I don't know, maybe he doesn't want to acknowledge what he's done, or perhaps he values his notorioty. Or maybe he has nothing better to do?
I honestly have no idea.
At least you are honest and don't try and invent some scenario to cover his behaviour or write a lecture ;D
-
Exactly just what " adequate " evidence was provided by EP to the case ? Think about it. Most of their findings from the morning of the 7th was stashed away never to be seen again,whereby it WOULD have been of assistance to Jeremy's defence team. Was that a fair advantage to the case ? Certainly not.
What of all the character references.? What happened to those ? Are they hidden away,or burned ? Just because of the sheer bias of opinion that Freddie was a foreigner,an ex-girlfriend,Suzie was a divorced mother who Jeremy lived with and Collins a homosexual. It WOULDN'T be permitted today. Not PC.!
These people had been classed as unsuitable !! Was this fair ?
Yet word was accepted from those who DIDN'T know Jeremy or his immediate family. How very convenient. Was this fair ?
-
Pity it wasn't queried about the " mistakes " made during phone conversations that the police had received,i.e, your sister-----------my daughter. Age 26/27 ?
If two phone-calls didn't happen,and it was a mistake on behalf of EP,wouldn't anyone ask themselves how many more mistakes the police made ?
Why would Jeremy have given the right age one minute,then the wrong age in the following call if it was he who'd allegedly called from WHF ? Daughter/Sister would have fitted,but not the different ages.
You may see it as a gross error. I see it as a natural way of distinguishing relationships. Bamber Jnr calls the police to say he's had a call from Bamber Snr re "your sister has gone mad etc." The call is passed on to a second person as "Bamber Jnr has had a call from Bamber Snr re his daughter going mad etc." I fail to see what is the problem. NOR do I see a problem in quoting an age discrepancy of only up to one year. Last week my cousin asked me how old his brother is. I know only because he's 12 days older than I. I see nothing strange in one sibling not knowing the year of another sibling's birth.
-
You may see it as a gross error. I see it as a natural way of distinguishing relationships. Bamber Jnr calls the police to say he's had a call from Bamber Snr re "your sister has gone mad etc." The call is passed on to a second person as "Bamber Jnr has had a call from Bamber Snr re his daughter going mad etc." I fail to see what is the problem. NOR do I see a problem in quoting an age discrepancy of only up to one year. Last week my cousin asked me how old his brother is. I know only because he's 12 days older than I. I see nothing strange in one sibling not knowing the year of another sibling's birth.
But if the call came from only one person in such a short time,why would you suddenly forget the age ?
-
Plus,if it was something that someone had written down,wouldn't/shouldn't they themselves query it by double-checking to get it right.? Like,make up your mind,was it 26 or 27. What's it to be ? As it would sound to me as if someone was making it up by guessing.It's far easier to give out an age than it is a date/year of birth.
I could understand if it was Neville who'd got it wrong as he wouldn't have been as alert on those matters especially being asked at a most inopportune moment as it was.
-
But if the call came from only one person in such a short time,why would you suddenly forget the age ?
I can only think that he was focused more on the alleged activities of the subject of the call (Sheila) than the age of the subject. I REALLY don't see it as being that big a deal. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd rate it as 1.
-
Plus,if it was something that someone had written down,wouldn't/shouldn't they themselves query it by double-checking to get it right.? Like,make up your mind,was it 26 or 27. What's it to be ? As it would sound to me as if someone was making it up by guessing.It's far easier to give out an age than it is a date/year of birth.
I could understand if it was Neville who'd got it wrong as he wouldn't have been as alert on those matters especially being asked at a most inopportune moment as it was.
Would the situation have been any different if Sheila had been one age, 26, as opposed to the other, 27 OR vice versa?
-
Anyway,I just find it so sad that after 30 years,there is still a " fight " going on to obtain evidence that should have been to hand in 1986.
Obviously Jeremy isn't perturbed at what could or might surface,which makes it all the more feasible that he told the truth. Otherwise,after all this time I think you'd put the whole thing down to experience and forget that there'd ever be a chance of freedom.
If Duckenfield can apologise after 26 years,then there's still hope for Jeremy.
-
Patti I'm sure there was a name on here for the latest representative for Jeremy. A lawyer who also has the help with others. There was also mention of new " exciting " evidence ( Jeremy's words ) so something must have come to light.
Would anyone think it worth bothering about if they were 100% sure of his guilt ? I don't think so.
Yes, I've heard THAT before - MANY times!! ;D ;D ;D
-
But if the call came from only one person in such a short time,why would you suddenly forget the age ?
The call didn't come from one person - Jeremy called West - West Called Bonnett, West OBVIOUSLY hadn't written everything down and completed some info after the call, which is why the time is incorrect. There is no mystery, no conspiracy, just sloppy work.
-
Anyway,I just find it so sad that after 30 years,there is still a " fight " going on to obtain evidence that should have been to hand in 1986.
Obviously Jeremy isn't perturbed at what could or might surface,which makes it all the more feasible that he told the truth. Otherwise,after all this time I think you'd put the whole thing down to experience and forget that there'd ever be a chance of freedom.
If Duckenfield can apologise after 26 years,then there's still hope for Jeremy.
Yes, he might FINALLY come clean!
-
Anyway,I just find it so sad that after 30 years,there is still a " fight " going on to obtain evidence that should have been to hand in 1986.
Obviously Jeremy isn't perturbed at what could or might surface,which makes it all the more feasible that he told the truth. Otherwise,after all this time I think you'd put the whole thing down to experience and forget that there'd ever be a chance of freedom.
If Duckenfield can apologise after 26 years,then there's still hope for Jeremy.
If Jeremy is convinced that there is nothing more TO surface there's no need to be perturbed. It is as it is.
-
Yes, he might FINALLY come clean!
See how something innocently said turns itself around ? You should have been a cop. ::)
-
If Jeremy is convinced that there is nothing more TO surface there's no need to be perturbed. It is as it is.
