Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on March 05, 2015, 10:39:AM
-
What 'particular' aspects of the case convince supporters that Jeremy is 'innocent'?
-
Talk about a general question.
You know what they are.
The relatives, Julie and police all lied. The silencer was somehow expertly contaminated and Neville called the police. There were 'conversations in the house' and two bodies found in the kitchen.
There is of course no proof of this. But that's just a minor detail.
-
Funny you should say that,Caroline.For the umpteenth time,I've just finished listening to Jeremy's interview with Eric Allison," I will feel hope again ".
The more I've listened,the more convinced I am of his innocence,which I always have done anyway. During this interview,Jeremy takes his time,is natural, open,,and above all there's a consistency about his overall conversation and the feeling I get is " what more can he say? ",as it's very difficult to defend yourself when you haven't got an alibi,and you KNOW in yourself that you've told the truth. As Jeremy pointed out,it's very frustrating,as something like this is when you've been accused of having done something and NOBODY believes or listens to you.
I know from experience ( not like Jeremy ) that trying to argue against professionals is fighting a losing battle,and the worst experience that anyone can go through.I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy,but one thing that taught me through my own personal trauma,was that professionals,including ALL those who work for the government,lawyers,specialists and consultants are NOT always right,and need to take a step back from their textbook " theories " and study what happens in the real world. A reality check wouldn't go amiss.
So many anomalies and a lack of a thorough investigation in what I'd have said was an inexperienced police force to have dealt with such a case.
-
I just think that Jeremy is" sincere".A word which is lost in todays culture of bad manners, quickness to blame, whether you be right or wrong,a far cry from the world which Jeremy grew up in. His family would turn in their graves if they knew what had happened to their son.
Jeremy never hurt anyone. It's a sad indictment of our justice system that he's been let down badly and I can only hope that in the life I've got left,that Jeremy gets the justice that he so rightly deserves.
-
Talk about a general question. [/b]
You know what they are.
The relatives, Julie and police all lied. The silencer was somehow expertly contaminated and Neville called the police. There were 'conversations in the house' and two bodies found in the kitchen.
There is of course no proof of this. But that's just a minor detail.
As opposed to yours that are repetitive and pointless?
-
I just think that Jeremy is" sincere".A word which is lost in todays culture of bad manners, quickness to blame, whether you be right or wrong,a far cry from the world which Jeremy grew up in. His family would turn in their graves if they knew what had happened to their son.
Jeremy never hurt anyone. It's a sad indictment of our justice system that he's been let down badly and I can only hope that in the life I've got left,that Jeremy gets the justice that he so rightly deserves.
Thanks for that Lookout, but you have said many times that you thought he was innocent from day one. What was it 'initially' that made you think he was innocent?
-
As opposed to yours that are repetitive and pointless?
He can't help it Caroline.He's a full member of the Jeremy-bashing brigade. How EASY to prosecute,eh ?
-
As opposed to yours that are repetitive and pointless?
Which is why you changed stance.
Oh sorry, it was Jeremy not replying to you're letter straight away. Not having the cunning to simply say 'I don't know'.
-
Oooops,it's not his OWN thread either,another fine point. ::) Awwww.
-
He can't help it Caroline.He's a full member of the Jeremy-bashing brigade. How EASY to prosecute,eh ?
For EVERY question he has, he starts a new thread - I don't think he understands that a 'new thread' is for a new topic. ::)
-
adam convinces me his innocent.
-
Thanks for that Lookout, but you have said many times that you thought he was guilty from day one. What was it 'initially' that made you think he was innocent?
Wrong,Caroline,I've NEVER thought him guilty ?
-
Which is why you changed stance.
Oh sorry, it was Jeremy not replying to you're letter straight away. Not having the cunning to simply say 'I don't know'.
You have had no influence on anyone here - you are completely uninformed and simply seek attention. Most people just find you an irritant but that's as much influence as you have.
-
Wrong,Caroline,I've NEVER thought him guilty ?
Ha, ha!! Sorry Lookout, I meant 'innocent' ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
adam convinces me his innocent.
Please refer to my deadline thread and inform me how Sheila committed the massacre.
Don't just write 'with a rifle' as Lookout did. Or refuse to answer, like Jan and Grahame have done.
I am generously extending the deadline for you as you were not posting at the time.
It will be easy, you believe Jeremy is innocent. All the evidence is available for you - bullet allocation, phone call times, body locations , fight location and injuries, amount of reloads, Sheila's condition at time of death.
-
Wrong,Caroline,I've NEVER thought him guilty ?
In loads of my posts I've quoted him as being innocent from day one,in fact as I remember the case itself in 1985,the first thing I'd said to myself when I saw on TV him,being led away the first time,that " he didn't do it ".
This is what made me unpopular on the forum/s. ::) ;D ;D
-
Ha, ha!! Sorry Lookout, I meant 'innocent' ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ooooo,Caroline------------guilty has become a dirty word with me now. ;) ;) ;)
-
Please refer to my deadline thread and inform me how Sheila committed the massacre.
Don't just write 'with a rifle' as Lookout did. Or refuse to answer, like Jan and Grahame have done.
I am generously extending the deadline for you as you were not posting at the time.
It will be easy, you believe Jeremy is innocent. All the evidence is available for you - bullet allocation, phone call times, body locations , fight location and injuries, amount of reloads, Sheila's condition at time of death.
Adam, this is a question for innocent supporters so bugger off with your deadline - no one is interested!
-
I am sure Nugs is writing out a detailed point by point summary of how Sheila committed the massacre as I write.
-
I am sure Nugs is writing out a detailed point by point summary of how Sheila committed the massacre as I write.
This thread isn't about that, now run along and attention seek somewhere else!
-
As nugs remarked that it was Adam who convinces him of Jeremy's innocence.I can quite believe that too as it's a desperate attempt to seek out those who aren't as firm in their beliefs as I am.I won't be moved of course.
Too much of what I call " nonsense " has been included in the case which footballers use the term " playing for time " where confusion has played a large part.The moderator which became a play on words because most,if not all the jury would have been familiar with such,nor would they have known one end of a rifle from the other. A whole session would have been " wasted " on this alone.
Then you had the police statements,some of which didn't ring true,along with laboratory staff,the pathologist ( who SHOULD have attended the deceased where they were found ) who was also confused about whose blood belonged to who.Then there were the relatives !!
In Jeremy's interview,what everyone will notice,is the absence of bitterness in a man who'd been clearly duped.
-
What 'particular' aspects of the case convince supporters that Jeremy is 'innocent'?
I have never been 100% sure that Jeremy is innocent although I tend to think he is.
The few percent that spoils it for me is the cleanness of Sheila and the silencer evidence. Although, both the cleanness and the silencer cold have an alternative to be considered.
The 10-2 majority. Not all the jurors thought he was guilty.
I am very suspicious of Jones, especially when he met the girls off duty and attended the bank with them. He also told Colin not to mention he had changed his statement in court otherwise it would cause problems. Plus, a year later he attended the girls flat to verify times on one of the clocks although the clock its self had been altered due to the clocks being put back in October 1985. He was the one that took the silencer. He was the one that was there that day when a paint sample was taken from the under shelf of the AGA. A yellow sticker marks the place where the paint sample was taken, yet they failed to notice the scratch marks which were a inch away. Jones was in it up to his neck, even to the point where he tells AE not to mention that he had taken a pair of black canvas shoes from Sheila's bedroom. I do not trust his involvement in the case.
The windows, need I say anymore about them?
The blood evidence was never fully examined.
No real forensic evidence was ever supplied in court other than the silencer evidence and even that could be flawed in court of today.
The blood on Sheila's arm form the wrist could have been back spatter, this was never fully examined.
The draw-back was fully examined in court.
The telephone was never fingerprinted.
Then there is the NOTW deal.
DNA??????????????
Its not what is said in court that provided the best evidence its the forensic evidence that tells the truth.
-
Please refer to my deadline thread and inform me how Sheila committed the massacre.
Don't just write 'with a rifle' as Lookout did. Or refuse to answer, like Jan and Grahame have done.
I am generously extending the deadline for you as you were not posting at the time.
It will be easy, you believe Jeremy is innocent. All the evidence is available for you - bullet allocation, phone call times, body locations , fight location and injuries, amount of reloads, Sheila's condition at time of death.
You really are behaving like a nasty, squawky, spoilt brat, stamping it's feet because it doesn't like the fact that other people are cleverer, nicer and more popular than it is, thereby detracting attention from it. This ISN'T your thread, so either accept that or as Caroline said, BUGGER OFF.
-
if your still trying to come up with theorys about how somone might of comited a crime 30 years after they have been convicted of it the conviction cant possbly be called safe.
-
It ISN'T safe,nugs. Anybody with half an eye can see that. Or anyone with a " feeling " about justice,too.
-
well to me the fact that various people are trying to prove his guilt doubt means his guilt hasn't been proved beyond doubt.
-
The whole scene of Jeremy expecting to be able to pull off a slaughter of a family of five in three different rooms - alone and with a weak firearm.
To me that is a stretch; how could he expect to control five people in three different rooms? If it were established he had an accomplice I would be on the guilty side.
-
The whole scene of Jeremy expecting to be able to pull off a slaughter of a family of five in three different rooms - alone and with a weak firearm.
To me that is a stretch; how could he expect to control five people in three different rooms? If it were established he had an accomplice I would be on the guilty side.
No problem whatsoever. The children were sound asleep so we can take them out of the equation straight away. Sheila could easily be locked in her room. Jeremy went straight into the master bedroom and shot June as she sat in bed and Nevill as he came to the door.
Easy wasn't it? Like most things in the Bamber case they can all be explained.
-
well to me the fact that various people are trying to prove his guilt doubt means his guilt hasn't been proved beyond doubt.
That was done in 1986.
-
The whole scene of Jeremy expecting to be able to pull off a slaughter of a family of five in three different rooms - alone and with a weak firearm.
To me that is a stretch; how could he expect to control five people in three different rooms? If it were established he had an accomplice I would be on the guilty side.
Does that mean you don't think Sheila did it, either. I would have thought that what proved difficult for Jeremy MAY have been impossible for Sheila.
-
The whole scene of Jeremy expecting to be able to pull off a slaughter of a family of five in three different rooms - alone and with a weak firearm.
To me that is a stretch; how could he expect to control five people in three different rooms? If it were established he had an accomplice I would be on the guilty side.
No he didn't have an accomplice.
He committed the massacre at the perfect time for an execution. I have already explained how he did it.
-
That was done in 1986.
it clearly wasnt becouse your still trying to do it.
-
it clearly wasnt becouse your still trying to do it.
Well he hasn't been in prison for 30 years because the jury decided he was innocent.
-
it clearly wasnt becouse your still trying to do it.
Not at all. What I and many others like me have done is dispel the crap being promoted in this case and very successful we have been too.
We have no need to prove Jeremy guilty but you have a need to prove him innocent which you and others have summarily failed to do.
-
Does that mean you don't think Sheila did it, either. I would have thought that what proved difficult for Jeremy MAY have been impossible for Sheila.
I think there is a big difference in being in the house already versus having to break in (I don´t believe Jeremy slept over at the farm).
Besides, Sheila "only" had four people to deal with, so one grown up out of the equation.
John, was there a lock and key to Sheila´s room?
-
Not at all. What I and many others like me have done is dispel the crap being promoted in this case and very successful we have been too.
We have no need to prove Jeremy guilty but you have a need to prove him innocent which you and others have summarily failed to do.
Do give yourself a nice big pat on the back. ::)
-
I think there is a big difference in being in the house already versus having to break in (I don´t believe Jeremy slept over at the farm).
Besides, Sheila "only" had four people to deal with, so one grown up out of the equation.
John, was there a lock and key to Sheila´s room?
He didn't sleep over at the farm. He probably had supper that night through gritted teeth. But had to as part of the plan. The Foakes's saw him drive off that night.
It was easy to quietly enter WHF through the bathroom window. He may have even left it an inch open before driving back.
-
Do give yourself a nice big pat on the back. ::)
The punishment should fit the crime in this case so until that occurs the five innocents will never have justice.
-
Well he hasn't been in prison for 30 years because the jury decided he was innocent.
if hes conviction was safe then all the arguments about how he did should of sorted out courtesy of the cps.youve got bob wolfingdon and richard webster saying theyve solved the case youve got mason doyle saying that hes now got proof of guilt now clearly they dont belive that guilt was proved in the first place.
-
if hes conviction was safe then all the arguments about how he did should of sorted out courtesy of the cps.youve got bob wolfingdon and richard webster saying theyve solved the case youve got mason doyle saying that hes now got proof of guilt now clearly they dont belive that guilt was proved in the first place.
Nugs, they can believe what they want -as can we- and go on to make money out of it.
-
The punishment should fit the crime in this case so until that occurs the five innocents will never have justice.
John,you're beginning to sound like a parrot.What you utter,has no substance whatsoever and doesn't tell anybody anything. Typical text-book job.
-
Adam none of us know whether or not he went back to the farm on foot do we. Maybe the door was left open for him to come back either by Sheila or Ralph ???
-
John,you're beginning to sound like a parrot.What you utter,has no substance whatsoever and doesn't tell anybody anything. Typical text-book job.
Lookout, I'm not certain what else CAN be said. Despite feeling that the trial was an unholy cock-up, I still think Jeremy is guilty.
-
Nugs, they can believe what they want -as can we- and go on to make money out of it.
but hes not the only case they could make money out of and what really surprised me was websters interest he was normally interested in murders.
-
Lookout, I'm not certain what else CAN be said. Despite feeling that the trial was an unholy cock-up, I still think Jeremy is guilty.
And what you think is entirely your prerogative. At least you are in agreeance with the way the trial was conducted. At least another appeal would put Jeremy on the right track this time.
I'm afraid I haven't found a scrap of evidence against him. Proper evidence I'm talking about.
The reason nothing else can be said is because those who think him guilty have used up ALL the resources that were already in place,i.e links,books,media,relatives, ex girlfriend,police,professionals.
How easy was that to deduce ?
-
I am sure Nugs is writing out a detailed point by point summary of how Sheila committed the massacre as I write.
-
Seems I was wrong about Nugs.
-
if went around saying the earth was flat and ian brady was wrongly convicted would people spend half all there waking hours of the day trying to prove me wrong or would they think they dident need to.
-
John, was there a lock and key to Sheila´s room?
Yes, all main doors had locks like the one below.
(http://www.1900s.org.uk/1930s-images/door-handle-lock.jpg) (http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/_/rsrc/1335202619305/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it/6)%20Y-L%2003,%20neg-9,%202002.jpg?height=400&width=342)
-
It'll take the cleverest of persons to analyse the contents of thousands of files/documents to conclude that Jeremy is indeed innocent.
Why has Jeremy bothered ?. Why have lawyers shown an interest ?. 30 years. Why haven't these people themselves spoken out about it being " a waste of time,etc ?".
Fresh minds on the case presently, is likened to a " new broom ". At least they don't need,or have to go over old ground.
-
And what you think is entirely your prerogative. At least you are in agreeance with the way the trial was conducted. At least another appeal would put Jeremy on the right track this time.
I'm afraid I haven't found a scrap of evidence against him. Proper evidence I'm talking about.
The reason nothing else can be said is because those who think him guilty have used up ALL the resources that were already in place,i.e links,books,media,relatives, ex girlfriend,police,professionals.
How easy was that to deduce ?
I wonder how many more who are in prison without benefit of what you deem to be "proper" evidence, but as you have previously stated, you have no interest in their cases. It is VERY possible however that despite what you refer to as lack of "proper" evidence, they are, indeed, guilty. I'm told that other than those who have admitted their guilt, EVERY prisoner is innocent. That would put more innocent people behind bars than in front of them, wouldn't it?
-
Yes, all main doors had locks like the one below.
(http://www.1900s.org.uk/1930s-images/door-handle-lock.jpg) (http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/_/rsrc/1335202619305/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it/6)%20Y-L%2003,%20neg-9,%202002.jpg?height=400&width=342)
How do you know that? All the doors weren´t (aren´t) necessarily the same, I have never seen a picture of the door to Sheila´s room. Further, even though there are locks, it doesn´t necessarily mean there are keys - it is like that in my home. Keyholes in all doors, but not keys in all of them - actually keys for very few doors.
I have never heard from the prosecution that they suggested that Sheila had been locked in her room. I admit that that would be an explanation for where Sheila was during the other shootings, but I have never heard it, and I am sure they would have put it forward if that had been an option.
-
Yes, all main doors had locks like the one below.
(http://www.1900s.org.uk/1930s-images/door-handle-lock.jpg) (http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/_/rsrc/1335202619305/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it/6)%20Y-L%2003,%20neg-9,%202002.jpg?height=400&width=342)
Was that Sheila's room ? Or the main bedroom ?
Those doors look think. Supporters have said the walls at WHF were also thick. A few shots from a rifle with a silencer on and a downstairs kitchen fight will be difficult or impossible to hear. If already fully awake.
If Sheila's bedroom was lockable, it was then an option for Jeremy to lock it, prior to shooting people. However I suspect he felt the killing of June and Neville would be quick, clinical and silent. So no need.
-
How do you know that? All the doors weren´t (aren´t) necessarily the same, I have never seen a picture of the door to Sheila´s room. Further, even though there are locks, it doesn´t necessarily mean there are keys - it is like that in my home. Keyholes in all doors, but not keys in all of them - actually keys for very few doors.
I have never heard from the prosecution that they suggested that Sheila had been locked in her room. I admit that that would be an explanation for where Sheila was during the other shootings, but I have never heard it, and I am sure they would have put it forward if that had been an option.
Have you read the entire trial transcript?
-
I wonder how many more who are in prison without benefit of what you deem to be "proper" evidence, but as you have previously stated, you have no interest in their cases. It is VERY possible however that despite what you refer to as lack of "proper" evidence, they are, indeed, guilty. I'm told that other than those who have admitted their guilt, EVERY prisoner is innocent. That would put more innocent people behind bars than in front of them, wouldn't it?
I don't doubt for one minute that there aren't MANY in prison who shouldn't be there. Jordan Cunliffe,who was used,because he's slightly backward and has problems with his eyesight. He happened to have been jailed " by association " and not having committed the crime itself.
In some cases I believe in this but like the " Human Rights ",it's been abused.
Jordan was with the gang who killed Gary Newlove,but he wasn't the one who murdered the man. Those like Jordan should be questioned as well as background checks made,and a thorough investigation done before being sent to prison.
This has also been treated as a MOJ. Checks SHOULD have been made on Jordan,as should be made on all those who are in prison just " for being at a scene of murder ",as those who have a low IQ are more likely to be in cahoots with gangs of this type,which doesn't always necessarily mean that they're capable of inflicting harm.
I've never said that every prisoner is innocent.Those are entirely your own words.What I am saying is the amount of prisoners who haven't been afforded a proper investigation at the beginning.Jeremy being one of them.
-
How was it not proper Lookout? He did it didn't he?
-
Was that Sheila's room ? Or the main bedroom ?
Those doors look think. Supporters have said the walls at WHF were also thick. A few shots from a rifle with a silencer on and a downstairs kitchen fight will be difficult or impossible to hear. If already fully awake.
If Sheila's bedroom was lockable, it was then an option for Jeremy to lock it, prior to shooting people. However I suspect he felt the killing of June and Neville would be quick, clinical and silent. So no need.
That particular picture was taken in 2002 of the master bedroom. The door locks have never been changed.
-
Sheilas room I believe.
No, it is the main bedroom. The door you see leads to the boxroom between the boys´ room and the bedroom.
-
How was it not proper Lookout? He did it didn't he?
Not in my books he didn't do it. No. I've never seen a more farcical and bungled investigation carried out since I watched the Keystone Kops.
Bicycle,wetsuit,ets,etc. No forensic evidence,the list could go on,and does.
-
That particular picture was taken in 2002 of the master bedroom. The door locks have never been changed.
Would Jeremy had entered through that door. Or was there one in the other corner of the bedroom ?
-
Don't you know ? He got in through the keyhole ::) Or he could have done if every room hadn't been locked from the inside and the key remained in the lock !!
So tell us all how he got out of a room which had been locked from the inside with NO means of escape ?
-
Not in my books he didn't do it. No. I've never seen a more farcical and bungled investigation carried out since I watched the Keystone Kops.
Bicycle,wetsuit,ets,etc. No forensic evidence,the list could go on,and does.
the wetsuit is the sort of thing you might read in a fictional detective story.
-
the wetsuit is the sort of thing you might read in a fictional detective story.
I couldn't believe that it WAS believed. ;D
-
I couldn't believe that it WAS believed. ;D
Well it is almost certain that Jeremy cycled to WHF. The bike was brought over just before the massacre. RB said there was a way out of Jeremy's back garden into the fields. RB said the cycle journey was easy and passed no dwellings.
Bob Woffinden and RB suggested Bamber wore a wet suit. It was not discussed in court or at Bamber's police interviews.
There are threads on both issues.
-
I couldn't care less how many threads/links/newspapers/books state what those two said. One only said it because of the other who happened to have been a " pillar of the community ". Doesn't was with me. Woffinden is conspicuous by his absence these days and has probably gone on to other things a little less taxing to his brain.
-
I couldn't believe that it WAS believed. ;D
well imagine if you approached the police and said i think this guy i know committed while wearing a wetsuit riding a womans bicycle what do you think they would say to you.
-
well imagine if you approached the police and said i think this guy i know committed while wearing a wetsuit riding a womans bicycle what do you think they would say to you.
Go home to bed,missus. ;D You'll be better in the morning.
-
Talk about a general question.
You know what they are.
The relatives, Julie and police all lied. The silencer was somehow expertly contaminated and Neville called the police. There were 'conversations in the house' and two bodies found in the kitchen.
There is of course no proof of this. But that's just a minor detail.
This is a good question. Many times we have tried to understand the position and motivations. Leave it to you to try to ruin the thread out of jealousy because you didn't start it.
-
This is a good question. Many times we have tried to understand the position and motivations. Leave it to you to try to ruin the thread out of jealousy because you didn't start it.
I take it that you know Adam,then. ;D
-
Why is it that posters can not let others give their opinions without being nasty or vindictive . It has been proven on nearly every point that there are differing "expert" opinions .
And Nearly every aspect of the case can be looked at from opposing views ( because that's all they are) So really you are left with two things - JM and the silencer.
Personally I have never dismissed them but I find her statements and testimony (IMO) a load of tosh. I can not see anyway on earth she would have Identified the twins and supported JB at the funeral and for a month afterwards knowing what she said she knew.
The moderator - I have read the statements of those involved and they all vary . And again I find the situation of taking it home and away from the crime scene ridiculous.
There are lots of other reasons I think JB is innocent and personally I think I am entitled to my opinion without nastiness and ridicule from certain posters .
-
This is a good question. Many times we have tried to understand the position and motivations. Leave it to you to try to ruin the thread out of jealousy because you didn't start it.
It was inevitable - best ignore him, his input was never required in the first place.
-
Why is it that posters can not let others give their opinions without being nasty or vindictive . It has been proven on nearly every point that there are differing "expert" opinions .
And Nearly every aspect of the case can be looked at from opposing views ( because that's all they are) So really you are left with two things - JM and the silencer.
Personally I have never dismissed them but I find her statements and testimony (IMO) a load of tosh. I can not see anyway on earth she would have Identified the twins and supported JB at the funeral and for a month afterwards knowing what she said she knew.
The moderator - I have read the statements of those involved and they all vary . And again I find the situation of taking it home and away from the crime scene ridiculous.
There are lots of other reasons I think JB is innocent and personally I think I am entitled to my opinion without nastiness and ridicule from certain posters .
Much as I HATE comparing this case with any other, I was intrigued to hear that the girl friend of the guy who is being charged with murdering his step sister, is being charged with perverting the cause of justice. What has she done that Julie didn't?
-
There are lots of other reasons I think JB is innocent and personally I think I am entitled to my opinion without nastiness and ridicule from certain posters .
Unfortunately for you and the handful of AN Others, the evidence points clearly to his involvement so thinking he is innocent amounts to nothing more than semantics.
-
Well it looks like she certainly knew what happened and covered it up because she was appealing for help on facebook apparently. I guess the difference is she got found out and did not come forward and tell the police .
-
Much as I HATE comparing this case with any other, I was intrigued to hear that the girl friend of the guy who is being charged with murdering his step sister, is being charged with perverting the cause of justice. What has she done that Julie didn't?
Another Huntley girlfriend ? This is why the justice system is skewed and also corrupt !!
It also depends on how good an actress you are too. Feigning vulnerability counts for a lot.
-
Hello Jan I agree with you this forum is not about scoring points it is about discussing what is before us regarding the Jeremy Bamber case and remaining respectful to each other. I have the same doubts as you re: the silencer and JM's statement but as you know I tend to believe he is guilty of murdering his family but I am like Alias in that so many things leave me puzzled.
-
Unfortunately for you and the handful of AN Others, the evidence points clearly to his involvement so thinking he is innocent amounts to nothing more than semantics.
that is just the kind of post I meant - Obviously he is in jail and it is easy for you to say that. But I bet if you ask any barrister for their opinion they will admit that a case such as this is often won on the "abilities" of the advocates and experts involved - because most juries will not understand all the evidence given so whoever weaves the best "story" will win the jury over.
And I can only see one piece of evidence that points to Jeremy and I bet today that would not have even been accepted as evidence- the rest is subjective.
-
I have never been 100% sure that Jeremy is innocent although I tend to think he is.
The few percent that spoils it for me is the cleanness of Sheila and the silencer evidence. Although, both the cleanness and the silencer cold have an alternative to be considered.
The 10-2 majority. Not all the jurors thought he was guilty.
I am very suspicious of Jones, especially when he met the girls off duty and attended the bank with them. He also told Colin not to mention he had changed his statement in court otherwise it would cause problems. Plus, a year later he attended the girls flat to verify times on one of the clocks although the clock its self had been altered due to the clocks being put back in October 1985. He was the one that took the silencer. He was the one that was there that day when a paint sample was taken from the under shelf of the AGA. A yellow sticker marks the place where the paint sample was taken, yet they failed to notice the scratch marks which were a inch away. Jones was in it up to his neck, even to the point where he tells AE not to mention that he had taken a pair of black canvas shoes from Sheila's bedroom. I do not trust his involvement in the case.
1) police found the scratches the same time they took the paint samples. They photographed the scratches the same time they took the samples they didn't miss the scratches and find them at a later date.
2) Your distrust seems to be because you support Jeremy as opposed to stemming from any genuine cause of alarm that would suggest Jones did anything wrong. Receiving the moderator and the other things he did in the course of the case are things he was supposed to be doing while working the case.
The windows, need I say anymore about them?
None of the debates over the windows resulted in any objective evidence that would suggest Jeremy's innocence.
The blood evidence was never fully examined.
The blood evidence that was important was examined. Testing every single passive drop for blood type would have accomplished nothing and could not have helped establish Jeremy's innocence.
No real forensic evidence was ever supplied in court other than the silencer evidence and even that could be flawed in court of today.
Most cases of that era had little forensic evidence. Jeremy's case has more than most. The drawback evidence was forensic evidence and the lack of forensic evidence tying Sheila to the beating and shootings still technically falls under the forensic evidence umbrella. No one has demonstrated the ballistic evidence as planted. Choosing to believe it might be though there is no evidence stems from some underlying boas not an objective following of the facts.
The blood on Sheila's arm form the wrist could have been back spatter, this was never fully examined.
1) it was determined to be her blood
2) it could not have been back spatter, back spatter looks like this:
(http://foileducation.com/Forensics/bloodspatter_files/image010.jpg)
The draw-back was fully examined in court.
I assume you mean wasn't. The prosecution discussed everything they needed to discuss and the defense had no ability to challenge any of it with an expert testimony. There is nothing to this day that can be put forth to challenge it so little wonder all the defense could do beyond suggesting maybe it was drawback from June and Nevill.
The telephone was never fingerprinted.
Why would it be? Jeremy worked there and constantly used the phone so his prints being found ont he phone would prove nothing nor would the prints of others who lived there or worked there being found on the phone matter.
Then there is the NOTW deal.
Signing a deal to provide her story doesn't in any way suggest she lied to police a year earlier or that she lied in court.
DNA??????????????
Its not what is said in court that provided the best evidence its the forensic evidence that tells the truth.
Jeremy's own expert admitted the DNA had no ability to determine whose blood was found int he moderator. The DNA tests were always just a propaganda tool.
The evidence related to where the shots were fired etc reveal the killer went into the master bedroom and began shooting the parents but ran out of bullets before Nevill could be immobilized and then they proceeded to the kitchen where they fought over the gun, Nevill was beaten unconscious then the killer reloaded partially and shot Nevill to death. The killer then loaded the gun to maximum capacity (11 rounds) and went upstairs shooting June 1 time between the eyes to make sure she wwas really dead, using 8 on the boys and the last 2 on Sheila.
The forensic evidence establishes Sheila didn't kill anyone else or kill herself.
Jeremy staged bullets after the murders but staged too many.
Jeremy lied about calling Julie after police when in fact he called her before and should not have called her at all if he really received a call from Nevill as claimed.
There is no rational reason why Nevill would have called Jeremy even if Sheila had grabbed the gun but the forensic evidence shows she didn't.
-
Hello Jan I agree with you this forum is not about scoring points it is about discussing what is before us regarding the Jeremy Bamber case and remaining respectful to each other. I have the same doubts as you re: the silencer and JM's statement but as you know I tend to believe he is guilty of murdering his family but I am like Alias in that so many things leave me puzzled.
Absolutely right Susan, do wish everyone could abide by those sentiments, it would certainly encourage and improve debate.
-
Maggie do I get a good behaviour badge ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Much as I HATE comparing this case with any other, I was intrigued to hear that the girl friend of the guy who is being charged with murdering his step sister, is being charged with perverting the cause of justice. What has she done that Julie didn't?
They believe that she help dismember the body and dump it where the body was found. They wonder whether she helped actually kill her but don't have enough evidence to charge her with murder so instead for now are just charging her for helping dispose of the body.
Aside from charging her because she had an active role, they could hope she will take a plea deal and testify against her boyfriend.
-
This is a good question. Many times we have tried to understand the position and motivations. Leave it to you to try to ruin the thread out of jealousy because you didn't start it.
I already created a thread 'why do Jeremy's supporters support him ?' .
It got a good response, including from Caroline. So not sure why she would create a thread asking the same question. Although Caroline as a moderator did delete my thread on Jeremy's call to the police. Then immediately created 'Neville's call to the police' poll.
So not jealous at all.
Anyway, you have since repeatedly given the answers to this question - they want to believe Jeremy is innocent & ignore or dispute the vast amount of incriminating evidence. But have no proof to back it up. So I don't know why it is being asked again.
I will find my thread.
-
I already created a thread 'why do Jeremy's supporters support him ?' .
It got a good response, including from Caroline. So not sure why she would create a thread asking the same question. Although Caroline as a moderator did delete my thread on Jeremy's call to the police. Then immediately created 'Neville's call to the police' poll.
So not jealous at all.
Anyway, you have since repeatedly given the answers to this question - they want to believe Jeremy is innocent & ignore or dispute the vast amount of incriminating evidence. But have no proof to back it up. So I don't know why it is being asked again.
I will find my thread.
Please don't Adam ;D
-
They believe that she help dismember the body and dump it where the body was found. They wonder whether she helped actually kill her but don't have enough evidence to charge her with murder so instead for now are just charging her for helping dispose of the body.
Aside from charging her because she had an active role, they could hope she will take a plea deal and testify against her boyfriend.
OK, thank-you for that. Can you please explain why Maxine Carr, girl friend to Ian Huntley, was also charged with the same thing when she wasn't just not in the house when the murders occurred, she wasn't even in the COUNTY. I can understand WHY she gave him an alibi. What woman would want to think her fella capable of SUCH a heinous act? But, unlike Jeremy, he'd never given her a clue about his dark thoughts. I guess you'll say that there's a point of law here somewhere but all I see is Julie, who'd known about Jeremy's plans for a year -albeit, she may not have believed he'd go through with it- and vouched for him despite saying she KNEW what he'd done, and Maxine, who had no inkling what HER man had done but believed what he'd told her and gave him an alibi on the strength of it. Julie walks free to, what was then, a small fortune and Maxine gets a lengthy prison sentence. There really is no wonder that we Brits remain suspicious of out judicial system.
-
1) police found the scratches the same time they took the paint samples. They photographed the scratches the same time they took the samples they didn't miss the scratches and find them at a later date.
2) Your distrust seems to be because you support Jeremy as opposed to stemming from any genuine cause of alarm that would suggest Jones did anything wrong. Receiving the moderator and the other things he did in the course of the case are things he was supposed to be doing while working the case.
None of the debates over the windows resulted in any objective evidence that would suggest Jeremy's innocence.
The blood evidence that was important was examined. Testing every single passive drop for blood type would have accomplished nothing and could not have helped establish Jeremy's innocence.
Most cases of that era had little forensic evidence. Jeremy's case has more than most. The drawback evidence was forensic evidence and the lack of forensic evidence tying Sheila to the beating and shootings still technically falls under the forensic evidence umbrella. No one has demonstrated the ballistic evidence as planted. Choosing to believe it might be though there is no evidence stems from some underlying boas not an objective following of the facts.
1) it was determined to be her blood
2) it could not have been back spatter, back spatter looks like this:
(http://foileducation.com/Forensics/bloodspatter_files/image010.jpg)
I assume you mean wasn't. The prosecution discussed everything they needed to discuss and the defense had no ability to challenge any of it with an expert testimony. There is nothing to this day that can be put forth to challenge it so little wonder all the defense could do beyond suggesting maybe it was drawback from June and Nevill.
Why would it be? Jeremy worked there and constantly used the phone so his prints being found ont he phone would prove nothing nor would the prints of others who lived there or worked there being found on the phone matter.
Signing a deal to provide her story doesn't in any way suggest she lied to police a year earlier or that she lied in court.
Jeremy's own expert admitted the DNA had no ability to determine whose blood was found int he moderator. The DNA tests were always just a propaganda tool.
The evidence related to where the shots were fired etc reveal the killer went into the master bedroom and began shooting the parents but ran out of bullets before Nevill could be immobilized and then they proceeded to the kitchen where they fought over the gun, Nevill was beaten unconscious then the killer reloaded partially and shot Nevill to death. The killer then loaded the gun to maximum capacity (11 rounds) and went upstairs shooting June 1 time between the eyes to make sure she wwas really dead, using 8 on the boys and the last 2 on Sheila.
The forensic evidence establishes Sheila didn't kill anyone else or kill herself.
Jeremy staged bullets after the murders but staged too many.
Jeremy lied about calling Julie after police when in fact he called her before and should not have called her at all if he really received a call from Nevill as claimed.
There is no rational reason why Nevill would have called Jeremy even if Sheila had grabbed the gun but the forensic evidence shows she didn't.
Sheila may have intended to kill the whole family and demanded that Neville called Jeremy.
-
Sheila may have intended to kill the whole family and demanded that Neville called Jeremy.