Jeremy has already said he has ALL of the documents now so not sure what fight Lookout is talking about. The fight is over - it's just a matter of picking over the bones - there's certainly no meat left! ;D
-
See how something innocently said turns itself around ? You should have been a cop. ::)
You give me the lines, I just make the most of them! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
For any honest person "‘message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead, Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410’s’" would be enough to rule out a call from Neville, the document CLEARLY states it isn't.
Not to mention the fact that had a policeman received such a call I think he would have remembered it.
-
To be perfectly honest,I can't think of anything worse than being innocent,and having no proof of your innocence. It sucks.
-
Not to mention the fact that had a policeman received such a call I think he would have remembered it.
Yup! No reason why the officer wouldn't have mentioned it to Bamber at the scene or in the days after.
-
To be perfectly honest,I can't think of anything worse than being innocent,and having no proof of your innocence. It sucks.
No, genuine miscarriages of justice are terrible but they usually find something to prove innocence. The rest clutch at straws shouting 'what about this?' every few years. ::)
-
Yup! No reason why the officer wouldn't have mentioned it to Bamber at the scene or in the days after.
It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
-
It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
It is.
-
Exactly just what " adequate " evidence was provided by EP to the case ? Think about it. Most of their findings from the morning of the 7th was stashed away never to be seen again,whereby it WOULD have been of assistance to Jeremy's defence team. Was that a fair advantage to the case ? Certainly not.
What of all the character references.? What happened to those ? Are they hidden away,or burned ? Just because of the sheer bias of opinion that Freddie was a foreigner,an ex-girlfriend,Suzie was a divorced mother who Jeremy lived with and Collins a homosexual. It WOULDN'T be permitted today. Not PC.!
These people had been classed as unsuitable !! Was this fair ?
Yet word was accepted from those who DIDN'T know Jeremy or his immediate family. How very convenient. Was this fair ?
More fantasy's lookout? If such material was locked away you wouldn't know about it. Truth is the only material kept under PII relates to the conduct of certain idiotic junior police officers at the scene AFTER the event, some of which is already known.
What references would you like? The guy in Scotland he sent cannabis to or some of his other weed burner pals?
-
To be perfectly honest,I can't think of anything worse than being innocent,and having no proof of your innocence. It sucks.
But a message passed from one person to another in which there is an age and relationship discrepancy re the subject (Sheila) is NOT proof of Jeremy's innocence, but seems to be the core of your argument.
-
No, genuine miscarriages of justice are terrible but they usually find something to prove innocence. The rest clutch at straws shouting 'what about this?' every few years. ::)
You will find that every claimed miscarriage of justice case contains anomalies of some sort where the evidence and facts do not match up exactly with the Crown's case.
In this case however there are no such anomalies, the evidence of which there is oodles matches the 'Jeremy did it' theory perfectly.
Even Mike Tesko has never once been able to produce the slightest evidence that Jeremy is innocent of the five murders and that alone tells its own story.
-
More fantasy's lookout? If such material was locked away you wouldn't know about it. Truth is the only material kept under PII relates to the conduct of certain idiotic junior police officers at the scene AFTER the event, some of which is already known.
What references would you like? The guy in Scotland he sent cannabis to or some of his other weed burner pals?
Jeremy said he now has all the PII stuff so not sure why people are still using that argument? ???
-
Jeremy said he now has all the PII stuff so not sure why people are still using that argument? ???
I don't believe him Caroline. There is material which the police will never hand over and rightly so. Bambers former lawyer, more recently a CCRC commissioner, would have seen this material and decided it was irrelevant to the case.
-
Jeremy said he now has all the PII stuff so not sure why people are still using that argument? ???
Because it sounds good, it's an argument that can be hidden behind because there is no answer to it.
Evidence HIDDEN under PII.
NEW promising evidence.
A phonecall from Ralph.
Itemised billing.
NEW evidence about Sheila's past medical history.
It all SOUNDS good. It brings supporters aboard because it sounds promising and surely HAS to be true! But it's fallen apart time and again. It says a lot when the arguements REPEATEDLY used by supporters and the campaign team - aren't even in the Bamber legal appeals.... I find that mind blowing & very, very telling.
-
Because it sounds good, it's an argument that can be hidden behind because there is no answer to it.
Evidence HIDDEN under PII.
NEW promising evidence.
A phonecall from Ralph.
Itemised billing.
NEW evidence about Sheila's past medical history.
It all SOUNDS good. It brings supporters aboard because it sounds promising and surely HAS to be true! But it's fallen apart time and again. It says a lot when the arguements REPEATEDLY used by supporters and the campaign team - aren't even in the Bamber legal appeals.... I find that mind blowing & very, very telling.
Not to me, it sounded like a dead end.
-
Not to me, it sounded like a dead end.
But your well versed in the case, to an outsider its enough to ring alarm bells.
-
I don't believe him Caroline.
Well, perhaps he told me that and is telling others something else. Wouldn't surprise me.
-
You will find that every claimed miscarriage of justice case contains anomalies of some sort where the evidence and facts do not match up exactly with the Crown's case.
In this case however there are no such anomalies, the evidence of which there is oodles matches the 'Jeremy did it' theory perfectly.
Even Mike Tesko has never once been able to produce the slightest evidence that Jeremy is innocent of the five murders and that alone tells its own story.
How is anyone supposed to produce any evidence at all when they're innocent ? It's impossible !
-
But your well versed in the case, to an outsider its enough to ring alarm bells.
Yeah, I suppose so - it all adds to the 'mystery' or conspiracy (BS).
-
How is anyone supposed to produce any evidence at all when they're innocent ? It's impossible !
Not impossible, just difficult sometimes.
-
Because it sounds good, it's an argument that can be hidden behind because there is no answer to it.
Evidence HIDDEN under PII.
NEW promising evidence.
A phonecall from Ralph.
Itemised billing.
NEW evidence about Sheila's past medical history.
It all SOUNDS good. It brings supporters aboard because it sounds promising and surely HAS to be true! But it's fallen apart time and again. It says a lot when the arguements REPEATEDLY used by supporters and the campaign team - aren't even in the Bamber legal appeals.... I find that mind blowing & very, very telling.