This is what I first thought too,as Sheila would have KNOWN that Jeremy would have been blamed otherwise. Sheila wasn't that daft not to have worked it out.
-
The denial on here never ceases to amaze. Every scrap of evidence points to an innocent Sheila and a guilty Jeremy but hey, let's not worry too much about the facts and the evidence as a good conspiracy theory is always worth a punt.
(http://i.imgur.com/aGbeB.jpg)
It wasn't me guv...honest!
-
Sheila may have intended to kill the whole family and demanded that Neville called Jeremy.
Then would he not have said words to the effect that Sheila had hold of a gun, was becoming very distressed/agitated and was saying/insisting/demanding that you come over now. He'd have had to be totally thick not to recognize that there was a problem.
-
Then would he not have said words to the effect that Sheila had hold of a gun, was becoming very distressed/agitated and was saying/insisting/demanding that you come over now. He'd have had to be totally thick not to recognize that there was a problem.
I doubt Neville could have said much more than he did,with a gun pointing at him. One wrong move and all that---------------------
-
OK, thank-you for that. Can you please explain why Maxine Carr, girl friend to Ian Huntley, was also charged with the same thing when she wasn't just not in the house when the murders occurred, she wasn't even in the COUNTY. I can understand WHY she gave him an alibi. What woman would want to think her fella capable of SUCH a heinous act? But, unlike Jeremy, he'd never given her a clue about his dark thoughts. I guess you'll say that there's a point of law here somewhere but all I see is Julie, who'd known about Jeremy's plans for a year -albeit, she may not have believed he'd go through with it- and vouched for him despite saying she KNEW what he'd done, and Maxine, who had no inkling what HER man had done but believed what he'd told her and gave him an alibi on the strength of it. Julie walks free to, what was then, a small fortune and Maxine gets a lengthy prison sentence. There really is no wonder that we Brits remain suspicious of out judicial system.
Julie didn't provide a false alibi to police. She didn't claim he was with her. She had no legal obligation to tell police that he desired to kill his family. She had a moral obligation to tell on him but not a legal one. Her legal obligation was not to make up things like a fake alibi to cover for him and not to knowingly destroy evidence. Giving her evidence such as bloody clothing and saying get rid of it and her doing so would be legally culpable. She would not have to tell on him that he asked her to do so but legally she should say no and not do it and if she does then she is committing a crime. If police ask if she was asked to destroy evidence she could either choose to remain silent or speak but if she speaks she can't lie and say no he never asked me because that is obstruction.
If you are granted immunity you lose you legal right to remain silent and can be forced to talk.
-
Sheila may have intended to kill the whole family and demanded that Neville called Jeremy.
Why would Nevill comply though and tell Jeremy to come be killed?
-
Scipio I agree with your point had Sheila intended to kill Ralph and June and the twins Ralph would not have complied with her request what would be the point.
-
I doubt Neville could have said much more than he did,with a gun pointing at him. One wrong move and all that---------------------
All Sheila would have to do is wait for a time when the entire family is around and attack at that point as opposed to waiting for a time when Jeremy is not there and hoping Nevill would be willing to call him over to be executed.
It makes no sense for Nevill to comply and no sense for June to be in bed as this is going on. Nor does it make sense to march him back to the master bedroom to kill both parents the same time. It would be easier to kill him right after he finished the phone call, to reload and then go upstairs to go after June and the boys.
-
Makes you wonder if JM used the hit man story as there was no explanation about the disposal or cleaning of his clothes/shoes/gloves.
-
Makes you wonder if JM used the hit man story as there was no explanation about the disposal or cleaning of his clothes/shoes/gloves.
He had a month to dispose of evidence. There is no way at all to suggest there was no explanation for his ability to have disposed of evidence.
-
The denial on here never ceases to amaze. Every scrap of evidence points to an innocent Sheila and a guilty Jeremy but hey, let's not worry too much about the facts and the evidence as a good conspiracy theory is always worth a punt.
(http://i.imgur.com/aGbeB.jpg)
It wasn't me guv...honest!
So covering his face make him a mass murderer ???
-
OK, thank-you for that. Can you please explain why Maxine Carr, girl friend to Ian Huntley, was also charged with the same thing when she wasn't just not in the house when the murders occurred, she wasn't even in the COUNTY. I can understand WHY she gave him an alibi. What woman would want to think her fella capable of SUCH a heinous act? But, unlike Jeremy, he'd never given her a clue about his dark thoughts. I guess you'll say that there's a point of law here somewhere but all I see is Julie, who'd known about Jeremy's plans for a year -albeit, she may not have believed he'd go through with it- and vouched for him despite saying she KNEW what he'd done, and Maxine, who had no inkling what HER man had done but believed what he'd told her and gave him an alibi on the strength of it. Julie walks free to, what was then, a small fortune and Maxine gets a lengthy prison sentence. There really is no wonder that we Brits remain suspicious of out judicial system.
I do agree, have always thought Maxine Carr was treated really badly.
-
I do agree, have always thought Maxine Carr was treated really badly.
She was prosecuted because she thwarted the investigation with a false alibi and wanted to not only punish her but also to send a message to others that they better not do that or they too will risk jail.
-
Makes you wonder if JM used the hit man story as there was no explanation about the disposal or cleaning of his clothes/shoes/gloves.
I have suggested closure on this issue in a thread. You must learn to close issues.
-
It is her own words that trip her up . On the night - she "knew" he had done it.
And even when he was planning there was a possibility she was not sure he would carry it out - and then in another sentence she said she did know he meant it - contradiction.
But she had the opportunity when with the police on her own at the mortuary to tell them everything and get him caught immediately - and because she did not - and the fact that the moderator might not have been found makes it obvious that she DID pervert the course of justice. If he is guilty then he nearly got away with it because of her.
-
The denial on here never ceases to amaze. Every scrap of evidence points to an innocent Sheila and a guilty Jeremy but hey, let's not worry too much about the facts and the evidence as a good conspiracy theory is always worth a punt.
(http://i.imgur.com/aGbeB.jpg)
It wasn't me guv...honest!
:D
-
I have suggested closure on this issue in a thread. You must learn to close issues.
Adam it takes a lot to get me cross - but I will be getting personal and rude with you very shortly if you don't stop with your personal and sarcastic posts. This is a warning because I don't want to give you reason to run off to the moderators.
-
I have suggested closure on this issue in a thread. You must learn to close issues.
Just because YOU say so ?
-
I have suggested closure on this issue in a thread. You must learn to close issues.
It's all your threads that need closing.How do you feel about that ?
Just because you didn't start it ? Get a grip.
-
Everyone must learn to close issues.
I had an open mind about the rumoured lockable from outside window. However after further investigation I found 15 sources that it could be locked from outside.
My mind is now closed on this issue.
-
It is her own words that trip her up . On the night - she "knew" he had done it.
And even when he was planning there was a possibility she was not sure he would carry it out - and then in another sentence she said she did know he meant it - contradiction.
But she had the opportunity when with the police on her own at the mortuary to tell them everything and get him caught immediately - and because she did not - and the fact that the moderator might not have been found makes it obvious that she DID pervert the course of justice. If he is guilty then he nearly got away with it because of her.
There is no legal duty to tell everything you know. You can't make up a lie like claiming the person was with you when they were not. You can't help get rid of physical evidence.
If he told her Nevill never called him but he wants her to tell police he called her to say he was worried because Nevill called him then she is actively help obstruct justice. She was very careful in what she said about such to avoid presenting such a scenario. that is where she had the greatest chance of being prosecuted. Obviously Jeremy didn't contradict her and say he told her he received no call but asked her to lie and pretend he told her he had. His claim is the only thing that could have established such but he would have to have confessed to do that.
-
Everyone must learn to close issues.
I had an open mind about the rumoured lockable from outside window. However after further investigation I found 15 sources that it could be locked from outside.
My mind is now closed on this issue.
Only you could add one to zero and make 15 . Not so clever after all.
-
Only you could add one to zero and make 15 . Not so clever after all.
Was that ever an assumption? ;D ;D
-
Only you could add one to zero and make 15 . Not so clever after all.
You asked for ten. I gave you ten. However five more sources have surfaced. Which I have already mentioned.
-
Everyone must learn to close issues.
I had an open mind about the rumoured lockable from outside window. However after further investigation I found 15 sources that it could be locked from outside.
My mind is now closed on this issue.
Especially when they have nothing worth while to contribute!
-
You asked for ten. I gave you ten. However five more sources have surfaced. Which I have already mentioned.
very funny Adam .
Let me ask you one thing . If there was proof ( besides the family saying that the window could be locked from the outside) Why did the COA say proof was not NEEDED because Jeremy had incriminated himself ?
-
very funny Adam .
Let me ask you one thing . If there was proof ( besides the family saying that the window could be locked from the outside) Why did the COA say proof was not NEEDED because Jeremy had incriminated himself ?
It is true that I have found another five sources. The last two being RB's diary and WS.
-
It is true that I have found another five sources. The last two being RB's diary and WS.
RB was the original source with Anne remember????/
You have not answered my question ,
-
You asked for ten. I gave you ten. However five more sources have surfaced. Which I have already mentioned.
You've twice -to my knowledge- been told to bugger off so you clearly don't do everything asked of you.
-
very funny Adam .
Let me ask you one thing . If there was proof ( besides the family saying that the window could be locked from the outside) Why did the COA say proof was not NEEDED because Jeremy had incriminated himself ?
If the COA believes Jeremy incriminated himself, then that's another source.
Sixteen.
-
It is true that I have found another five sources. The last two being RB's diary and WS.
Why don't you go open a thread about a thread you previously opened, which was about a thread you opened to discuss one of your open threads?
-
Why don't you go open a thread about a thread you previously opened, which was about a thread you opened to discuss one of your open threads?
I feel better now -that's really funny
-
Why don't you go open a thread about a thread you previously opened, which was about a thread you opened to discuss one of your open threads?
That's a good idea.
-
That's a good idea.
Ta ta then!!
-
If the COA believes Jeremy incriminated himself, then that's another source.
Sixteen.
But he did not so they are mistaken . He never said windows could be locked from the outside.
You sound desperate Adam . Worried about the post from NGB?
-
But he did not so they are mistaken . He never said windows could be locked from the outside.
You sound desperate Adam . Worried about the post from NGB?
Post from NGB ?
Never desperate with 16 sources.
-
It's gone up one. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Post from NGB ?
Never desperate with 16 sources.
No sense, no feelings.
-
back to Carolines interesting question.
Amongst other things I really do not think someone who had allegedly never been violent and
for sometime resisted blood sports would contemplate committing such a bloody and horrific crime, anticipate what his own physical and phsycological reaction would be and then plan to stand next to the police a very short time afterwards .
It was a complicated crime with allegedly him having a lot to do such as destroying clothes and shoes/cleaning a bike / climbing out of a window without leaving blood etc etc - working out the phone fiasco , knowing how to fake a suicide enough to convince the police. Working out how to subdue and shoot Sheila without her putting her hands up and fighting back ( that would have been a giveaway) .He had to use the right words to convince the police not to go in ( when you would have thought they would want to save the children)
This is only one of many reasons I have - I am not even sure he was bright enough to even start the planning.
-
Post from NGB ?
Never desperate with 16 sources.
No you have seen it - it is just too close to comfort for you.
-
No you have seen it - it is just too close to comfort for you.
Don't tell me what I have of have not seen.
I was doing my homework between 3pm - 6pm.
-
Jan I am confused is that an old post of Carolines or am I reading it wrong :'(
-
sorry susan - to what are you referring?
-
Jan sorry for not making it clear I saw a post wherein you said now back to Caroline's interesting question. Maybe I have picked up incorrectly which is not unusual :'(
-
Jan sorry for not making it clear I saw a post wherein you said now back to Caroline's interesting question. Maybe I have picked up incorrectly which is not unusual :'(
The question is "What Makes Supporters Believe Jeremy is Innocent?"
And I asked it. Adam is trying to deflect from the question because he didn't start the thread.
-
Don't tell me what I have of have not seen.
I was doing my homework between 3pm - 6pm.
Yeah right! ::)
-
The question is "What Makes Supporters Believe Jeremy is Innocent?"
And I asked it. Adam is trying to deflect from the question because he didn't start the thread.
Yes I was very upset.
-
how many of his supporters actully are convinced his innocent or are just convinced the conviction is unsafe.
-
Caroline thanks for that I guessed I had it wrong somehow :'(
-
Nugs,I'm actually convinced of his innocence.Always have been.
-
Everyone must learn to close issues.
I had an open mind about the rumoured lockable from outside window. However after further investigation I found 15 sources that it could be locked from outside.
My mind is now closed on this issue.
Good. Now we just need you to close your gob.
-
Hahaha Alias you have a wonderful way with words ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
nugnug I think most posters who think Jeremy is guilty feel the evidence that convicted him was suspect.
-
nugnug I think most posters who think Jeremy is guilty feel the evidence that convicted him was suspect.
Well, I think some of the evidence is suspect but I still think he's guilty so that's only one aspect.
-
Caroline I agree with you I for one am not comfortable with the silencer and JM's evidence does not ring true to me.
-
Well, I think some of the evidence is suspect but I still think he's guilty so that's only one aspect.
Do you believe its safe to convict him on that evidence?
-
Do you believe its safe to convict him on that evidence?
This is difficult for me to answer - but I have to give an honest answer so; because I think he's guilty, I think he deserves to be where he is. However, I think without the silencer evidence, he wouldn't have been convicted. If it 'could' ever be proven that the silencer was planted (and I don't see how it could ever be proven), I think he should have a re-trial.
It's difficult not to be biased when answering that question :-\
-
This is difficult for me to answer - but I have to give an honest answer so; because I think he's guilty, I think he deserves to be where he is. However, I think without the silencer evidence, he wouldn't have been convicted. If it 'could' ever be proven that the silencer was planted (and I don't see how it could ever be proven), I think he should have a re-trial.
It's difficult not to be biased when answering that question :-\
If there were credible evidence to establish the evidence in the moderator was planted he would have his conviction vacated and they would have to choose whether they want to retry him or not. Usually when evidence is faked they don't bother retrying a case even when they have decent evidence without it because the planting of evidence is used to question the integrity of everyone involved and many juries are unable to be objective and will simply paint everyone with the same brushstroke.
-
There is a thread -'Was there enough evidence without the silencer'
But the situation now is it was part of the evidence that convicted him. So if one of the lab technicians said they were instructed to expertly put Sheila's blood in the silencer, he would be freed.
Jeremy focused on the silencer quite late, in the early 90's. Trying to question the blood and testing methods. While blaming his cousins. Without success. The fact that it is human blood is damning enough.
-
If there were credible evidence to establish the evidence in the moderator was planted he would have his conviction vacated and they would have to choose whether they want to retry him or not. Usually when evidence is faked they don't bother retrying a case even when they have decent evidence without it because the planting of evidence is used to question the integrity of everyone involved and many juries are unable to be objective and will simply paint everyone with the same brushstroke.
I doubt they will ever now be able to prove the silencer was faked - but just as I feel the phone call was fabricated, so too, do I think the silencer was planted. I don't think Jeremy will ever succeed with an appeal but IF he does, I would rather he had a retrial (given what we know so far).
-
I doubt they will ever now be able to prove the silencer was faked - but just as I feel the phone call was fabricated, so too, do I think the silencer was planted. I don't think Jeremy will ever succeed with an appeal but IF he does, I would rather he had a retrial (given what we know so far).
Unless someone comes forward claiming they planted the blood or saw someone else do it then there is no hope of Jeremy getting out.
Most who think Jeremy is guilty trust the evidence, as I do, that is why we think he is guilty so I don't think it was planted let alone there is any hope of someone admitting it was.
-
Unless someone comes forward claiming they planted the blood or saw someone else do it then there is no hope of Jeremy getting out.
Most who think Jeremy is guilty trust the evidence, as I do, that is why we think he is guilty so I don't think it was planted let alone there is any hope of someone admitting it was.
I agree - no one will and it can't be proven but I will always argue that they planted the silencer because they 'thought' didn't have enough evidence without it. Even with it Stan Jones was worried that they STILL didn't have enough.
-
Good idea for a thread, Caroline :)
Honestly, when I saw this thread this morning I thought I would log on tonight and see debate. Debate from the staunch supporters as to why they continue to support Bamber. But no, 10 pages and there isn't one arguement presented as to why a CONVICTED child killer is getting this support. Other than they believe the police case against him was flawed, but NO evidence is put forward to show this. It's just a belief, not based on anything they can present.
The best case put forward (which in itself is poor, flawed and baseless) is lack of forensice evidence on Bamber!! What about the LACK of forensic on Sheila? This is glaringly ignored.
In 2015 there is no reason to support Jeremy Bamber, he is clearly guilty. Staunch supporters still support but can not say why. I think a lot of it is about losing face, people don't want to admit they are wrong, people feel uncomfortable about supporting a child killer online for so long and don't want to admit this is something they have unwittingly done.
-
Good idea for a thread, Caroline :)
Honestly, when I saw this thread this morning I thought I would log on tonight and see debate. Debate from the staunch supporters as to why they continue to support Bamber. But no, 10 pages and there isn't one arguement presented as to why a CONVICTED child killer is getting this support. Other than they believe the police case against him was flawed, but NO evidence is put forward to show this. It's just a belief, not based on anything they can present.
The best case put forward (which in itself is poor, flawed and baseless) is lack of forensice evidence on Bamber!! What about the LACK of forensic on Sheila? This is glaringly ignored.
In 2015 there is no reason to support Jeremy Bamber, he is clearly guilty. Staunch supporters still support but can not say why. I think a lot of it is about losing face, people don't want to admit they are wrong, people feel uncomfortable about supporting a child killer online for so long and don't want to admit this is something they have unwittingly done.
I do NOT support child killers and as you know,I'm the only one who supports the death penalty for this kind of thing,or any crime against a child. If I wasn't 100% sure,then I wouldn't be supporting such a killer,but in this case,I know I'm right in saying that Jeremy didn't kill anyone,least of all the children------------not even the dog !
You MUST have at least read my posts supporting Jeremy,but somehow choose not to mention anything,unless to " have a go ",with which you seem to have a penchant for when it comes to me. :o
Those who display cruelty against children and animals,are killers in my book,be it physically or psychologically,and Jeremy had never shown any such violence against animals nor children-----------but I know of one who did,and the child had the marks to show for it.
It's not ME who's said that the police evidence was flawed,but others whose arguments are on the guilty side ( which I find strange ) I'd explained my views on this particular matter yesterday which I put down to a complete failure and ineptness on the side of the police to tackle what was,a bigger case than anticipated when it became 5 murders. Because of blunders made by them which they couldn't unravel,they bumbled along and made a bigger hash of it than first thought.
Even the big chief,Gradwell hadn't seen such a bungled investigation in his years of policing.He was the one who pinched his nose as a description of how he felt about the whole " charade ".
The trial,therefore,was unsafe because of bad policing,and a lot of people think this whether for or against.
How can you say he's " clearly guilty ".What concrete proof do you have to be 100% sure ?
Believe me,I'd be the FIRST to hold my hands up should the next "appeal " , go awry.
-
Good idea for a thread, Caroline :)
Honestly, when I saw this thread this morning I thought I would log on tonight and see debate. Debate from the staunch supporters as to why they continue to support Bamber. But no, 10 pages and there isn't one arguement presented as to why a CONVICTED child killer is getting this support. Other than they believe the police case against him was flawed, but NO evidence is put forward to show this. It's just a belief, not based on anything they can present.
The best case put forward (which in itself is poor, flawed and baseless) is lack of forensice evidence on Bamber!! What about the LACK of forensic on Sheila? This is glaringly ignored.
In 2015 there is no reason to support Jeremy Bamber, he is clearly guilty. Staunch supporters still support but can not say why. I think a lot of it is about losing face, people don't want to admit they are wrong, people feel uncomfortable about supporting a child killer online for so long and don't want to admit this is something they have unwittingly done.
I think a lot of people on here are quite happy to discuss the case in general whether they support Jeremy or not.
If there were any evidence Mat to support that Jeremy was innocent I doubt very much it would come from this forum for we are not privy to all the documents of this case. Plus, we are not experts we are people discussing a case and have the right to do so whether we support Jeremy or not.
I think at times that you might ignore some of the evidence that has unfolded because your belief is Jeremy is guilty. I never see any debate from you other than critasium towards those that do support him.
-
I think at times that you might ignore some of the evidence that has unfolded because your belief is Jeremy is guilty.
Such as??? Present it and I will debate it. I think its become too easy to just say "you don't debate" at me as an insult - but I do debate when something is put forward that's new/different take on the case. But the same old discredited window/neville phonecall/ etc isn't something you can debate without repeating yourself every time it comes up and I hate to repeat myself.
-
Believe me,I'd be the FIRST to hold my hands up should the next "appeal " , go awry.
If the next appeal goes awry you'll throw your hands up? What do you mean Lookout? Why would the next appeal (if there is one) failing change your mind - and not all the ones previously?
-
I do NOT support child killers and as you know, I'm the only one who supports the death penalty for this kind of thing,or any crime against a child. If I wasn't 100% sure,then I wouldn't be supporting such a killer,but in this case,I know I'm right in saying that Jeremy didn't kill anyone,least of all the children------------not even the dog !
You MUST have at least read my posts supporting Jeremy,but somehow choose not to mention anything,unless to " have a go ",with which you seem to have a penchant for when it comes to me. :o
Those who display cruelty against children and animals,are killers in my book,be it physically or psychologically,and Jeremy had never shown any such violence against animals nor children-----------but I know of one who did,and the child had the marks to show for it.
It's not ME who's said that the police evidence was flawed,but others whose arguments are on the guilty side ( which I find strange ) I'd explained my views on this particular matter yesterday which I put down to a complete failure and ineptness on the side of the police to tackle what was,a bigger case than anticipated when it became 5 murders. Because of blunders made by them which they couldn't unravel,they bumbled along and made a bigger hash of it than first thought.
Even the big chief,Gradwell hadn't seen such a bungled investigation in his years of policing.He was the one who pinched his nose as a description of how he felt about the whole " charade ".
The trial,therefore,was unsafe because of bad policing,and a lot of people think this whether for or against.
How can you say he's " clearly guilty ".What concrete proof do you have to be 100% sure ?
Believe me,I'd be the FIRST to hold my hands up should the next "appeal " , go awry.
Can I just ask you Lookout - if the next submissions are rejected will you still support him?
-
I do NOT support child killers and as you know,I'm the only one who supports the death penalty for this kind of thing,or any crime against a child. If I wasn't 100% sure,then I wouldn't be supporting such a killer,but in this case,I know I'm right in saying that Jeremy didn't kill anyone,least of all the children------------not even the dog !
You MUST have at least read my posts supporting Jeremy,but somehow choose not to mention anything,unless to " have a go ",with which you seem to have a penchant for when it comes to me. :o
Those who display cruelty against children and animals,are killers in my book,be it physically or psychologically,and Jeremy had never shown any such violence against animals nor children-----------but I know of one who did,and the child had the marks to show for it.
It's not ME who's said that the police evidence was flawed,but others whose arguments are on the guilty side ( which I find strange ) I'd explained my views on this particular matter yesterday which I put down to a complete failure and ineptness on the side of the police to tackle what was,a bigger case than anticipated when it became 5 murders. Because of blunders made by them which they couldn't unravel,they bumbled along and made a bigger hash of it than first thought.
Even the big chief,Gradwell hadn't seen such a bungled investigation in his years of policing.He was the one who pinched his nose as a description of how he felt about the whole " charade ".
The trial,therefore,was unsafe because of bad policing,and a lot of people think this whether for or against.
How can you say he's " clearly guilty ".What concrete proof do you have to be 100% sure ?
Believe me,I'd be the FIRST to hold my hands up should the next "appeal " , go awry.
Mat is totally correct in what he posted, there is no evidence to support an innocent Jeremy regardless of all your bleatings on his behalf. What I really don't understand is why you feel the need to persist with this charade when you are so obviously out of your depth and WRONG?
-
I've given Lookout several chances to change stance.
Offering her moral support and giving her the option of sending me a pre stance change PM. Both several months ago, and then when she failed to reach the 26th February 2015 deadline in explaining how Sheila committed the massacre.
-
I've given Lookout several chances to change stance.
Offering her moral support and giving her the option of sending me a pre stance change PM. Both several months ago, and then when she failed to reach the 26th February 2015 deadline in explaining how Sheila committed the massacre.
I'm sure she'll be eternally grateful - if hell ever freezes over! :P
-
If the next appeal goes awry you'll throw your hands up? What do you mean Lookout? Why would the next appeal (if there is one) failing change your mind - and not all the ones previously?
I actually didn't mean it like that,because he will be allowed an appeal and he will win this time round. What I meant was if the tiniest bit of FORENSIC evidence pointed his way,then I'd throw the towel in,and I'd be the FIRST to admit defeat,but other than that,I don't envisage any problems in the next submission.
-
Such as??? Present it and I will debate it. I think its become too easy to just say "you don't debate" at me as an insult - but I do debate when something is put forward that's new/different take on the case. But the same old discredited window/neville phonecall/ etc isn't something you can debate without repeating yourself every time it comes up and I hate to repeat myself.
OK What is your take on Draw-back in the silencer. What is your take on the possibility of the silencer being planted or not used in the shooting of Sheila? Fowler who is an gun expert has said in his opinion that the silencer was not used to shoot Sheila. So what is your take on that Mat?
-
I'm sure she'll be eternally grateful - if hell ever freezes over! :P
It is very surprising that Lookout does not accept the police, relatives, experts, Julie, submitted evidence, the courts, appeal courts and CCRC in this case.
-
I actually didn't mean it like that,because he will be allowed an appeal and he will win this time round. What I meant was if the tiniest bit of FORENSIC evidence pointed his way,then I'd throw the towel in,and I'd be the FIRST to admit defeat,but other than that,I don't envisage any problems in the next submission.
There is a lot of forensic evidence against him. Which has been posted on here. You just ignore it and say there is none.
There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence. A motive, opportunity and no alibi.
-
Can I just ask you Lookout - if the next submissions are rejected will you still support him?
As I've just explained to Mat,IF the next submission should fail,and I've every confidence that it WON'T, then depending on whether there happens to be ANY forensic evidence,then yes,I'll continue to support him. As proven forensic evidence is a certainty in bagging a killer. Until then,just leave me be.
Why would/should the next submission fail ? I can't see it myself with the new evidence they've got.
-
Mat is totally correct in what he posted, there is no evidence to support an innocent Jeremy regardless of all your beatings on his behalf. What I really don't understand is why you feel the need to persist with this charade when you are so obviously out of your depth and WRONG?
Just explain why I'm wrong. What's it got to do with you or anyone else what my view is.? Believe me,I'm NOT out of my depth at all. Who are you to judge ??
-
As I've just explained to Mat,IF the next submission should fail,and I've every confidence that it WON'T, then depending on whether there happens to be ANY forensic evidence,then yes,I'll continue to support him. As proven forensic evidence is a certainty in bagging a killer. Until then,just leave me be.
Why would/should the next submission fail ? I can't see it myself with the new evidence they've got.
What new evidence ?
-
I've given Lookout several chances to change stance.
Offering her moral support and giving her the option of sending me a pre stance change PM. Both several months ago, and then when she failed to reach the 26th February 2015 deadline in explaining how Sheila committed the massacre.
You know what you can do with your stance/changes.
-
OK What is your take on Draw-back in the silencer. What is your take on the possibility of the silencer being planted or not used in the shooting of Sheila? Fowler who is an gun expert has said in his opinion that the silencer was not used to shoot Sheila. So what is your take on that Mat?
Drawback. I think that you got confused with what was analysis and what was HOLLY'S OPINION on the red forum. But I didn't say anything to you at the time because I knew it would come across as rude and be blown into a huge deal, I don't think you understood what you posted.
I do believe blood got into the silencer and it was attached during the murders. Although I also consider it being planted a possibility. I don't think we know the full story of the silencer, but Bamber does and that is why he still pursues it where as everything else he has dropped over time, he knows that they haven't got the silencer theory correct.
None of this will be a shock to people that actually read my posts and talk to me as I have said it all before.
The CCRC called Fowlers words “speculation” and incapable of forming a ground of appeal - but you ignore this.
As I've just explained to Mat,IF the next submission should fail,and I've every confidence that it WON'T, then depending on whether there happens to be ANY forensic evidence,then yes,I'll continue to support him. As proven forensic evidence is a certainty in bagging a killer. Until then,just leave me be.
Why would/should the next submission fail ? I can't see it myself with the new evidence they've got.
There is no new evidence. What new has come up in the last 30 years? More information on Sheilas medical condition doesn't change anything that happened on the night of the murders. There is enough forensic evidence LACKING on Sheila that should be there that isn't.
Lately I've learned about the extent of the damage done to Neville, Sheila could not have done that and then looked as she did.
-
As I've just explained to Mat,IF the next submission should fail,and I've every confidence that it WON'T, then depending on whether there happens to be ANY forensic evidence,then yes,I'll continue to support him. As proven forensic evidence is a certainty in bagging a killer. Until then,just leave me be.
Why would/should the next submission fail ? I can't see it myself with the new evidence they've got.
I've heard all that before Lookout "We have new evidence and it's 100% solid - We know they lied, we've got the proof of who did what and when, it won't be long now and I'll be free". We shall see.
I
-
Thanks for that Lookout, but you have said many times that you thought he was innocent from day one. What was it 'initially' that made you think he was innocent?
I've said all along that I hold on to certain views which I'm NOT prepared to say on here.
-
I've said all along that I hold on to certain views which I'm NOT prepared to say on here.
I think you've mentioned them before but I won't ask you to post them again.
-
You know what you can do with your stance/changes.
I appreciate you are interested in the case. We all are. Changing stance will not mean you cannot still discuss it on here.
April, Susan and Caroline still discuss the case after changing stance. Jan, Jackie, Grahame and Mike will still discuss the case when they also change stance to guilty.
-
There is a lot of forensic evidence against him. Which has been posted on here. You just ignore it and say there is none.
There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence. A motive, opportunity and no alibi.
Where is this LOT of FORENSIC evidence,because I'm blowed if I've seen any ??
I'm NOT interested in circumstantial evidence .The motive for this killing was NOT money ! It was NOT an opportunistic killing,and no alibi doesn't indicate a murderer.
-
I appreciate you are interested in the case. We all are. Changing stance will not mean you cannot still discuss it on here.
April, Susan and Caroline still discuss the case after changing stance. Jan, Jackie, Grahame and Mike will still discuss the case when they also change stance to guilty.
DO NOT preach to the converted.
-
Drawback. I think that you got confused with what was analysis and what was HOLLY'S OPINION on the red forum. But I didn't say anything to you at the time because I knew it would come across as rude and be blown into a huge deal, I don't think you understood what you posted.
I do believe blood got into the silencer and it was attached during the murders. Although I also consider it being planted a possibility. I don't think we know the full story of the silencer, but Bamber does and that is why he still pursues it where as everything else he has dropped over time, he knows that they haven't got the silencer theory correct.
None of this will be a shock to people that actually read my posts and talk to me as I have said it all before.
The CCRC called Fowlers words “speculation” and incapable of forming a ground of appeal - but you ignore this.
There is no new evidence. What new has come up in the last 30 years? More information on Sheilas medical condition doesn't change anything that happened on the night of the murders. There is enough forensic evidence LACKING on Sheila that should be there that isn't.
Lately I've learned about the extent of the damage done to Neville, Sheila could not have done that and then looked as she did.
Well if you consider that the silencer was planted you must also consider that there were no blood in the silencer and what the court was told in 1996 was false thus meaning that Jeremy is locked up under falsified evidence.
I was not confused about drawback at all. Holly backed up what she said with links...
-
It is very surprising that Lookout does not accept the police, relatives, experts, Julie, submitted evidence, the courts, appeal courts and CCRC in this case.
For obvious reasons !! Can I ask you to mind your own business !!??
-
Well if you consider that the silencer was planted you must also consider that there were no blood in the silencer and what the court was told in 1996 was false thus meaning that Jeremy is locked up under falsified evidence.
I was not confused about drawback at all. Holly backed up what she said with links...
I consider we don't know the full story on the silencer - maybe it was off when Sheila was shot - I don't know - but Bamber knows and that is why he clings to it.
I don't expect the police to be able to put together exactly what happened that night, they were not there.
-
Drawback. I think that you got confused with what was analysis and what was HOLLY'S OPINION on the red forum. But I didn't say anything to you at the time because I knew it would come across as rude and be blown into a huge deal, I don't think you understood what you posted.
I do believe blood got into the silencer and it was attached during the murders. Although I also consider it being planted a possibility. I don't think we know the full story of the silencer, but Bamber does and that is why he still pursues it where as everything else he has dropped over time, he knows that they haven't got the silencer theory correct.
None of this will be a shock to people that actually read my posts and talk to me as I have said it all before.
The CCRC called Fowlers words “speculation” and incapable of forming a ground of appeal - but you ignore this.
. What new has come up in the last 30 years? More information on Sheilas medical condition doesn't change anything that happened on the night of the murders. There is enough forensic evidence LACKING on Sheila that should be there that isn't.
Lately I've learned about the extent of the damage done to Neville, Sheila could not have done that and then looked as she did.
"There is no new evidence"---------------REALLY ?? That's what you think,or would like to think.
-
Good idea for a thread, Caroline :)
Honestly, when I saw this thread this morning I thought I would log on tonight and see debate. Debate from the staunch supporters as to why they continue to support Bamber. But no, 10 pages and there isn't one arguement presented as to why a CONVICTED child killer is getting this support. Other than they believe the police case against him was flawed, but NO evidence is put forward to show this. It's just a belief, not based on anything they can present.
The best case put forward (which in itself is poor, flawed and baseless) is lack of forensice evidence on Bamber!! What about the LACK of forensic on Sheila? This is glaringly ignored.
In 2015 there is no reason to support Jeremy Bamber, he is clearly guilty. Staunch supporters still support but can not say why. I think a lot of it is about losing face, people don't want to admit they are wrong, people feel uncomfortable about supporting a child killer online for so long and don't want to admit this is something they have unwittingly done.
WTF!
This is almost Adamish!
-
Well if you consider that the silencer was planted you must also consider that there were no blood in the silencer and what the court was told in 1996 was false thus meaning that Jeremy is locked up under falsified evidence.
I was not confused about drawback at all. Holly backed up what she said with links...
No blood in the silencer means the whole lab lied and that's hardly likely - there had to be blood in the silencer, but how it got there is the question.
-
WTF!
This is almost Adamish!
A pop at Adam? That's very Alias-ish!!!!
I don't want to take over this topic though, I GENUINELY am interested in supporters putting forward why they support Bamber. Or even guilters saying what parts of the case, if any, actually bug them and leave them with questions.
No blood in the silencer means the whole lab lied and that's hardly likely - there had to be blood in the silencer, but how it got there is the question.
Exactly, I don't believe the lab/police/family all concocted this big conspiracy. There was blood in the silencer.
-
WTF!
This is almost Adamish!