To my eternal embarrassment, I was drawn in by the promise of seeing a picture of Sheila on the bed with one bullet wound, permission for which, along with several other things, being mysteriously withdrawn at the 11th hour ??? ??? ??? HOWEVER, I have to take some responsibility for believing it. At the time, I WANTED it to be true.
-
How is anyone supposed to produce any evidence at all when they're innocent ? It's impossible !
How did other MOJ gain their freedom? It's only impossible if there is no evidence because you're guilty. Jeremy stitched himself up with the phone call - no getting away from that.
-
To my eternal embarrassment, I was drawn in by the promise of seeing a picture of Sheila on the bed with one bullet wound, permission for which, along with several other things, being mysteriously withdrawn at the 11th hour ??? ??? ???
I dont think you should be embarsessed. Not to put words into your head but you must of been thinking "It HAS to be true because WHY would anyone make it up." which i think is a perfectly normal belief to have, Apes.
-
I dont think you should be embarsessed. Not to put words into your head but you must of been thinking "It HAS to be true because WHY would anyone make it up." which i think is a perfectly normal belief to have, Apes.
I got drawn in too but once bitten .....
-
I dont think you should be embarsessed. Not to put words into your head but you must of been thinking "It HAS to be true because WHY would anyone make it up." which i think is a perfectly normal belief to have, Apes.
Aww Mat :) That's EXACTLY how it was.
-
I got drawn in too but once bitten .....
I believed the story of sheila running from the monastry >:(
-
I got drawn in too but once bitten .....
...........off came the rose tinteds, eh? ;D ;D ;D
-
You will find that every claimed miscarriage of justice case contains anomalies of some sort where the evidence and facts do not match up exactly with the Crown's case.
In this case however there are no such anomalies, the evidence of which there is oodles matches the 'Jeremy did it' theory perfectly.
Even Mike Tesko has never once been able to produce the slightest evidence that Jeremy is innocent of the five murders and that alone tells its own story.
How is anyone supposed to produce any evidence at all when they're innocent ? It's impossible !
-
...........off came the rose tinteds, eh? ;D ;D ;D
Certainly did - they're grey now!
-
I believed the story of sheila running from the monastry >:(
Mat, I clung to that one for YONKS, even looking at it differently when I visited!!! There is NOTHING there to support such wild AND FALSE allegations. I think a HUGE disservice has been done them.
-
How is anyone supposed to produce any evidence at all when they're innocent ? It's impossible !
I thought yu said Jeremy had new evidence? ;D
-
As a matter of interest,I take it that you're all 100% sure of Jeremy's guilt ? Yes ?
-
I believed the story of sheila running from the monastry >:(
I didn't fall for that one! Only because there was never any reference to it in any docs.
-
As a matter of interest,I take it that you're all 100% sure of Jeremy's guilt ? Yes ?
Can't say 100% but near as damned it!
-
Mat, I clung to that one for YONKS, even looking at it differently when I visited!!! There is NOTHING there to support such wild AND FALSE allegations. I think a HUGE disservice has been done them.
I can imagine, I bet it gave it an eerie feeling.
I'll tell you what almost got me last year. I can't 100% remember what the argument was, but it had to do with exhibit numbers - and I believe it was to do with the silencer. The argument presented here had been well written, thought out - and the correct documents produced to make the silencer LOOK very dodgy, and it stick in my mind and made me doubt my beliefs for a long time.
And then Scip saw it this year and exposed it COMPLETELY. I was annoyed at myself for being taken in.
I didn't fall for that one! Only because there was never any reference to it in any docs.
That was my downfall, it was mentioned SO many times that I assumed it was from a document and I never checked up on it, never asked.
-
As a matter of interest,I take it that you're all 100% sure of Jeremy's guilt ? Yes ?
Well, whilst I'm not as close to believing him guilty as I believe you are to believing him innocent, I'm convinced enough.
-
As a matter of interest,I take it that you're all 100% sure of Jeremy's guilt ? Yes ?
For him to be innocent, the conspiracy would have to be too big. It would have nedded to start outside the farmhouse on the night - when there was no reason for it too. It would need to involve too many people.
-
For him to be innocent, the conspiracy would have to be too big. It would have nedded to start outside the farmhouse on the night - when there was no reason for it too. It would need to involve too many people.
Mat, part of my turning point MAY have been that I was starting to experience a conspiracy too far. IE, in order for Jeremy to be innocent TOO many individuals had to be bought into the equation and doing such seemed to make less and less sense.
-
I thought yu said Jeremy had new evidence? ;D
He has indeed,as well as the prospect of another avenue of evidence,which at this stage I can't mention.
-
He has indeed,as well as the prospect of another avenue of evidence,which at this stage I can't mention.
I don't really want to know Lookout - I've heard it all before!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He has indeed,as well as the prospect of another avenue of evidence,which at this stage I can't mention.
Well shame on whoever told you.
-
Where's this " conspiracy " coming from ?
-
I can imagine, I bet it gave it an eerie feeling.
I'll tell you what almost got me last year. I can't 100% remember what the argument was, but it had to do with exhibit numbers - and I believe it was to do with the silencer. The argument presented here had been well written, thought out - and the correct documents produced to make the silencer LOOK very dodgy, and it stick in my mind and made me doubt my beliefs for a long time.
And then Scip saw it this year and exposed it COMPLETELY. I was annoyed at myself for being taken in.
Hmph!!!!! Has Scip been regurgitating my old posts again? >:( ;D
exhibit references include the initials of the person who discovered the exhibit. It was mistakenly identified as SBJ/1 in reference to 'Stanley Brian Jones'. This error was then corrected as Jones did not discover the exhibit, David Boutflour did, so the reference DB/1 was applied. It was later discovered that there would be a clash of references as the police officer David Bird had already used 'DB' to signify exhibits discovered or produced by him. So it was eventually decided that they would use 'DRB' for David Boutflours exhibits with the 'R' representing his middle name Robert.
That is the reasoning behind the changes in exhibit reference given by the police, it is documented very well in witness statements taken around 1991 as part of the COLP investigation.
-
Hmph!!!!! Has Scip been regurgitating my old posts again? >:( ;D
Yes, that's what I was talking about actually. :)
-
I don't really want to know Lookout - I've heard it all before!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Caroline,this is something you ain't heard.Sorry to burst your bubble. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline,this is something you ain't heard.Sorry to burst your bubble. ;D ;D ;D ;D
POP!
-
Caroline,this is something you ain't heard.Sorry to burst your bubble. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Lookout, if THIS one goes pear shaped. I think that YOU may feel more despondent than Jeremy about it :(
-
POP!
Skit as much as you like,it won't bother me.
-
How is anyone supposed to produce any evidence at all when they're innocent ? It's impossible !
If someone is innocent then the evidence used against them can be taken apart like has been done in the Knox case. If he were innocent then the evidence would support the things he claimed such as the numer of bullets in the kitchen would not be too many for his story to be true. Sheila would have had GSR and spatter on her indicating she shot the victims. The moderator would not have been put away to conceal that it had been used. Julie would not have testified that he had been planning the murders for a long time and admitted to being responsible. He would not have called Julie at all let alone before police had Nevill actually called as he claimed. The first shots fired parents would not have featured both parents shot together in the master bedroom had Nevill actually called Jeremy as claimed, Sheila would have shot him while he was on the phone.
If he were innocent there would be evidence that Sheila did it instead of evidence that he framed Sheila for it.
-
Who said that Jeremy framed his sister ? Nobody framed anyone.
-
Caroline,this is something you ain't heard.Sorry to burst your bubble. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Probably not but then again I don't think I'd have fallen for it! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Who said that Jeremy framed his sister ? Nobody framed anyone.
The authorities proved in court that he tried to frame her.
Julie testified to it. Initial responders talked about how Jeremy lied to them by asserting Sheila had used all weapons int he house and he had trained her how to use the weapon he left out. He made up the tale of taking the gun out to shoot rabbits and leaving it and ammunition out and staged bullets in support of his story but staged too many. He made up the tale that Nevill called him to report that Sheila had the gun and was going crazy. In fact, someone else shot and killed everyone including Sheila then after all were dead removed the silencer and put it away to conceal it had been used. Sheila's body was dragged flat and the gun was placed on top of her to make it look like she was responsible. A Bible was place in a pool of her blood to make it appear she had been reading the Bible before she died but it should have been placed by her waist.
-
The authorities proved in court that he tried to frame her.
Julie testified to it. Initial responders talked about how Jeremy lied to them by asserting Sheila had used all weapons int he house and he had trained her how to use the weapon he left out. He made up the tale of taking the gun out to shoot rabbits and leaving it and ammunition out and staged bullets in support of his story but staged too many. He made up the tale that Nevill called him to report that Sheila had the gun and was going crazy. In fact, someone else shot and killed everyone including Sheila then after all were dead removed the silencer and put it away to conceal it had been used. Sheila's body was dragged flat and the gun was placed on top of her to make it look like she was responsible. A Bible was place in a pool of her blood to make it appear she had been reading the Bible before she died but it should have been placed by her waist.
Oh,I don't think so.
-
Lookout, if THIS one goes pear shaped. I think that YOU may feel more despondent than Jeremy about it :(
I think this must be the new evidence warming up for final subs to the CCRC? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Probably not but then again I don't think I'd have fallen for it! ;D ;D ;D ;D
This is entirely different.
-
Oh,I don't think so.
But 5/6ths of the jury did.
-
This is entirely different.
Yes, of course it is ::)
-
This is entirely different.
It's definitely got the " WOW" factor I can assure you.
-
Oh, grow up. Do you know how silly it sounds? Almost gloating "I know something you don't know!". Shame on whoever told you - leaks like this are stupid. It will turn out like all the rest of the "developments" but by that time you will have moved onto even more new stuff that has been "found".
-
It's definitely got the " WOW" factor I can assure you.
Ur huh - of course it has. Anything sounds good when it's told with enthusiasm and you WANT to believe it. Lets just wait and see ;D
-
Oh, grow up. Do you know how silly it sounds? Almost gloating "I know something you don't know!". Shame on whoever told you - leaks like this are stupid. It will turn out like all the rest of the "developments" but by that time you will have moved onto even more new stuff that has been "found".
Exactly - fairy dust!!
-
It's definitely got the " WOW" factor I can assure you.
As I said, lookout. I fear you will be much more disappointed than Jeremy when this one goes the way of the others. If it gets to the point that it's a technicality that's being relied on, it really is clutching at straws time.
-
Where did you get that from?
I already broke down the DNA findings many times. I posted them again just the other day:
There were 10 areas of the moderator tested for DNA. Each test detected 1 major donor and then at least 1 minor donor. There were at least 3 major donors and possibly 4. There were 10 minor donors. The DNA profile of the minor donors was so small there was no way to rule it out as having been from anyone except the specific major donor. The minor donor could be the same person, the minor donor could be the major donor of a different test sample or each minor donor could be a unique person.
So the donors could have been as few as just 4 of the victims or could be as many as all 5 victims plus 9 other people. 4-14 people talk about a big range.
1) June + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
2) June + at least another male (could be any male victim or a non-victim)
3) June + at least another male (could be any male victim or a non-victim)
4) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
5) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
6) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
7) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
8 ) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
9) Most likely one of the twins + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
10) Most likely one of the twins + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
If you want to use a math formula and plug in variables then here are the variables to understand it then here you go:
1) A + B
2) A + C
3) A + D
4) E + F
5) E + G
6) E + H
7) E + I
8 ) E + J
9) K + L
10) M + N
K and M might be the same person or might be different people. The DNA of K and M were very close to E's (Sheila's) DNA so was either 1 of the twins or both.
B,C,D,F,G,H,I,J,L, and N could all be 1 person or could be as many as 10 different people. The major donor in 1 sample could be the minor donor in another sample. The only major donor ruled out is the major donor from that specific sample.
This is all in the 2002 Court of Appeals decision in addition to defense documents.
-
As I said, lookout. I fear you will be much more disappointed than Jeremy when this one goes the way of the others. If it gets to the point that it's a technicality that's being relied on, it really is clutching at straws time.