Must be joined at the hip. ;D ;D
-
If Jeremy did not use the silencer, then he knows Sheila's blood was somehow expertly planted.
If he did use the silencer, he knows it's Sheila's blood.
Either way, the blood and testing method tests carried out years later will not give him any joy.
So why do it ?
-
A pop at Adam? That's very Alias-ish!!!!
I don't want to take over this topic though, I GENUINELY am interested in supporters putting forward why they support Bamber. Or even guilters saying what parts of the case, if any, actually bug them and leave them with questions.
Exactly, I don't believe the lab/police/family all concocted this big conspiracy. There was blood in the silencer.
How can you demand evidence from members of an internet forum? All people can do is ecpress where they have their doubts about the case from - which some have done.
But of course it isn´t good enough. Ask a question, get some answers - they are not to your liking, so, ner ner ner ner. That is what Adam does all the time.
-
How can you demand evidence from members of an internet forum? All people can do is ecpress where they have their doubts about the case from - which some have done.
But of course it isn´t good enough. Ask a question, get some answers - they are not to your liking, so, ner ner ner ner. That is what Adam does all the time.
Who's demanding?
It would take me a lot to support someone in prison for any crime, especially one of this magnitude. I would be able to at least say why I support that person.
-
Who's demanding?
It would take me a lot to support someone in prison for any crime, especially one of this magnitude. I would be able to at least say why I support that person.
Personally I am not supporting Jeremy, because I don´t know whether he did commit the murders. I would never write to him - I wouldn´t take the chance. I could be writing to a murderer.
All I have is doubts about the case. A lot of other people have doubts too, why else would we be discussing a 30 year old case at all?
-
A pop at Adam? That's very Alias-ish!!!!
I don't want to take over this topic though, I GENUINELY am interested in supporters putting forward why they support Bamber. Or even guilters saying what parts of the case, if any, actually bug them and leave them with questions.
Exactly, I don't believe the lab/police/family all concocted this big conspiracy. There was blood in the silencer.
I do wonder about possible collusion of the unspoken kind. It wouldn't have taken a degree in ANYTHING to work out what were the wider family's feelings for Jeremy. I know from experience BOTH what is seen by some as an adopted child's place in a family where a family business is concerned, AND what infighting can take place within business families -when it comes to the division of assets- when there are NO adopted siblings/members to consider.
-
Personally I am not supporting Jeremy, because I don´t know whether he did commit the murders. I would never write to him - I wouldn´t take the chance. I could be writing to a murderer.
All I have is doubts about the case. A lot of other people have doubts too, why else would we be discussing a 30 year old case at all?
I know people have doubts - that's what this topic was supposed to be about. Guilters have been why they believe Bamber is guilty - nothing wrong with asking supporters what their doubts are.
I do wonder about possible collusion of the unspoken kind. It wouldn't have taken a degree in ANYTHING to work out what were the wider family's feelings for Jeremy. I know from experience BOTH what is seen by some as an adopted child's place in a family where a family business is concerned, AND what infighting can take place within business families -when it comes to the division of assets- when there are NO adopted siblings/members to consider.
Agreed, nothing can split families quicker than money, businesses, possesions.
-
I actually didn't mean it like that,because he will be allowed an appeal and he will win this time round. What I meant was if the tiniest bit of FORENSIC evidence pointed his way,then I'd throw the towel in,and I'd be the FIRST to admit defeat,but other than that,I don't envisage any problems in the next submission.
Somehow I don't think even you are so naive as to believe there will ever be another appeal let alone any referral by the CCRC. I can understand you trying to save face lookout but lets face it, this case is effectively over. The evidence is overwhelming!
-
Somehow I don't think even you are so naive as to believe there will ever be another appeal let alone any referral by the CCRC. I can understand you trying to save face lookout but lets face it, this case is effectively over.
I don't think another appeal will be accepted, do you John? CCRC seemed pretty clear on that.
-
Personally I am not supporting Jeremy, because I don´t know whether he did commit the murders. I would never write to him - I wouldn´t take the chance. I could be writing to a murderer.
All I have is doubts about the case. A lot of other people have doubts too, why else would we be discussing a 30 year old case at all?
I think that is a fair analysis Alias. None of us are in any way members of a support team. I personally have never written to Jeremy. I think the case has holes and there has been some unfairness, but at the end of the day Jeremy is a convicted murderer and I except that. But, I also think he might not have done it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just explain why I'm wrong. What's it got to do with you or anyone else what my view is.? Believe me,I'm NOT out of my depth at all. Who are you to judge ??
You are totally besotted with the idea that Jerry might be innocent but the bad news for you is he isn't!
-
I don't think another appeal will be accepted, do you John? CCRC seemed pretty clear on that.
Not a hope in hell. There is no new evidence, just a load more revolving mirrors. Even Simon Hall and Adrian Prout did the decent thing in the end and admit their guilt, let's hope Jerry will have the guts to do so some day too.
-
Somehow I don't think even you are so naive as to believe there will ever be another appeal let alone any referral by the CCRC. I can understand you trying to save face lookout but lets face it, this case is effectively over. The evidence is overwhelming!
What evidence,John. ?
-
What evidence,John. ?
I rest my case! (http://images.zaazu.com/img/sad-animated-animation-boy-smiley-emoticon-000346-medium.gif)
-
Not a hope in hell. There is no new evidence, just a load more revolving mirrors. Even Simon Hall and Adrian Prout did the decent thing in the end and admit their guilt, let's hope Jerry will have the guts to do so some day too.
I must admit that I think there wont be any new evidence to support a new submission or even a change in law.
If there is any new evidence then we wont be privy to it, for there has been a blanket cover on reporting on it at the moment. What that is all about I have no idea.
I have heard something on the grapevine that is very damning to the case, but I can't comment on that and only a handful of people have this information. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You are totally besotted with the idea that Jerry might be innocent but the bad news for you is he isn't!
Where does " besotted " come into it ? ::) I just think that a guy has been wrongly convicted. Anything wrong in that ? Provide me with some concrete evidence as well as proof,that Jeremy is the " murderer ".
-
Hello Patti
think you and I could be singing from the same hymn sheet ;D ;D ;D
-
I rest my case! (http://images.zaazu.com/img/sad-animated-animation-boy-smiley-emoticon-000346-medium.gif)
Easy to say that,isn't it ? It's what I call a cop-out,and in your case,a very befitting comment.
-
Not a hope in hell. There is no new evidence, just a load more revolving mirrors. Even Simon Hall and Adrian Prout did the decent thing in the end and admit their guilt, let's hope Jerry will have the guts to do so some day too.
There IS new evidence----------------and more of which again I'm not prepared to say.
-
There IS new evidence----------------and more of which again I'm not prepared to say.
Simon Hall admitted guilt after,what,10 years ? Adrian Prout after a couple of years. We're talking 30 years with Jeremy,and still counting. It's not unusual for a prisoner to go 40 years and beyond before being found not guilty. Usually the poor sods without alibis !!
-
Why do you think that JM tried to give Jeremy an alibi in blaming MM ? Because she KNEW that Jeremy was innocent,but for her,there was no turning back.after so much encouragement from EP as her being their only chance of " sealing the deal " as regards a conviction,because they had sweet FA on him ! JM was vulnerable to the tactics of the police and made herself willing because she was a scorned woman.
-
Hello Patti
think you and I could be singing from the same hymn sheet ;D ;D ;D
Would that be this one Susie....Its my favorite hymn it makes me cry. :'( :'( :'(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT4la3_nTsM
-
I love the Welsh male voice choirs. Finest singers in the world. That should be our National Anthem,not the droning thing we have in place.Every other nationality has got lovely,lively anthems,bar us. :(
I like the Welsh,Australian,German and French,oh and Manx one too.
The Australian one is sung by a Welsh choir too. " I still call Australia home ".
-
Simon Hall admitted guilt after,what,10 years ? Adrian Prout after a couple of years. We're talking 30 years with Jeremy,and still counting. It's not unusual for a prisoner to go 40 years and beyond before being found not guilty. Usually the poor sods without alibis !!
in a recent case a guy in the usa was relased 37 years later
-
Personally I am not supporting Jeremy, because I don´t know whether he did commit the murders. I would never write to him - I wouldn´t take the chance. I could be writing to a murderer.
All I have is doubts about the case. A lot of other people have doubts too, why else would we be discussing a 30 year old case at all?
That is a very fair and rational position Alias.
-
Well if you consider that the silencer was planted you must also consider that there were no blood in the silencer and what the court was told in 1996 was false thus meaning that Jeremy is locked up under falsified evidence.
I was not confused about drawback at all. Holly backed up what she said with links...
Holly's links didn't support her claims. You are too biased to face that fact.
Holly posted a link that merely said moderators have the potential to possibly affect the outcome of drawback. It didn't discuss how and what those effects could be. It thus didn't say drawback is not going to occur if a moderator is used. Holly decided all on her own that moderators would not be able to cause drawback she had no source for the claim.
You are so desperate to pretend you have support for your position that you accept anything no matter how pathetically supported it might be. ALl that does is demonstrate the extent of your bias nothing more.
-
Holly's links didn't support her claims. You are too biased to face that fact.
Holly posted a link that merely said moderators have the potential to possibly affect the outcome of drawback. It didn't discuss how and what those effects could be. It thus didn't say drawback is not going to occur if a moderator is used. Holly decided all on her own that moderators would not be able to cause drawback she had no source for the claim.
You are so desperate to pretend you have support for your position that you accept anything no matter how pathetically supported it might be. ALl that does is demonstrate the extent of your bias nothing more.
im not exactly pals with holly but if you going to call her out on somthing shouldent you do it on the red forum where she can reply. shes not a member here.
-
If Jeremy did not use the silencer, then he knows Sheila's blood was somehow expertly planted.
If he did use the silencer, he knows it's Sheila's blood.
Either way, the blood and testing method tests carried out years later will not give him any joy.
So why do it ?
This is the most well articulated rebuttal Adam has provided in a very long time and no one has been able to respond to it.
Trying to use Jeremy's resolve to look for a way to vacate his conviction as proof the evidence must be faked makes no sense whatsoever.
Indeed Jeremy took a log by Bonnet that clearly states the caller was PC West and tried to twist that it indicated the caller was his father. He is trying to twist anything he can to get out of prison.
He knew in advance of the DNA tests that they could not establish any blood was left. The goal was always to try twisting the results of the DNA testing to try to pretend it somehow supports his position.
Webster admits there was no way the testing could actually reveal whose blood was removed in 1985 and 1986 by Lincoln only DNA testing that blood which had been removed could reveal who such blood belonged to.
When people ignore this and ignore what Adam stated they are just demonstrating their bias and how their bias causes them to do things for irrational reasons.
-
Patti I just love that reminds me of my school days as it was our school song and always sung at the end of term ;D those were the days happy memories ;D ;D ;D
-
We sang that at school too Susan. Maybe it was thought as more patriotic than our present anthem,which I don't really remember singing much,if at all at school. Perhaps in 1953 when the Queen was crowned.
-
im not exactly pals with holly but if you going to call her out on somthing shouldent you do it on the red forum where she can reply. shes not a member here.
Patti took information from a debate I had with Holly on red. It is not my fault that Patti decided to take such information and advance it here. Since she decided to do so and is advancing it I have the right to confront Patti with the evidence it is wrong.
Patti is falsely claiming Holly presented proof that the moderator would not be able to get drawback inside. Holly made up that conclusion she had no source that stated it. She found a source that said moderators can impact the issue without explaining what that impact would be. Holly misrepresents this source as stating drawback would not be possible.
She also misrepresents that the only thing that causes drawback are the gases that come out of a gun, then made up on her own that the reduction in gas pressure caused by a moderator is so great that the gas that comes out will not be able to cause drawback. She presented no source for the claim that drawback can't occur she made it up herself.
I already refuted this babble on red before Patti adopted it here.
-
Easy to say that,isn't it ? It's what I call a cop-out,and in your case,a very befitting comment.
The evidence which convicted him is there for all to see but you obviously are too blinkered to acknowledge it lookout.
In all the time you have been posting the same mantra, you haven't once been able to provide a single piece of evidence which throws any doubt on Jerry's conviction.
You know very well that the evidence as exists rules out stranger involvement which therefore leaves only two scenarios and two individuals who had the opportunity and means to do it. The mountain of forensic evidence which is there for all to see and which you conveniently choose to ignore clearly rules Sheila out of any involvement so that leaves only one person, Jeremy Bamber himself.
You can bleat on about him being innocent until the cows come home but it won't change anything. There is no new evidence, there will be no further CCRC review and most certainly no new appeal. The case is done and dusted.
-
The evidence which convicted him is there for all to see but you obviously are too blinkered to acknowledge it lookout.
In all the time you have been posting the same mantra, you haven't once been able to provide a single piece of evidence which throws any doubt on Jerry's conviction.
You know very well that the evidence as exists rules out stranger involvement which therefore leaves only two scenarios. The mountain of forensic evidence which is there for all to see and which you conveniently choose to ignore clearly rules Sheila out of any involvement and that leaves only one person, Jeremy Bamber himself.
You can bleat on about him being innocent until the cows come home but it won't change anything. There is no new evidence, there will be no further CCRC review and most certainly no new appeal.
How many times have I been told that the " evidence " is there to see--------------where ?
I haven't given any evidence,because there simply isn't any that I can see which sees him as the guilty one. To me,seeing is believing,but I fail to see what you ALL see.
The first time a submission was put forward,so far as I understand,it was EP who were holding back vital documents and flatly refused to submit them to the CCRC. Why ? What was that about ?
The second time,CCRC refused to grant more time in which to collate the heaps of documents.
So what's going on ? As both times,new evidence was sought.
How many signatures have you got on your petition ??
-
lookout since Patti mentioned the hymn I have never stopped singing it times like this my hubby wishes he was deaf ;D ;D ;D
-
I was humming it before too. Cats didn't mind ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Always reminds me of the school hall.
-
I love the Welsh male voice choirs. Finest singers in the world. That should be our National Anthem,not the droning thing we have in place.Every other nationality has got lovely,lively anthems,bar us. :(
I like the Welsh,Australian,German and French,oh and Manx one too.
The Australian one is sung by a Welsh choir too. " I still call Australia home ".
Advance Australia Fair is the Aussie anthem,not the above one,although it's still sung at occasions. ::)
-
Most Jeremy supporters have not answered Caroline's question. I am still waiting to see a cogent response that sets forth why someone believes he is innocent which is supported by evidence and well articulated thought.
here seems to just be general feelings of suspicion of family and police and then giant leaps that they must have planted evidence though there is nothing at all to support such giant leaps.
-
How many times have I been told that the " evidence " is there to see--------------where ?
I haven't given any evidence,because there simply isn't any that I can see which sees him as the guilty one. To me,seeing is believing,but I fail to see what you ALL see.
The first time a submission was put forward,so far as I understand,it was EP who were holding back vital documents and flatly refused to submit them to the CCRC. Why ? What was that about ?
The second time,CCRC refused to grant more time in which to collate the heaps of documents.
So what's going on ? As both times,new evidence was sought.
How many signatures have you got on your petition ??
For starters here is the main evidence that convicted him:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6505.0.html
You have not once rebutted this evidence you just resort to the childish cop-out of saying there is no evidence and that you refuse to recgognize this as evidence. That just means you live in denial.
-
I say he's innocent because NOTHING has been proved otherwise. Yes,it's as simple as that.
To have been arrested,charged,convicted and then imprisoned doesn't mean that he's guilty.You'll have to do better than that.
He wasn't actually arrested for the murders. He was " weaned " into the system by means of firstly being charged with the burglary at the caravan sight,as it being his first and only offence,so EP used that to their advantage. Then came the questioning about the murders and because nobody liked his gung-ho attitude,that,unfortunately,got Jeremy where he is today.
-
How many times have I been told that the " evidence " is there to see--------------where ?
I haven't given any evidence,because there simply isn't any that I can see which sees him as the guilty one. To me,seeing is believing,but I fail to see what you ALL see.
The first time a submission was put forward,so far as I understand,it was EP who were holding back vital documents and flatly refused to submit them to the CCRC. Why ? What was that about ?
The second time,CCRC refused to grant more time in which to collate the heaps of documents.
So what's going on ? As both times,new evidence was sought.
How many signatures have you got on your petition ??
What has Essex Police withholding files got to do with it? The CCRC are entitled to view any documents which they have done and still they decided there were no reasons to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Maybe your conspiracy theory extends to the CCRC as well?
Face facts lookout, Jeremy is still in prison because the evidence supports his conviction.
-
Patti took information from a debate I had with Holly on red. It is not my fault that Patti decided to take such information and advance it here. Since she decided to do so and is advancing it I have the right to confront Patti with the evidence it is wrong.
Patti is falsely claiming Holly presented proof that the moderator would not be able to get drawback inside. Holly made up that conclusion she had no source that stated it. She found a source that said moderators can impact the issue without explaining what that impact would be. Holly misrepresents this source as stating drawback would not be possible.
She also misrepresents that the only thing that causes drawback are the gases that come out of a gun, then made up on her own that the reduction in gas pressure caused by a moderator is so great that the gas that comes out will not be able to cause drawback. She presented no source for the claim that drawback can't occur she made it up herself.
I already refuted this babble on red before Patti adopted it here.
It is not babble and please stop saying I am biased, just because you are incorrect on a point. I seek the truth and that is that and the truth of the matter is that we do not know if draw-back could apply to that weapon/silencer/bullets.
I have pointed out to you that weapons with silencers fitted reduces the gases that cause blow-back. I also provided you with screen shots and video showing this.
Why you wont/can't take that on board is of no interest to me, it just tells me that it is you who is biased and can't take it when you lose a point. If I sad paper was black and I had 10 people who confirmed it was black you would find answers to make out I was either bias or telling an untruth.