The things that would qualify as a technicality that he could be released on have already been tried and exhausted. The only way he is getting out is if Julie recants (and even that might not be enough it would depend on the judges some would release him some wouldn't) or credible evidence it put forth that the blood evidence was planted in the moderator and blood found in the rifle was concealed. If someone testified they did such or saw it done etc or knew it to have happened and has some evidence to back it up that would result in the conviction being vacated.
-
Hello Scipio just say for the sake of debate if it was proven that Bamber had an unfair trial would this mean a new trial or walking free or stay where he is.
-
Hello Scipio just say for the sake of debate if it was proven that Bamber had an unfair trial would this mean a new trial or walking free or stay where he is.
The state is allowed to retry him if it so chooses. He got a fair trial though, there is no way for him to prove otherwise all his attempts to argue he didn't get a fair trail went up in smoke. Those Jeremy supporters here who say he didn't get a fair trial are unable to articulate actual legal issues that constitute an unfair trial and just keep repeating claims already rejected by the Courts.
If Police lie and/or fake evidence to a substantial enough degree the Judges will simply declare someone innocent and not even allow the government to retry the case. More often though it simply results in the conviction being vacated and the government being free to retry the case except without the evidence that was established to have been false. The state usually won't retry cases like that though because the jury is not going to have confidence in the evidence that remains. The defense will be claiming the remaining evidence can't be trusted and might be tainted as well.
-
Scipio thanks for that. May I ask if somebody can prove that EP did not tell the truth and that the evidence submitted was suspect what would happen? I appreciate your thoughts.
-
Scipio thanks for that. May I ask if somebody can prove that EP did not tell the truth and that the evidence submitted was suspect what would happen? I appreciate your thoughts.
It depends on what it is. If it is something minor it will not have any impact. If it relates to evidence presented in court It has to be something that could have resulted in the jurors voting another way. If it wasn't in court it has to be significant enough to have prevented the defense from realizing they had a viable inquiry line that they didn't pursue because of the misconduct.
They tried making the latter argument with respect ot the Bible. They argued the police failed to disclose the page numbers that had blood on them and that had the defense known which pages had blood they could have tried arguing the Bible was open to said pages and such Bible passages constituted a suicide note. The Court noted they could have inspected the Bible if they so chose to, they didn't have to rely upon police to tell them which pages had blood that was their own duty to investigate such. The Court also suggested the defense didn't argue the bible for strategic reasons suggesting the Bible's location was staged and thus it would have helped the prosecution to discuss it. Moreover the Court found the passages in question inconclusive and didn't see any way of establishing the passages in question were a suicide note.
So you have to establish not only that stuff was improperly held which prevented the defense from making a viable argument but that if such argument had been made at trial the verdict could have been different.
-
Scipio thanks for that I understand better now and would think he will never get another trial if anything of significance did transpire I guess his conviction would be quashed.
-
Oh,I don't think so.
But you have no ability to defend your opinion with anything substantial. In any event what you choose to believe doesn't matter. What the jury believed and what the Court of Appeal judges believed is what matters. Your denials don't amount to a hill of beans you can't go to a Court and state you refuse to believe Jeremy framed his sister, you need to present a very well constructed argument to judges to establish the jury had no basis to find as they did. That effort already failed decades ago.
-
Scipio thanks for that I understand better now and would think he will never get another trial if anything of significance did transpire I guess his conviction would be quashed.
Even if it were not quashed and they permitted a retrial the state would not bother. They probably could not even get Julie to testify again. Jeremy's lawyers know this that is why they tried everything including the kitchen sink the last time around but it still was not enough. They exhausted their best arguments already. Unless something substantial happens like someone admitting to substantial misconduct there is no genuine chance of Jeremy being released.
-
Susan,in the Eddie Gilfoyle case,as far as most are concerned,the man remains guilty. Eddie was released in December 2010 after it was found that police hadn't submitted his late wife's diaries in which they'd contained evidence of a couple of attempted suicides,these had been held back from the defence when he was sentenced. ( among other things )
Upon production of the said diaries,it still took 2 years to release Eddie,and even now,he's remained in limbo instead of his sentence having been quashed,so technically he's " still a guilty man " until such times as the police admit their many anomalies that were found in sentencing and charging him with the murder of his late wife.( even the rope on which she hanged herself " went missing !" )
This was one terrible case,badly investigated and still on-going insofar as him being pardoned for wrongful imprisonment.
-
I suppose it was easier for the police just to let Eddie free and say nothing. It's how it looks to me,and to " be glad of his freedom ",though it's not the point so far as Eddie's concerned. This is his 5th year of release and still nothing in the way of an apology.
-
Lookout thanks for that story I did not really know too much about his case. What a dreadful state of affairs he has been released but still a guilty man that does not sound right to me. I guess if you come across a corrupt cop you have no chance but the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 and others fought against the system.Has Eddie got family who can help him try and clear his name.
-
Lookout thanks for that story I did not really know too much about his case. What a dreadful state of affairs he has been released but still a guilty man that does not sound right to me. I guess if you come across a corrupt cop you have no chance but the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 and others fought against the system.Has Eddie got family who can help him try and clear his name.
She means guilty in the eyes of many who know him or have heard of him. He was guilty in the eyes of many who knew him before he was tried. If he wasn't tried or was acquitted such people would still have harbored the same feelings they do now after his conviction being tossed.
-
Scipio guess it would be the same for Jeremy Bamber if his conviction was quashed he would have no quality of life because he would still be seen as a guilty man.
-
Eddie's sister is brilliant with him. Isn't it ironic that his sister's brother-in-law is a police sergeant ? In the past,she made a note of all the anomalies that were made during her brother's arrest and to the time he'd been charged. There were pages and pages of it. Also the pathologist came in for some stick too as they work with the police. I don't think a time of death was recorded either. There were all sorts of cover-ups and it made for uncomfortable reading. Even a handwritten suicide note ( written,and proved to have been done by Eddie's late wife ) wasn't enough to stop him from going to prison.
Eddie had alibis too because he was at work. That wasn't enough for Merseyside Police either. He isn't a free man despite his release as his name has never been cleared.
David Jessel ( former commissioner at the CCRC ) has written about the unfair justice system. At present the Justice Committee in Parliament is currently looking into the work of the CCRC.
-
Scipio guess it would be the same for Jeremy Bamber if his conviction was quashed he would have no quality of life because he would still be seen as a guilty man.
If he were freed now it would have to be because of evidence that was doctored. That kind of thing would help support his innocence. It would not simply be a reversal because of some procedural error. So a lot of people would view him as innocent. The chance of someone coming forward to establish they helped plant evidence though is a million to 1.
-
She means guilty in the eyes of many who know him or have heard of him. He was guilty in the eyes of many who knew him before he was tried. If he wasn't tried or was acquitted such people would still have harbored the same feelings they do now after his conviction being tossed.
For God's sake,give it a bloody rest will you. I happen to have known the couple in a professional capacity and I actually saw the deceased a week beforehand. Eddie worked for the NHS the same as I did. I also knew that he was at work when the tragedy occurred.
-
Scipio if it was proven that the silencer was doctored and not used in the murders would Jeremy Bamber walk?
-
Scipio if it was proven that the silencer was doctored and not used in the murders would Jeremy Bamber walk?
Yes, without a doubt.
-
Hello ngb thanks for that :)
-
Yes, without a doubt.
With respect, I disagree.
It depends on the interpretation of 'doctored'
Personally, I don't think that jb would automatically walk free if it was proved that the silencer wasn't used in the killings.
-
Scipio if it was proven that the silencer was doctored and not used in the murders would Jeremy Bamber walk?
Yes because the effort required to accomplish such doctoring of evidence would be so great it would cast doubt on other things like the staged ammunition found in the kitchen. It could be alleged police lied about how many bullets were found in the kitchen and lied about where they found the bullet that grazed Nevill and lied about the 4 spent casings tied to Nevill's initial 4 shots. Even if the photos are shown which demonstrate where they were found it will be alleged these photos were taken later not on the day of the murders. The lab would have to have been involved in planting the blood it could not be pulled off without them so that would permit the defense to claim they lab the lab doctored the results of the GSR tests etc.
The government would not retry a case under such conditions even if permitted to do so.
-
With respect, I disagree.
It depends on the interpretation of 'doctored'
Personally, I don't think that jb would automatically walk free if it was proved that the silencer wasn't used in the killings.
The only way that the moderator wasn't used is if lab personnel, various police and extended family of the victims all were involved in a conspiracy. The only way to prove this would be some of the people who took part in the conspiracy admitting to it. If that were the case there would be no way a prosecutor would retry the case. With the exception of Julie's claims all evidence was in some way tied to what the lab and police developed so would be attacked by the defense as unreliable. They would also suggest that since others lied she can't be trusted either. So even if she were willing to testify again the government would not bother.
-
With respect, I disagree.
It depends on the interpretation of 'doctored'
Personally, I don't think that jb would automatically walk free if it was proved that the silencer wasn't used in the killings.
I am confident that he would Petey. The silencer evidence was one of the two central planks of the prosecution case, and was undoubtedly the most important issue in the case. If this is discredited the Court of Appeal would be bound to conclude that the convistion is unsafe. There is no way they could say that this was not something which influenced the jury.
-
Yes because the effort required to accomplish such doctoring of evidence would be so great it would cast doubt on other things like the staged ammunition found in the kitchen. It could be alleged police lied about how many bullets were found in the kitchen and lied about where they found the bullet that grazed Nevill and lied about the 4 spent casings tied to Nevill's initial 4 shots. Even if the photos are shown which demonstrate where they were found it will be alleged these photos were taken later not on the day of the murders. The lab would have to have been involved in planting the blood it could not be pulled off without them so that would permit the defense to claim they lab the lab doctored the results of the GSR tests etc.
The government would not retry a case under such conditions even if permitted to do so.
I agree.
-
I am confident that he would Petey. The silencer evidence was one of the two central planks of the prosecution case, and was undoubtedly the most important issue in the case. If this is discredited the Court of Appeal would be bound to conclude that the convistion is unsafe. There is no way they could say that this was not something which influenced the jury.
I respect your reasoning and I fully agree that legally that would be the correct outcome.
However, IF this ever did come about, I remain sceptical that jb will ever be released. Or maybe I am placing too much emphasis on Denning's words!
-
I respect your reasoning and I fully agree that legally that would be the correct outcome.
However, IF this ever did come about, I remain sceptical that jb will ever be released. Or maybe I am placing too much emphasis on Denning's words!
I remember Lord Denning's words in the Birmingham 6 civil action very well. Although admired by many for his bold approach to judge made extensions of the law (such as the High Trees case) in reality he was a deeply reactionary judge, whose pronouncements both in court and outside as he got older became increasingly embarrassing. The Birmigham 6 example was particularly bad.
-
I respect your reasoning and I fully agree that legally that would be the correct outcome.
However, IF this ever did come about, I remain sceptical that jb will ever be released. Or maybe I am placing too much emphasis on Denning's words!
Let's just pretend that there were a way to negate the moderator evidence in a manner that didn't implicate any misconduct having occurred. The COA would still have to vacate the conviction and put the decision in the hands of the government to decide whether to retry him because there is no way to honestly suggest that the moderator evidence could not have significantly impacted how the jury voted. Only if it could not have had a serious impact on their finding him guilty could the conviction still stand.
The way they deal with the concerns you are thinking about is to require solid proof that negates the moderator instead of just the speculation the defense has engaged in to date. If the defense can meet the high standard required to negate the moderator evidence the COA would vacate the conviction and toss the ball to prosecutors to decide whether they want to retry it or not.