More tests are needed to make a definitive conclusion, using the same type of weapon etc. What is also crucial and it is something you have ignored completely is the fact that although it is possible Sheila had a contact shot it was not a contact shot to head and this reduces the blow-back effect even more so.
You lost on the argument long before you intended to destroy my adaptation on it. :-\
-
I say he's innocent because NOTHING has been proved otherwise. Yes,it's as simple as that.
To have been arrested,charged,convicted and then imprisoned doesn't mean that he's guilty.You'll have to do better than that.
He wasn't actually arrested for the murders. He was " weaned " into the system by means of firstly being charged with the burglary at the caravan sight,as it being his first and only offence,so EP used that to their advantage. Then came the questioning about the murders and because nobody liked his gung-ho attitude,that,unfortunately,got Jeremy where he is today.
Now I get it. In your opinion Jeremy is where he is today because of his attitude? Why didn't you say so in the first place, we could have saved so many wasted posts.
Poor boy never had a chance what with him being so hated and all. :D
-
What has Essex Police withholding files got to do with it? The CCRC are entitled to view any documents which they have done and still they decided there were no reasons to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Maybe your conspiracy theory extends to the CCRC as well?
Face facts lookout, Jeremy is still in prison because the evidence supports his conviction.
The solicitor at the time,wanted those files to hand in to the CCRC,but EP refused them,so I'm asking you why. The CCRC weren't even given the privilege of looking at certain documents because EP had them and wouldn't hand them over.
What evidence is it that supports his conviction------------for the umpteenth time ?
-
Now I get it. In your opinion Jeremy is where he is today because of his attitude? Why didn't you say so in the first place, we could have saved so many wasted posts.
Poor boy never had a chance what with him being so hated and all. :D
He WAS and still IS hated by ALL. Still doesn't equate to him being a murderer though,no matter how much he's hated. Perhaps he'd have been better off being a slob !!
-
He WAS and still IS hated by ALL. Still doesn't equate to him being a murderer though,no matter how much he's hated. Perhaps he'd have been better off being a slob !!
Certainly ditching the superior, gung-ho attitude in the face of five tragic murders might have helped.
-
He WAS and still IS hated by ALL. Still doesn't equate to him being a murderer though,no matter how much he's hated. Perhaps he'd have been better off being a slob !!
After all,your sort prefer slobs,they're easier to manipulate.A chap such as Jeremy,who was laid-back and arrogant,are your greatest enemies. They mustn't belittle the force-------oh no,or it's curtains for the victim. So he became the typical patsy. Musn't speak ill of the dead,but it was S Jones who was the instigator in all of this.
-
After all,your sort prefer slobs,they're easier to manipulate.A chap such as Jeremy,who was laid-back and arrogant,are your greatest enemies. They mustn't belittle the force-------oh no,or it's curtains for the victim. So he became the typical patsy. Musn't speak ill of the dead,but it was S Jones who was the instigator in all of this.
"Laid back and arrogant" ISN'T the face I would show if my family had been slaughtered. IMO, it smacks of "I don't give a toss."
-
How many here, guilters as well as pros, feel that something is missing in this case? I have this feeling - something is missing, we don´t have the whole picture.
The guilters use time, some a lot of time, to convince others that a man is guilty; a man who was found guilty and convicted almost thirty years ago. I have to conclude that they are not entirely convinced themselves when they are willing to use so much time on a case which is over and done and has the outcome they want. Jeremy has the strictest possible sentence in England, what more do people want?
-
Certainly ditching the superior, gung-ho attitude in the face of five tragic murders might have helped.
i don't think his attitude was superior the police say that t about anybody who dares to stand up them
-
It is not babble and please stop saying I am biased, just because you are incorrect on a point. I seek the truth and that is that and the truth of the matter is that we do not know if draw-back could apply to that weapon/silencer/bullets.
I have pointed out to you that weapons with silencers fitted reduces the gases that cause blow-back. I also provided you with screen shots and video showing this.
Why you wont/can't take that on board is of no interest to me, it just tells me that it is you who is biased and can't take it when you lose a point. If I sad paper was black and I had 10 people who confirmed it was black you would find answers to make out I was either bias or telling an untruth.
More tests are needed to make a definitive conclusion, using the same type of weapon etc. What is also crucial and it is something you have ignored completely is the fact that although it is possible Sheila had a contact shot it was not a contact shot to head and this reduces the blow-back effect even more so.
You lost on the argument long before you intended to destroy my adaptation on it. :-\
How did I lose the argument?
You misrepresented Holly's opinion as expert opinion and then falsely claimed her conclusions were supported by the evidence she provided.
I have already demonstrated this is untrue.
She had no expert opinion that asserted moderators will prevent drawback from occurring because they reduce the gas output so much that drawback can't occur. She made up that conclusion herself. She took a source that said a WHOLE list of things can affect drawback without explaining how and what the impact would be and then claimed this proves drawback would not have been able to occur. Her source didn't stand for the proposition she asserted.
That you don't like being called biased is too bad the fact of the matter is that you do not objectively and rationally evaluate claims and evidence. Anything favorable to Jeremy you adopt. You do so because you are biased in his favor. There is a giant disconnect between you approach to this case and reality and that is why while people like you are busy saying he should be released the courts won't release him.
Holly hasn't presented anything that could be used to try to free Jeremy. She simply made up the notion that drawback would not have been able to get inside the moderator. There is no expert testimony to provide to the courts saying moderators can't get drawback inside. The truth is that blood has been found in moderators by coroners and thus experts know for a fact blood gets inside.
People who are biased pretend things are how they wish things were and take solace in this. I am a realist I don't care to pretend, I face things as they are and deal with the reality I am faced with.
So even if Jeremy were my brother I would not be busy trying to pretend that moderators can't result in drawback because such pretense AT BEST is propaganda fodder to fool ignorant members of the public it won't fool experts and can't be presented to a court because no expert is going to assert such and even if I found a dishonest one willing to do so the prosecution experts would demolish him.
-
How many here, guilters as well as pros, feel that something is missing in this case? I have this feeling - something is missing, we don´t have the whole picture.
The guilters use time, some a lot of time, to convince others that a man is guilty; a man who was found guilty and convicted almost thirty years ago. I have to conclude that they are not entirely convinced themselves when they are willing to use so much time on a case which is over and done and has the outcome they want. Jeremy has the strictest possible sentence in England, what more do people want?
and a hell of a lot of effort.
-
How many here, guilters as well as pros, feel that something is missing in this case? I have this feeling - something is missing, we don´t have the whole picture.
The guilters use time, some a lot of time, to convince others that a man is guilty; a man who was found guilty and convicted almost thirty years ago. I have to conclude that they are not entirely convinced themselves when they are willing to use so much time on a case which is over and done and has the outcome they want. Jeremy has the strictest possible sentence in England, what more do people want?
I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement.
It may apply to some though.
-
How many here, guilters as well as pros, feel that something is missing in this case? I have this feeling - something is missing, we don´t have the whole picture.
The guilters use time, some a lot of time, to convince others that a man is guilty; a man who was found guilty and convicted almost thirty years ago. I have to conclude that they are not entirely convinced themselves when they are willing to use so much time on a case which is over and done and has the outcome they want. Jeremy has the strictest possible sentence in England, what more do people want?
I am not trying to convince you and other innocenters to face reality. Whenever errors are made by someone on either side I simply set the record straight. It is up to the audience whether they want to believe the truth or choose to believe something else.
Most innocenters are scared to lay out their beliefs because they seem to know their beliefs are based on feelings and suspicions instead of evidence so can't articulate a well laid out position.
-
i don't his attitude was superior the police say that t about anybody who dares to stand up them
Believe me, Nugs, it's not an expression I've pulled out of the ether and has little to do with just his attitude to the police. It's acquired superiority, learned over many years and an efficient way of putting down those one experiences as being of a lower class.
-
who did he put down that he thought was of a lower class.
-
If you take a look at the pre-sentence photos of Jeremy in the archives, I think you will see that in most photos he does not look cocky, but rather sad and lost - and scared shitless.
-
I am not trying to convince you and other innocenters to face reality. Whenever errors are made by someone on either side I simply set the record straight. It is up to the audience whether they want to believe the truth or choose to believe something else.
Most innocenters are scared to lay out their beliefs because they seem to know their beliefs are based on feelings and suspicions instead of evidence so can't articulate a well laid out position.
I think you are incorrect on that assumption. There is one more reason why some do not totally lay their cards on the table , and that is because it is easy to defend the guilty position because the person is in jail , but to try and defend a child killer even if only 1% of your information gathered has placed a small doubt in your mind is extremely difficult. What person would want to defend a person that had killed children? That is why it takes much more effort to dispute the evidence. But to assume that no person has ever been found guilty of a crime when innocent is also a folly. It happens.
-
If you take a look at the pre-sentence photos of Jeremy in the archives, I think you will see that in most photos he does not look cocky, but rather sad and lost - and scared shitless.
in other words he looks like anyone who was about to face trial for murder would do.
-
who did he put down that he thought was of a lower class.
I don't need to have been there to recognize the attitude, Nugs. The effect it had on others would be down to how they felt about themselves.
-
"Laid back and arrogant" ISN'T the face I would show if my family had been slaughtered. IMO, it smacks of "I don't give a toss."
Not at all. The interpretation can also mean that he won't be brow-beaten by a couple of " know-alls ".
-
i don't think his attitude was superior the police say that t about anybody who dares to stand up them
That's just it,nugs. The police DON'T like to be answered back,nor will they give you time to speak. They know it all.!!
-
Not at all. The interpretation can also mean that he won't be brow-beaten by a couple of " know-alls ".
Showing a willingness to completely cooperate may have been a better bet.
-
I don't need to have been there to recognize the attitude, Nugs. The effect it had on others would be down to how they felt about themselves.
sorry what others who are we talking about.
-
back to Carolines interesting question.
Amongst other things I really do not think someone who had allegedly never been violent and
for sometime resisted blood sports would contemplate committing such a bloody and horrific crime, anticipate what his own physical and phsycological reaction would be and then plan to stand next to the police a very short time afterwards .
It was a complicated crime with allegedly him having a lot to do such as destroying clothes and shoes/cleaning a bike / climbing out of a window without leaving blood etc etc - working out the phone fiasco , knowing how to fake a suicide enough to convince the police. Working out how to subdue and shoot Sheila without her putting her hands up and fighting back ( that would have been a giveaway) .He had to use the right words to convince the police not to go in ( when you would have thought they would want to save the children)
This is only one of many reasons I have - I am not even sure he was bright enough to even start the planning.
That's interesting Jan,but he had enough time to plan the scheme as he furrowed the gravelly soil by day and brooded back at Bourtree Cottage of an evening. I think he must have been in a drug-induced state that he really doesn't recall the incident(unlike David Bain whom you can see below, Of course there are thousands of documents relating to the case which still haven't seen the light of day and it must feel to the Defence barristers as if they are fighting for Jeremy with one hand tied behind their backs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORGyLLFCIsk
-
Showing a willingness to completely cooperate may have been a better bet.
Shall we just say that he was over-confident ?
-
in other words he looks like anyone who was about to face trial for murder would do.
How would someone look if they had, with premeditation just murdered five members of their family for financial gain. Then attempted to put blame on one of his victims, until he was found out, and was soon to go to court charged with their murders?
Either way, to try and use his expressions, frozen in time, in photographs, to attempt to add weight to your own beliefs regarding his guilt or innocence ........ is ....... well ..... it's a bit lame isn't it? ???
-
Showing a willingness to completely cooperate may have been a better bet.
well you can look it at it another way youve just lost your parents your stil upset about it then you have somone acuse you of killing them who wont belive you say you dident arnt you going to get just a tiny bit anoyed about that.
-
I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement.
It may apply to some though.
Just wondering - is that sweeping?
A case has been proven - thirty years ago. Still people use a lot of time and effort to prove it all over again. Whatever for?
-
How would someone look if they had, with premeditation just murdered five members of their family for financial gain. Then attempted to put blame on one of his victims, until he was found out, and was soon to go to court charged with their murders?
Either way, to try and use his expressions, frozen in time, in photographs, to attempt to add weight to your own beliefs regarding his guilt or innocence ........ is ....... well ..... it's a bit lame isn't it? ???
regardles of guilt or innonce nobody faceing trial for murder is going to look happy anyones going to look a tiny bit frightend.
-
How would someone look if they had, with premeditation just murdered five members of their family for financial gain. Then attempted to put blame on one of his victims, until he was found out, and was soon to go to court charged with their murders?
Either way, to try and use his expressions, frozen in time, in photographs, to attempt to add weight to your own beliefs regarding his guilt or innocence ........ is ....... well ..... it's a bit lame isn't it? ???
I think it came as an intense relief when the deed was done,Jeremy free at last from the pressure of performing which had built up since his Gresham days and which he sensed had been all in vain when he considered his lowly position in the workforce and could henceforth distance himself from the whole of his past life,keeping no mementoes as he reasoned like David Bain that he would be better off somehow without them all.
-
sorry what others who are we talking about.
Those who were there at the time, Nugs.
-
well you can look it at it another way youve just lost your parents your stil upset about it then you have somone acuse you of killing them who wont belive you say you dident arnt you going to get just a tiny bit anoyed about that.
But he was always rather passive in that regard I thought.
-
Even so,it must feel a bit of a bummer going to prison after EP had bungled a most serious case,by not even taking the trouble to have set up a proper investigation which EP were given a phrase to match,namely called " Doing A Bamber ". The shame of it.
-
Just wondering - is that sweeping?
A case has been proven - thirty years ago. Still people use a lot of time and effort to prove it all over again. Whatever for?
Perhaps, just perhaps, this is run of the mill Internet forum, where people with an interest in murder cases, come together to discuss, argue and share opinions with each other about their views. A hobby, a pass time maybe?
-
Just wondering - is that sweeping?
A case has been proven - thirty years ago. Still people use a lot of time and effort to prove it all over again. Whatever for?
Because they're interested in the case. People still debate the moon landings or who shot JFK.
-
well you can look it at it another way youve just lost your parents your stil upset about it then you have somone acuse you of killing them who wont belive you say you dident arnt you going to get just a tiny bit anoyed about that.
If he had demonstrated how upset he was it may have been preferable to the behaviours he adopted. Whatever he may have FELT he certainly didn't give the impression of a grieving son.
-
If he had demonstrated how upset he was it may have been preferable to the behaviours he adopted. Whatever he may have FELT he certainly didn't give the impression of a grieving son.
Yeah, regardless of your take on the case, I'd be amazed if there was a single person who thought JB's actions and behaviour did him any favours. Even if people are of the mind to offer explanations or excuses for his behaviour.
-
If he had demonstrated how upset he was it may have been preferable to the behaviours he adopted. Whatever he may have FELT he certainly didn't give the impression of a grieving son.
well he did that at the funreaul and they called it crocdile tears.
he wasnt going to win whatever he did.
-
If he had demonstrated how upset he was it may have been preferable to the behaviours he adopted. Whatever he may have FELT he certainly didn't give the impression of a grieving son.
He may well have been very upset indeed,but how do you deal with the fact that not only have you lost all your family,but you're also being questioned about their deaths too. ? Swallow your grief and put your stiff upper-lip to the test. Ever tried doing those two things ?
-
well he did that at the funreaul and they called it crocdile tears.
he wasnt going to win whatever he did.
May have been for public consumption. There were camera's there.
-
Strikes me that the guy couldn't do right for doing wrong. ::)
-
yes and there were not camreos anywhere else so we dont know what emotion he was showning.
-
Because they're interested in the case. People still debate the moon landings or who shot JFK.
Those things are debated because people have doubts, was there a moon landing, was it a hoax; was the CIA behind JFK´s murder or did Lee Harvey Oswald act on his own - but not in this case apparently, it is only a hobby where people enjoy trawling through dusty old statements just for he he!! of it. ;D
-
He may well have been very upset indeed,but how do you deal with the fact that not only have you lost all your family,but you're also being questioned about their deaths too. ? Swallow your grief and put your stiff upper-lip to the test. Ever tried doing those two things ?
Yeah, regardless of your take on the case, I'd be amazed if there was a single person who thought JB's actions and behaviour did him any favours. Even if people are of the mind to offer explanations or excuses for his behaviour.
Lookout/Hartley :) I've put your posts together because A. I've spent AGES doing what I experience Lookout doing, ie Making excuses for every one of those behaviours which seemed to me to be inappropriate to the situation he was in. It seemed to me I wasn't just doing it for the odd one or two but for ALL of them, and B. Hartley, you're right, even those who are pro Jeremy make excuses/give reasons for his behaviours which surely means that they, too, don't see his behaviour as entirely appropriate.
-
wont it be interesting if this year it is proved a MOJ did take place to see how all of the above comments about his behaviour are explained. Probably down to the press picking and chosing photos.
Btw He completely fooled Colin at the time - it was only in retrospect he saw odd behaviour - and actually admitted his own behaviour at the time was quite manic and strange.
-
Imagine having one of those things shoved in your face at an inopportune moment.No wonder the Royals were up in arms the times that they followed Diana around.
I've even watched them on television,pushing the camera to people's eyeballs to see if they're crying,then they can hurtle to the " first edition " to report it. They make me sick ! They're also to blame at times for distorting news through their eagerness to catch someone laughing at the wrong time. They're like baying wolves waiting for prey.
-
wont it be interesting if this year it is proved a MOJ did take place to see how all of the above comments about his behaviour are explained. Probably down to the press picking and chosing photos.