-
The tests in 1999 were simply tests for the presence of blood no blood was detected because the lab already removed all visible blood in 1985 and in 1986 defense expert Lincoln removed all microscopic traces of blood that had been left behind by the lab. The DNA tests done in 2000 found Sheila's DNA, June's DNA and most likely the DNA of at least one of the twins. In addition there were up to 10 minor DNA contributors. There was DNA of at least 4 people and could have been as many as 15. How does non-blood based DNA get in a moderator? Through contamination of course. LCN testing is so sensitive that there are very specific protocols in place with respect to evidence collection, processing the evidence and evidence handling and storage afterwards in case retesting is needed. None of these protocols existed in 1985. Lincoln could have deposited DNA of every victim in there while he was processing it and the lab could as well. These were tiny DNA samples easily spread. Nevill could have contaminated it when he took it apart. The jurors could have contaminated the list is long. If the DNA had been blood based that would be different because contaminating the moderator with blood by accident is not something that the lab would have been able to do, nor could the jury have done that.
That still would not clear up whose DNA was removed in 1985 by the lab and 1986 by Lincoln only DNA testing the blood they removed could answer that.
Scip why make up such nonsense? That is the third time this week you have made blatantly false claims about the moderator. If you want to convince people of Jeremy's guilt making stuff up is not going to do you any favours
-
Scipio if it was proven that the silencer was doctored and not used in the murders would Jeremy Bamber walk?
I would think so yes. However there is so much at stake
1. How much compensation will they have to pay him?
2. Wont his cousins be in danger if he is let loose?
-
question 2 - none. I don't think there is any way he would want to put back in Jail.
compensation. Not automatic as has been shown with other cases recently .
-
I would think so yes. However there is so much at stake
1. How much compensation will they have to pay him?
2. Wont his cousins be in danger if he is let loose?
It would be Jeremy who'd be in danger.Nobody else.
-
David I am sure if Jeremy Bamber was released after serving nearly 30 years in prison he would not be in a hurry to go back by murdering his cousins I think they would be safe not sure their possessions would be though. Not sure how the compensation would stand guess it would be a large amount if the law permits it.
-
lookout meant to ask did Eddie get any compensation?
-
No Susan. No compensation. The case isn't ended.
-
As a matter of interest,I take it that you're all 100% sure of Jeremy's guilt ? Yes ?
99%
-
99%
What happened to the 1% ?
-
Exactly - fairy dust!!
You can take two meanings out of that Caroline :D
-
I am confident that he would Petey. The silencer evidence was one of the two central planks of the prosecution case, and was undoubtedly the most important issue in the case. If this is discredited the Court of Appeal would be bound to conclude that the convistion is unsafe. There is no way they could say that this was not something which influenced the jury.
Wishful thinking perhaps? In any event that will never happen as it would have taken a right dimwit to interfere with an investigation involving five murders.
-
Scip why make up such nonsense? That is the third time this week you have made blatantly false claims about the moderator. If you want to convince people of Jeremy's guilt making stuff up is not going to do you any favours
Third time? Your accusations fell apart completely with respect to both of your prior allegations and fail now as well. Just as I stated Fletcher testified that the only way for blood to get in the moderator was via drawback or intentional planting not accidental contamination. The blood was distributed in the moderator as I suggested. I noted correctly the removal of the visible blood by the lab and microscopic blood by the defense expert. You made the ludicrous suggestion that Lincoln stated the blood he found was transferred by the lab as they swabbed it when he clearly suggested the blood he found is what they missed while swabbing it. The one not doing himself any favors is you in continuing to pretend I was wrong.
I didn't make up anything with respect to the DNA either. There were enough markers to know Sheila's DNA was found in 5 of the samples. The Court of Appeals was willing to spot the defense on the issue because it made no difference whether it was Sheila's or not since the DNA wasn't blood based and thus the Court accepted the defense claim that maybe it was Sheila's maybe it wasn't and then proceeded to say even if the defense claims are taken as true it proves nothing and doesn't refute the evidence used at trial.
There were 10 areas of the moderator tested the baffles in 3 different batches labeled A, B and C and then 7 other areas.
"Since the CCRC referred this case to the court, further DNA testing has taken place of other parts of the moderator. Seven swabbings have been taken from internal parts of the moderator apart from the baffles. All seven results indicated that DNA from more than one person was present. The results were complex and incomplete and it was not possible to determine how many people had contributed to the DNA from the mixture. The predominant contribution appeared to have come from a female or females.
When comparisons were possible, components matching Sheila Caffell's DNA profile were detected in five of these seven results. The other two results also contained components which matched those of Sheila Caffell, but not at all of the ten areas of DNA tested where information was available for comparison. Some of the components detected did not match the profile of Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
Note "or the Caffell twins which was the court's way of indicating it was being suggested that the DNA that didn't match Sheila's completely was from one or both of the twins. Sheila and one or both of the twins were the major contributors in all 7 samples. There was at least 1 minor contributor in each of these 7 samples but no way to tell if the minor contributor in each sample was the same person or a different person.
-
I was being thick and have just understood your meaning. :-[
Inadvertently, was in reference to Adams post and not yours. Adam inadvertently made a good point.
It had nothing to do with your point. :D
It did though - Adam was referring to something I had said, it was my point, not Adam´s. ;)
-
It did though - Adam was referring to something I had said, it was my point, not Adam´s. ;)
Lol okay. I was referring to Adams post, I hadn't even seen what you had posted.
In any event, I meant nothing by it, certainly not against you.
-
Lol okay. I was referring to Adams post, I hadn't even seen what you had posted.
In any event, I meant nothing by it, certainly not against you.
Thanks for that.
-
You can take two meanings out of that Caroline :D
;D ;D ;D
-
After my acknowledged e-mail to EP,I received another one saying that it was forwarded to the operational division of EP. Early days yet. ;D
-
As expected,I haven't heard a word as yet. ::) I wonder why ?
-
At least Jeremy acknowledges letters,questions,etc !
I actually asked EP how they came to their conclusion on it being 4 murders and a suicide,as well as information pertaining to that. Also what exactly was it that changed their minds to murder.
Simple enough questions.
-
At least Jeremy acknowledges letters,questions,etc !
I actually asked EP how they came to their conclusion on it being 4 murders and a suicide,as well as information pertaining to that. Also what exactly was it that changed their minds to murder.
Simple enough questions.
Four murders and a suicide? Jeremy told them he had a call from his father stating that 'Sheila had gone crazy she's got the gun'. They found her staged body in the bedroom complete with rifle on her chest. It was a first impression (manipulated by Jeremy) without any analysis.
They changed their minds after the investigated and had more information.
-
What was the " more information ?".
BTW,this forum is being watched.I found that out this morning.
-
What was the " more information ?".
BTW,this forum is being watched.I found that out this morning.
Watched by whom - and how did you find out?
-
Watched by whom - and how did you find out?
lookout who is watching us please tell is it a good or bad thing :'(
-
lookout who is watching us please tell is it a good or bad thing :'(
I suppose it's a good thing in a way, Susan, but difficult to explain why at the moment.
-
Watched by whom - and how did you find out?
Me hahahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Me hahahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D
-
Me hahahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hawkeye. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Its me 3rd eye, could do with a 4th at times ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lookout thank you I will get Miss Patti Marples on the case for me ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lookout thank you I will get Miss Patti Marples on the case for me ;D ;D ;D ;D
eeeeeeeeeeeeoew I nooooooo nufink ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Okay,Susan. ;D ;D ;D ;D Meanwhile,I'll put the remainder of Sundays chicken out for the resident hedgehog.
-
Lookout just watching programme on 5 on Bent Cops quite good.
-
I am too.Some terrible goings on. :o :o
-
Scary too.
-
What was the " more information ?".
BTW,this forum is being watched.I found that out this morning.
More information is - the results of the investigation. The forum isn't open to 'watchers' you have to be a member and I'm sure 'Special Branch' have better things to do!
-
More information is - the results of the investigation. The forum isn't open to 'watchers' you have to be a member and I'm sure 'Special Branch' have better things to do!
I didn't mention Special Branch,did I ? You did. ::) Doesn't have to be SB.
If anyone wants to " watch " the forum,they can do just that.
-
What was the " more information ?".
BTW,this forum is being watched.I found that out this morning.
What are you suggesting that we should deduce from this, Lookout?
-
What are you suggesting that we should deduce from this, Lookout?
Nothing,why ?
If you look back at my post/s pertaining to this then perhaps you'll understand what I'm talking about.
-
It just seemed odd after my post on here at 11.49am yesterday,that I should then receive an e-mail at 1.56pm same day.
-
It just seemed odd after my post on here at 11.49am yesterday,that I should then receive an e-mail at 1.56pm same day.
Thanks for the clarification. Possible explanations as follows:
1. We have a "mole" . Because we are a closed forum it would mean it's one of us.
1a. There's so little going on here "watching" us would seem akin to watching paint dry.
2. It's a coincidence. Were you not waiting for some sort of communication from EP?
-
Thanks for the clarification. Possible explanations as follows:
1. We have a "mole" . Because we are a closed forum it would mean it's one of us.
1a. There's so little going on here "watching" us would seem akin to watching paint dry.
2.
It's a coincidence. Were you not waiting for some sort of communication from EP?
Indeed I was/am,but not a second acknowledgement from the 15th of March.It seemed like an excuse to me to what I'd posted yesterday,that someone had " verified " what I'd just said.
-
Nothing,why ?
If you look back at my post/s pertaining to this then perhaps you'll understand what I'm talking about.
The police are not worried about Bamber's lawyers let alone us. They consider this a closed case.
You are being paranoid over a coincidence.
-
The police are not worried about Bamber's lawyers let alone us. They consider this a closed case.
You are being paranoid over a coincidence.
Least alone us :)
-
The police are not worried about Bamber's lawyers let alone us. They consider this a closed case.
You are being paranoid over a coincidence.
Paranoid ? Me ? You must be joking.I'm not that kind of a person who I think my life depended upon this case. Look around you---------including yourself., I couldn't give a rats who's right or who's wrong.
-
Have just received another e-mail from EP who more or less state that they're not prepared/obliged to release information which is held under the FOIA . So that's that. :(
Except that it still means that there remains to be,recorded information out there.
-
Have just received another e-mail from EP who more or less state that they're not prepared/obliged to release information which is held under the FOIA . So that's that. :(
Except that it still means that there remains to be,recorded information out there.
No surprise really.
-
For specific information there is a charge from £450 per 18 hr search,but such info as I'd requested isn't for the public domain ?
-
For specific information there is a charge from £450 per 18 hr search,but such info as I'd requested isn't for the public domain ?
I think they're telling you to mind your own business.
-
For specific information there is a charge from £450 per 18 hr search,but such info as I'd requested isn't for the public domain ?
You didn't think you could actually email the police about a case that has nothing to do with you...and ask them things did you? :-\
-
You didn't think you could actually email the police about a case that has nothing to do with you...and ask them things did you? :-\
How else are you to know these things unless you try ? ::)
-
Bambergate would have used a different approach,then again,he actually knew one of the officers who was at the scene,so would have known EXACTLY what to ask.Even then,he was threatened ( for prying too deep probably ) making it uncomfortable,knowing what he knew.
-
How else are you to know these things unless you try ? ::)
Well although I'm FREQUENTLY castigated for doing it, I maintain that if we don't ask the question, we'll never know what the answer might have been......................however!!!!!! I DO believe that there are SOME questions to which the answer is likely to be a foregone conclusion so I can't believe this particular answer was any GREAT surprise ;)
-
Bambergate would have used a different approach,then again,he actually knew one of the officers who was at the scene,so would have known EXACTLY what to ask.Even then,he was threatened ( for prying too deep probably ) making it uncomfortable,knowing what he knew.
YEH!!! He probably WOULDN'T have made his first question "Why are you nasty lot being so horrible to poor Jeremy?"..................It might have been his second one ;D ;D ;D
-
YEH!!! He probably WOULDN'T have made his first question "Why are you nasty lot being so horrible to poor Jeremy?"..................It might have been his second one ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D
-
YEH!!! He probably WOULDN'T have made his first question "Why are you nasty lot being so horrible to poor Jeremy?"..................It might have been his second one ;D ;D ;D
The man's done well,regardless of what he asked. ;)