Btw He completely fooled Colin at the time - it was only in retrospect he saw odd behaviour - and actually admitted his own behaviour at the time was quite manic and strange.
they always pick the worst photo.
-
Strikes me that the guy couldn't do right for doing wrong. ::)
when your a murder suspect anything you do is interpreted negatively.
-
wont it be interesting if this year it is proved a MOJ did take place to see how all of the above comments about his behaviour are explained. Probably down to the press picking and chosing photos.
Btw He completely fooled Colin at the time - it was only in retrospect he saw odd behaviour - and actually admitted his own behaviour at the time was quite manic and strange.
No matter how you look at it, Jeremy´s situation was unique - how can we judge his behaviour?
I know that people do it all the time when they have suspicions.
Saw a documentary about a couple who was murdered. The police thought their teen daughter didn´t have the reactions they expected, so she became a suspect - they very much thought she was the killer. She was later cleared.
You cannot judge from behaviour, it is different from person to person, and you have never been in the kind of situation they are.
-
Let´s say we all became guilters - even Lookout! :P Would we still be here discussing the case?
-
Lookout/Hartley :) I've put your posts together because A. I've spent AGES doing what I experience Lookout doing, ie Making excuses for every one of those behaviours which seemed to me to be inappropriate to the situation he was in. It seemed to me I wasn't just doing it for the odd one or two but for ALL of them, and B. Hartley, you're right, even those who are pro Jeremy make excuses/give reasons for his behaviours which surely means that they, too, don't see his behaviour as entirely appropriate.
April, I can assure you that I don't make excuses. I've studied people for years. Certain mannerisms at given events,etc and everyone acts differently dependent on what " class " of people they are.Yes,classes,because there is a marked difference when it comes to how each individual behaves/reacts in the circumstances in which they find themselves in.
-
Let´s say we all became guilters - even Lookout! :P Would we still be here discussing the case?
My answer would be a firm NO. Alias,if I thought he'd murdered his family,I certainly WOULDN'T be here now.
-
they always pick the worst photo.
Of course they do-------------purposely.
-
Everything photographers and the media do,is for sensationalism---------it sells newspapers.
-
Alias I guess we would still discuss the case even if we all thought Jeremy was guilty. It appears that Adam and Scipio love to discuss posts even from guilty supporters as well as the innocent supporters.
-
Lookout and the newspapers wrap fish and chips ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
All they're fit for,Susan. Even then,you get print on your hands and if you're unlucky,newspaper stuck to the fish batter. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
All they're fit for,Susan. Even then,you get print on your hands and if you're unlucky,newspaper stuck to the fish batter. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
April, I can assure you that I don't make excuses. I've studied people for years. Certain mannerisms at given events,etc and everyone acts differently dependent on what " class " of people they are.Yes,classes,because there is a marked difference when it comes to how each individual behaves/reacts in the circumstances in which they find themselves in.
Yes, I know about behavioural psychology, Lookout :) The interesting thing about it is, that whilst people may tell us that they are acting in a certain way, the onlooker, by means of those mannerisms you mention, often experience something quite different. The behaviours learned by different levels of people is generally believed to reflect on how they cope with life circumstances.
-
Yes, I know about behavioural psychology, Lookout :) The interesting thing about it is, that whilst people may tell us that they are acting in a certain way, the onlooker, by means of those mannerisms you mention, often experience something quite different. The behaviours learned by different levels of people is generally believed to reflect on how they cope with life circumstances.
As I'd said,it depends on how certain behaviour is perceived,particularly for the uninitiated in peoples behaviour and how they,themselves want to interpret it,as things like that have a habit of falling in with their own take on the matter at any given time.
-
As I'd said,it depends on how certain behaviour is perceived,particularly for the uninitiated in peoples behaviour and how they,themselves want to interpret it,as things like that have a habit of falling in with their own take on the matter at any given time.
Reporters of the media and such,take any action at face value and without thought as long as they get a picture which is appropriate for that particular story. They,like many people never take into consideration any grief which could be behind a persons facial expression or manner,and the minute a grin/smile appears,there'd be headlines such as " man laughs at funeral ",as an example of how the media whip up a frenzy about a " man who's murdered his family ".The media are cruel and unforgiving and this,like a lot of trials,was media-driven to grab the attention of the masses.
-
As I'd said,it depends on how certain behaviour is perceived,particularly for the uninitiated in peoples behaviour and how they,themselves want to interpret it,as things like that have a habit of falling in with their own take on the matter at any given time.
Lookout, I really don't spend time in deciding how I WANT to interpret someone's behaviour. It happens, as I imagine, it does for us all, spontaneously. In making a decision about how I WANT to interpret I could end up putting entirely the wrong slant on it and I could miss something vitally important that they needed to share.
-
That's interesting Jan,but he had enough time to plan the scheme as he furrowed the gravelly soil by day and brooded back at Bourtree Cottage of an evening. I think he must have been in a drug-induced state that he really doesn't recall the incident(unlike David Bain whom you can see below, Of course there are thousands of documents relating to the case which still haven't seen the light of day and it must feel to the Defence barristers as if they are fighting for Jeremy with one hand tied behind their backs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORGyLLFCIsk
Yes but apparently they now have a lot of those documents - hence the next application.
-
wont it be interesting if this year it is proved a MOJ did take place to see how all of the above comments about his behaviour are explained. Probably down to the press picking and chosing photos.
Btw He completely fooled Colin at the time - it was only in retrospect he saw odd behaviour - and actually admitted his own behaviour at the time was quite manic and strange.
I don't think its possible to prove Jeremy innocent even if he is. The only possibility is proving his conviction is unsafe. Even if he was ever released due to his conviction being unsafe allot of people will still think he done it
-
This is the most well articulated rebuttal Adam has provided in a very long time and no one has been able to respond to it.
Trying to use Jeremy's resolve to look for a way to vacate his conviction as proof the evidence must be faked makes no sense whatsoever.
Indeed Jeremy took a log by Bonnet that clearly states the caller was PC West and tried to twist that it indicated the caller was his father. He is trying to twist anything he can to get out of prison.
He knew in advance of the DNA tests that they could not establish any blood was left. The goal was always to try twisting the results of the DNA testing to try to pretend it somehow supports his position.
Webster admits there was no way the testing could actually reveal whose blood was removed in 1985 and 1986 by Lincoln only DNA testing that blood which had been removed could reveal who such blood belonged to.
When people ignore this and ignore what Adam stated they are just demonstrating their bias and how their bias causes them to do things for irrational reasons.
?? Don't understand ? it has been well established that JB has concentrated on the silencer - but the above only cover the guilty stance?
If he is inncocent he probably thinks that the silencer was planted /contaminated - or somehow was used and then put away which is highly unlikely - but if he is innocent of course he is going to try and find out how the only piece of evidence fits into the jigsaw ? It makes perfect sense to me .
-
I don't think its possible to prove Jeremy innocent even if he is. The only possibility is proving his conviction is unsafe. Even if he was ever released due to his conviction being unsafe allot of people will still think he done it
I totally agree that the worst scenario would be getting out on a technicality - his life of freedom would hardly be worth it.
But the new application could be interesting as it does have to be something "new" .
Hopefully we should find out officially as soon as it is lodged.
-
I will use arguments from the Kercher murder as an example of articulating a well reasoned case for believing in the innocence of a convicted person.
The physical evidence that actually relates to murder all points to Guede as the killer. Guede’s had a history of burglary and his MO was to break into places through upper story windows and carry a knife with him. An upper story window from the flat was broken from the outside and established at his trial as being his method of entry. Guede was friends with the people who lived in the flat below. Knox and her roommates only met Guede when they happened to be visiting the flat below the same time Guede visited.
Guede chose an evening to break in when he knew there was a vacation taking place and thus his friends would not be in the flat below. He either assumed the girls would not be either or he potentially intended to rape not just steal. There was DNA evidence that proved he had sex with her and his prints were found in her blood. His claim is that Kercher invited him in and had consensual sex with him then he left and someone else must have broken in and killed her after he left. Naturally this defense was scoffed at and he was convicted.
The police originally tried to blame Knox. They decided she acted immaturely and must have been responsible. She was questioned without an interpreter and harassed to try to get her to confess and told her to imagine how the murders occurred. They showed her a test where she told her boss see you later and insisted her boss showed up. She ended up telling them what they wanted to hear that her boss did it. They prosecutor decided that her boss did it with her help though she never said such. He made up the notion they were having a 3 some or rape fantasy. When it was proven her boss had an alibi and the DNA didn’t match him the prosecutor simply swapped out the boss and stuck Knox’s boyfriend in his place though the police had no evidence that he had been there. The DNA didn’t match him either.
The DNA ended up matching Guede. To try saving face the prosecutor decided to pretend Knox and her boyfriend were still responsible and that Guede helped them even though there was no evidence that such was the case. Guede claimed Kercher let him in not Knox. There was no evidence that Knox ever called Guede or even knew where he lived. How she supposedly got in contact with him to arrange to go rape her roommate was never established. The whole thing was just made up by the prosecutor.
After Guede’s conviction they told him they would take 10 years off his sentence if he implicated Knox. So after his conviction he changed his story slightly. He still maintained Kercher let him in and that she had consensual sex with him but asserted while he was in the bathroom he heard Knox and her boyfriend come home and they murdered Kercher. After they left he claimed he went out to try to see if she was ok and that was how he got her blood on his hands and feet. In exchange for this they cut his sentence by 10 years.
Even though his account featured him visiting Kercher on his own and having consensual sex the prosecution argued Knox let him in to rape her and kill her. No evidence was offered to support this contention. The police swabbed the entire bathroom with single swabs instead of using a single swab for a single location. In this manner they ensured they would pick up DNA from different locations and mix it together. They managed to naturally find Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s on the same swab. All that proved is Knox’s DNA was in the bathroom not when it was deposited and her DNA would be expected in the bathroom since she used it. Thus the only DNA that the prosecution used to suggest Knox was there during the murders had no ability to prove it.
The prosecution had no evidence of any collusion between Guede and anyone else and no evidence anyone except Guede committed the murders. Guede didn’t admit to any collusion after his conviction he simply changed his story from the murders happening after the left to claiming the murders happened while he was in the bathroom.
Objectively there was no case against Knox, the prosecution was embarrassed by murder being committee din a much different fashion than the prosecutor asserted by someone other than the prosecutor asserted. Instead of moving on from the error and admitting it the prosecutor decided to punish the real killer but also Knox an h er boyfriend pretending they acted in concert with Guede though there was no evidence of such.
The Italian judicial system being the joke it is convicted Knox in part based on a confession that was ruled inadmissible because it was coerced. Only in Italy can evidence be ruled inadmissible by the Court of Cassation and yet the evidence still used by the judges anyway. They don’t have a jury system like the US and UK. They have 2 judges who decide guilt or innocence along with 6 laypeople who can be pushed around by the judges and all it takes is a plurality to convict. In the US and UK a jury of peers decides guilt or innocence in major crimes.
In Italy the appellate court essentially retries the case. The cases below are so bad that the intermediate courts end up not deferring to the factual findings of the trial court and make their own. An appellate court ripped the crap out of the convictions and exonerated Knox and her boyfriend.
The Court of Cassation is the highest court in Italy. This court only has authority to rule on legal issues not factual ones. The Court of Cassation was unable to find any legal errors but exceeded it’s own power and decided the factual findings of the intermediate court were wrong and ordered a new retrial. The decision laid out what factual findings the court retrying the case should make to convict Knox. The court retrying the case obeyed and found them guilty again even though the factual findings had no evidentiary basis. For example even though no evidence was presented to establish collusion among Knox, her boyfriend and Guede or to establish she let Guede in the court decided she let Guede in. The court found that Knox was mad that Kercher called her dirty so she decided to have Kercher raped and murdered and enlisted Guede and her boyfriend to do it. The court decided all 3 stabbed Kercher and that Knox delivered the fatal knife blow evne though the only evidence in the case related to such was Guede’s prints in Kercher’s blood. The only blood evidence available to suggest who did the stabbing was Guede’s prints in her blood.
At the end of the day there is evidence that Guede committed the murders and nothing more.
This is how you articulate a belief of innocence and reason for holding such belief.
-
I don't think its possible to prove Jeremy innocent even if he is. The only possibility is proving his conviction is unsafe. Even if he was ever released due to his conviction being unsafe allot of people will still think he done it
Short of proving he is innocent there is no hope of proving his conviction unsafe. Julie recanting her testimony would not merely be evidence of a MOJ but would be supportive of his innocence.
Evidence being planted would be evidence of innocence even if people try to say otherwise.
-
Hi Dave/Jan I agree if Jeremy is ever released it will not because he has been proven innocent of murdering his family but more to do with unfair trial/contaminated evidence.
-
Would Jeremy swap freedom for a technicality ? He's already said that he doesn't want to be freed on a technicality. I don't think he'll accept anything other than the spoken truth from the powers that be,by way of a quashed conviction which would hopefully put an end to any backlash that he's bound to get if it's a technicality.
Wouldn't anyone think that someone with the prospect of dying in prison,but had the choice of being released on a technicality,go for the latter ?
-
Would Jeremy swap freedom for a technicality ? He's already said that he doesn't want to be freed on a technicality. I don't think he'll accept anything other than the spoken truth from the powers that be,by way of a quashed conviction which would hopefully put an end to any backlash that he's bound to get if it's a technicality.
Wouldn't anyone think that someone with the prospect of dying in prison,but had the choice of being released on a technicality,go for the latter ?
As he hasn't yet been made the offer of freedom on a technicality it remains to be seen what would be the result IF such ever occurs. It's easy ENOUGH to say what one would do in a given situation but if said situation has never previously arisen responses to it can be unexpected. Personally I can't see ANYONE clinging to prison bars to stop the authorities from evicting them.
-
As he hasn't yet been made the offer of freedom on a technicality it remains to be seen what would be the result IF such ever occurs. It's easy ENOUGH to say what one would do in a given situation but if said situation has never previously arisen responses to it can be unexpected. Personally I can't see ANYONE clinging to prison bars to stop the authorities from evicting them.
If this unfortunately cropped up,it would be interesting at this stage to see what Jeremy would do.
-
Proof that evidence was faked or someone recanting testimony can hardly be considered a mere technicality. It has to do with the substance of the case and relates to innocence to at least some degree.
-
Those things are debated because people have doubts, was there a moon landing, was it a hoax; was the CIA behind JFK´s murder or did Lee Harvey Oswald act on his own - but not in this case apparently, it is only a hobby where people enjoy trawling through dusty old statements just for he he!! of it. ;D
No, people just like to invent conspiracy theories - for some reason.
-
Proof that evidence was faked or someone recanting testimony can hardly be considered a mere technicality. It has to do with the substance of the case and relates to innocence to at least some degree.
But say for example someone says they were persuaded to "embellish" evidence in order to convict someone they thought was guilty - there would still always be that doubt.
-
But say for example someone says they were persuaded to "embellish" evidence in order to convict someone they thought was guilty - there would still always be that doubt.
To me it is very clear cut. If it could be proven that the rifle had her blood in it and this was concealed and they planted her blood in the moderator then most people will not trust any of the other evidence. How can you be sure they didn't also add extra bullets to the supply in the kitchen or be sure they relocate the bullet that grazed Nevill to the bedroom along with 4 shell casings? The argument would be you can't trust any of the evidence and then the case is just Julie's word. I can't see any chance of a retrial and while there might still be some suspicions that he is guilty those suspicions certainly don't amount to proof.
Testimony like Julie provided would be enough to convict with some juries. But that is only if such testimony were not undermined by proof that the police did many illicit things. That taints the whole case to a jury. The government would not retry that kind of case.
-
To be honest there is no evidence which shows Jeremy is innocent.
As John said, every scrap of evidence shows him to be guilty.
Jeremy's supporters believe him to be innocent by either refusing to notice the incriminating evidence, or by saying the evidence is wrong. Together with believing there is a massive 4x frame. With everyone lying. Supporters have no proof of any of this.
One thing that has never been disputed is the crime scene evidence. With this mountain of evidence, none of Jeremy's supporters could offer a reasonable explanation of how Sheila could have committed the massacre.
-
To be honest there is no evidence which shows Jeremy is innocent.
As John said, every scrap of evidence shows him to be guilty.
Jeremy's supporters believe him to be innocent by either refusing to notice the incriminating evidence, or by saying the evidence is wrong. Together with believing there is a massive 4x frame. With everyone lying. Supporters have no proof of any of this.
One thing that has never been disputed is the crime scene evidence. With this mountain of evidence, none of Jeremy's supporters could offer a reasonable explanation of how Sheila could have committed the massacre.
You keep on talking about " evidence ".Where IS this evidence ?
-
You keep on talking about " evidence ".Where IS this evidence ?
Think you have opened the floodgates. Lookout :'( :'(
Never ask Adam for evidence, golden rule number one ;D ;D
-
Think you have opened the floodgates. Lookout :'( :'(
Never ask Adam for evidence, golden rule number one ;D ;D
That's why I asked,Maggie ;D ;D I got no answer from John either,and he above EVERYONE should have given a list as long as your arm. :o
-
All they've created is a war on words. ::) Of which don't interest me in the least. Concrete proof,at least ???
-
It's amazing that Jeremy's supporters say 'what evidence'. What do they think they are fire fighting every day ?
-
It's amazing that Jeremy's supporters say 'what evidence'. What do they think they are fire fighting every day ?
You'll say anything to avoid making that list of evidence,won't you ?
-
You'll say anything to avoid making that list of evidence,won't you ?
You've got me Lookout.
The courts, COA (twice) and CCRC have kept him in prison. On zero evidence.
-
You've got me Lookout.
The courts, COA (twice) and CCRC have kept him in prison. On zero evidence.
Yep---------------zero evidence exactly,you've got it in one.Now can we stop repeating " all the tons of evidence ".
If Jeremy had not burgled the caravan park,what then would EP have arrested Jeremy on ? 5 murders without the evidence to back it up ? Only with the skewed hearsay of the relatives and the dodgy testimony of his ex-girlfriend,and YOU think this was enough to sentence a man for the rest of his natural ?
-
I will use arguments from the Kercher murder as an example of articulating a well reasoned case for believing in the innocence of a convicted person.
The physical evidence that actually relates to murder all points to Guede as the killer. Guede’s had a history of burglary and his MO was to break into places through upper story windows and carry a knife with him. An upper story window from the flat was broken from the outside and established at his trial as being his method of entry. Guede was friends with the people who lived in the flat below. Knox and her roommates only met Guede when they happened to be visiting the flat below the same time Guede visited.
Guede chose an evening to break in when he knew there was a vacation taking place and thus his friends would not be in the flat below. He either assumed the girls would not be either or he potentially intended to rape not just steal. There was DNA evidence that proved he had sex with her and his prints were found in her blood. His claim is that Kercher invited him in and had consensual sex with him then he left and someone else must have broken in and killed her after he left. Naturally this defense was scoffed at and he was convicted.
The police originally tried to blame Knox. They decided she acted immaturely and must have been responsible. She was questioned without an interpreter and harassed to try to get her to confess and told her to imagine how the murders occurred. They showed her a test where she told her boss see you later and insisted her boss showed up. She ended up telling them what they wanted to hear that her boss did it. They prosecutor decided that her boss did it with her help though she never said such. He made up the notion they were having a 3 some or rape fantasy. When it was proven her boss had an alibi and the DNA didn’t match him the prosecutor simply swapped out the boss and stuck Knox’s boyfriend in his place though the police had no evidence that he had been there. The DNA didn’t match him either.
The DNA ended up matching Guede. To try saving face the prosecutor decided to pretend Knox and her boyfriend were still responsible and that Guede helped them even though there was no evidence that such was the case. Guede claimed Kercher let him in not Knox. There was no evidence that Knox ever called Guede or even knew where he lived. How she supposedly got in contact with him to arrange to go rape her roommate was never established. The whole thing was just made up by the prosecutor.
After Guede’s conviction they told him they would take 10 years off his sentence if he implicated Knox. So after his conviction he changed his story slightly. He still maintained Kercher let him in and that she had consensual sex with him but asserted while he was in the bathroom he heard Knox and her boyfriend come home and they murdered Kercher. After they left he claimed he went out to try to see if she was ok and that was how he got her blood on his hands and feet. In exchange for this they cut his sentence by 10 years.
Even though his account featured him visiting Kercher on his own and having consensual sex the prosecution argued Knox let him in to rape her and kill her. No evidence was offered to support this contention. The police swabbed the entire bathroom with single swabs instead of using a single swab for a single location. In this manner they ensured they would pick up DNA from different locations and mix it together. They managed to naturally find Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s on the same swab. All that proved is Knox’s DNA was in the bathroom not when it was deposited and her DNA would be expected in the bathroom since she used it. Thus the only DNA that the prosecution used to suggest Knox was there during the murders had no ability to prove it.
The prosecution had no evidence of any collusion between Guede and anyone else and no evidence anyone except Guede committed the murders. Guede didn’t admit to any collusion after his conviction he simply changed his story from the murders happening after the left to claiming the murders happened while he was in the bathroom.
Objectively there was no case against Knox, the prosecution was embarrassed by murder being committee din a much different fashion than the prosecutor asserted by someone other than the prosecutor asserted. Instead of moving on from the error and admitting it the prosecutor decided to punish the real killer but also Knox an h er boyfriend pretending they acted in concert with Guede though there was no evidence of such.
The Italian judicial system being the joke it is convicted Knox in part based on a confession that was ruled inadmissible because it was coerced. Only in Italy can evidence be ruled inadmissible by the Court of Cassation and yet the evidence still used by the judges anyway. They don’t have a jury system like the US and UK. They have 2 judges who decide guilt or innocence along with 6 laypeople who can be pushed around by the judges and all it takes is a plurality to convict. In the US and UK a jury of peers decides guilt or innocence in major crimes.
In Italy the appellate court essentially retries the case. The cases below are so bad that the intermediate courts end up not deferring to the factual findings of the trial court and make their own. An appellate court ripped the crap out of the convictions and exonerated Knox and her boyfriend.
The Court of Cassation is the highest court in Italy. This court only has authority to rule on legal issues not factual ones. The Court of Cassation was unable to find any legal errors but exceeded it’s own power and decided the factual findings of the intermediate court were wrong and ordered a new retrial. The decision laid out what factual findings the court retrying the case should make to convict Knox. The court retrying the case obeyed and found them guilty again even though the factual findings had no evidentiary basis. For example even though no evidence was presented to establish collusion among Knox, her boyfriend and Guede or to establish she let Guede in the court decided she let Guede in. The court found that Knox was mad that Kercher called her dirty so she decided to have Kercher raped and murdered and enlisted Guede and her boyfriend to do it. The court decided all 3 stabbed Kercher and that Knox delivered the fatal knife blow evne though the only evidence in the case related to such was Guede’s prints in Kercher’s blood. The only blood evidence available to suggest who did the stabbing was Guede’s prints in her blood.
At the end of the day there is evidence that Guede committed the murders and nothing more.
This is how you articulate a belief of innocence and reason for holding such belief.
There is evidence against Knox and Sollecito,but you just care to ignore it.http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=319287&highlight=amanda+knox
-
That's why I asked,Maggie ;D ;D I got no answer from John either,and he above EVERYONE should have given a list as long as your arm. :o
The evidence is there for all to read but in any event here are a few pointers since you obviously don't want to acknowledge that such evidence exists.
It was stated at Jeremy Bamber's trial that as a consequence of what occurred on the morning of the murders and following Jeremy Bamber's own evidence, an innocent Sheila renders Jeremy Bamber guilty by default. It does not mean that he carried out the murders alone however or that he had help in other ways from another individual.
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.
If you need any more do shout!
-
And here is a little reminder of the five innocents he slaughtered.
(http://i.imgur.com/brEV3.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/eoF3e.jpg)
-
The evidence is there for all to read but in any event here are a few pointers since you obviously don't want to acknowledge that such evidence exists.
It was stated at Jeremy Bamber's trial that as a consequence of what occurred on the morning of the murders and following Jeremy Bamber's own evidence, an innocent Sheila renders Jeremy Bamber guilty by default. It does not mean that he carried out the murders alone however or that he had help in other ways from another individual.
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.
If you need any more do shout!
I asked for concrete proof of evidence supporting your claim of Jeremy's guilt. ::)
-
I asked for concrete proof of evidence supporting your claim of Jeremy's guilt. ::)
Lookout, just out of interest, what, to you, WOULD constitute concrete proof of Jeremy's guilt?
-
There is evidence against Knox and Sollecito,but you just care to ignore it.http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=319287&highlight=amanda+knox
All you have pointed to is:
1) that very sensitive LCN DNA testing found a weak trace of Sollecito's DNA on a bra clasp that was found months later and could have been contaminated with such DNA at any time during those months and also could have been contaminated by poor handling practices of the lab and police. There was no way for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt such DNA was deposited the night of the murders as a result of Sollecito helping Guede rape her.
2) That a trace of Kercher's DNA was supposedly found on a kitchen knife at Sollecito's. That knife didn't match the wound on the victim and didn't match the bloody knife print that was made when the killer used the sheets to wipe off the murder weapon and thus left an impression of what the knife looked like. Knox or Sollecito could have picked up the minute DNA at Knox's place at any time and subsequently transferred it while using the knife on food. There is nothing to establish this minute DNA was transferred as a result of being involved in the murders. The appeal court said that improper lab practices could have resulted in the knife being contaminated with this DNA in the lab further discounted this evidence.
3) You point to the fact Knox's DNA was found int he bathroom. I alreayd addressed this, they didn't simply swab Kercher's blood they swabbed Kercher's blood AND THEN swabbed all around the bathroom with the same swab to capture DNA that was in location other than mixed with her blood. That prevents them from being able to argue anyone's DNA was mixed with the blood. The APpeal court pointed out these deficiencies.
4) They bought and used cleaning supplies. That is not unusual. Had they bought the supplies to clean up evidence then there would not have been all the evidence that was found. They didn't wash away the blood evidence. The suggestion they managed to wash away all their evidence but yet to not wash away any evidence that implicated Guede is absurd. There would be no way to them to distinguish blood evidence that implicates him and themselves. in one breath you say they cleaned up the place then you say her DNA was found in Kercher's blood. Which is it did they clean up or not? There is no proof they cleaned up any evidence. There was evidence all over the place.
Your supposed evidence doesn't prove anything and you have admitted yourself this:
"Of course for the Prosecution’s case of a sex game gone wrong they had to establish a link between Guede,Sollecito and Knox."
They failed to establish any link. No evidence of the three exchanging calls, no evidence of them exchanging visits...that is why police initially tried to blame Knox's boss. They found evidence she was communicating with him and twisted to suggest that they were going to meet up because she said "see you later". They found no evidence of any communication with Guede and only after they processed bloody fingerprints did they get Guede's name because his prints were on file and thus they got a match.
Even after Guede was rewarded with a 10 year reduction in his sentence in exchange for implicating Knox he still didn't provide any link and still denied the notion he was invited there by her. He claimed that Knox showed up after he had sex with Kercher and while he was in the bathroom she murdered Kercher and then left. He claimed he then went in to find her dead and touched her to see if she was dead and that was how he got her blood on him then he panicked, dressed and fled.
The state has no link at all between them. There is no evidence Sollecito ever met Guede. Kercher and knox met him when he visited the same flat they were visiting but there is no evidence he interacted with them let alone shared phone numbers with either or made any kind of connection with either. That is why the court found it ludicrous that Kercher would have invited him in to hang out and have sex like he claimed she did.
Even if Knox and Sollecito had run into him on the street by chance that evening and Knox recognized Guede it is ludicrous she would invite him to come help rape and kill Kercher. You don't just invite strangers who could rat you out. It makes no sense on top of totally lacking any evidence to establish it happened.
-
Lookout, just out of interest, what, to you, WOULD constitute concrete proof of Jeremy's guilt?
Her witnessing it and even then she might say her eyes were failing her and it was someone dressed up to look like Jeremy to frame him...
-
Lookout, just out of interest, what, to you, WOULD constitute concrete proof of Jeremy's guilt?
Something along the lines of a bruised body,black eye,scuffs,and or scrapes,blood down the fingernails,white-faced,odd behaviour,sick with fear/fright,off his food,flashbacks,shaking uncontrollably,unable to function normally,unable to look anyone in the eye, many other out of character features which JM of all people WOULD have noticed and recognised in Jeremy,a NORMAL person. A person whose mentally abnormal/deranged would not have displayed anything out of the ordinary,save for the visual effects of a fight/scuffle.
-
All you have pointed to is:
1) that very sensitive LCN DNA testing found a weak trace of Sollecito's DNA on a bra clasp that was found months later and could have been contaminated with such DNA at any time during those months and also could have been contaminated by poor handling practices of the lab and police. There was no way for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt such DNA was deposited the night of the murders as a result of Sollecito helping Guede rape her.
2) That a trace of Kercher's DNA was supposedly found on a kitchen knife at Sollecito's. That knife didn't match the wound on the victim and didn't match the bloody knife print that was made when the killer used the sheets to wipe off the murder weapon and thus left an impression of what the knife looked like. Knox or Sollecito could have picked up the minute DNA at Knox's place at any time and subsequently transferred it while using the knife on food. There is nothing to establish this minute DNA was transferred as a result of being involved in the murders. The appeal court said that improper lab practices could have resulted in the knife being contaminated with this DNA in the lab further discounted this evidence.
3) You point to the fact Knox's DNA was found int he bathroom. I alreayd addressed this, they didn't simply swab Kercher's blood they swabbed Kercher's blood AND THEN swabbed all around the bathroom with the same swab to capture DNA that was in location other than mixed with her blood. That prevents them from being able to argue anyone's DNA was mixed with the blood. The APpeal court pointed out these deficiencies.
4) They bought and used cleaning supplies. That is not unusual. Had they bought the supplies to clean up evidence then there would not have been all the evidence that was found. They didn't wash away the blood evidence. The suggestion they managed to wash away all their evidence but yet to not wash away any evidence that implicated Guede is absurd. There would be no way to them to distinguish blood evidence that implicates him and themselves. in one breath you say they cleaned up the place then you say her DNA was found in Kercher's blood. Which is it did they clean up or not? There is no proof they cleaned up any evidence. There was evidence all over the place.
Your supposed evidence doesn't prove anything and you have admitted yourself this:
"Of course for the Prosecution’s case of a sex game gone wrong they had to establish a link between Guede,Sollecito and Knox."
They failed to establish any link. No evidence of the three exchanging calls, no evidence of them exchanging visits...that is why police initially tried to blame Knox's boss. They found evidence she was communicating with him and twisted to suggest that they were going to meet up because she said "see you later". They found no evidence of any communication with Guede and only after they processed bloody fingerprints did they get Guede's name because his prints were on file and thus they got a match.
Even after Guede was rewarded with a 10 year reduction in his sentence in exchange for implicating Knox he still didn't provide any link and still denied the notion he was invited there by her. He claimed that Knox showed up after he had sex with Kercher and while he was in the bathroom she murdered Kercher and then left. He claimed he then went in to find her dead and touched her to see if she was dead and that was how he got her blood on him then he panicked, dressed and fled.
The state has no link at all between them. There is no evidence Sollecito ever met Guede. Kercher and knox met him when he visited the same flat they were visiting but there is no evidence he interacted with them let alone shared phone numbers with either or made any kind of connection with either. That is why the court found it ludicrous that Kercher would have invited him in to hang out and have sex like he claimed she did.
Even if Knox and Sollecito had run into him on the street by chance that evening and Knox recognized Guede it is ludicrous she would invite him to come help rape and kill Kercher. You don't just invite strangers who could rat you out. It makes no sense on top of totally lacking any evidence to establish it happened.
If you discover a murder then you do not go around cleaning blood from anywhere with bleach. Did you read Amanda's diaries entitled "the Nazi inside of me" and did you ever watch Rafaele Sollecito's video dressed in Ku-Klux Klan outfit wielding a meat cleaver? He had a collection of knives. Knox's bloodied footprint was found with luminol in the area. Both had no alibi and turned their mobiles off in unison on the night of the murder.
-
Something along the lines of a bruised body,black eye,scuffs,and or scrapes,blood down the fingernails,white-faced,odd behaviour,sick with fear/fright,off his food,flashbacks,shaking uncontrollably,unable to function normally,unable to look anyone in the eye, many other out of character features which JM of all people WOULD have noticed and recognised in Jeremy,a NORMAL person. A person whose mentally abnormal/deranged would not have displayed anything out of the ordinary,save for the visual effects of a fight/scuffle.
Thank-you, Lookout. All/SOME of those, all these years on, would be very difficult to prove. I could understand if Julie had noticed, but expecting marriage had decided on silence, but the Boutflours were actively looking for every/ANY sign of guilt and noticed nothing.
Secondly, ANY of the signs you've mentioned could have been displayed by a "normal" person -I've said this myself- but would be absent in a psychopath, which ISN'T a mental derangement but a personality disorder/mind set that UNTIL or UNLESS a crime is committed there's no law against.
I suppose one could argue that all his behaviours following what occurred WERE suspect but as there is no yardstick for behaviour patterns under those particular circumstances, ALL that can be said is there appeared to be NOTHING of the grieving son there.
-
I have a hard time imagining that Julie would have married a mass murderer.
-
If you discover a murder then you do not go around cleaning blood from anywhere with bleach. Did you read Amanda's diaries entitled "the Nazi inside of me" and did you ever watch Rafaele Sollecito's video dressed in Ku-Klux Klan outfit wielding a meat cleaver? He had a collection of knives. Knox's bloodied footprint was found with luminol in the area. Both had no alibi and turned their mobiles off in unison on the night of the murder.
The murder was not discovered while she was there showering etc. She failed to find and clean the murder evidence. The body was only discovered later when they broke into her bedroom after it was discovered no one could find her and they were worried.
You are citing an urban legend regarding the footprints:
"Yet investigators had tested the luminol footprints for blood and found them lacking, a truth carefully hidden from December 17, 2007 (when they were collected) until September 2009, when defense expert Sarah Gino outed the negative test during the trial that led to Knox and Sollecito’s conviction. Even now “bloody footprints” are the Knox case’s most persistent urban legend.
“Luminol identified nine prints in the cottage, but none were derived from blood,”
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/08/amanda-knox-bloody-footprints-tested-negative-for-blood/
Luminol reacts with many different things not just blood. It reacts with many cleaning chemicals. If you walk on a wet floor that had an agent that reacts with luminol your print cant be revealed by luminol even though it would not otherwise be visible when the floor dries. In order to prove it is blood that the luminol is reacting with a test must be done to prove the stain is positive for blood. The stain was negative for blood.
-
Me too Alias. He would NOT have functioned properly for a long time,and it would have eventually told on him in all kinds of ways.
In fact,the type of person he was that if he'd done something really out of the ordinary,he'd have turned to JM and said," God,what have I done ?". So to have accused him of murder would have really knocked him sideways,knowing full well he hadn't done it,and this is how he's been able to keep going in order to prove everyone wrong. He'd never have kept the fact that he'd murdered someone,to himself.
-
The murder was not discovered while she was there showering etc. She failed to find and clean the murder evidence. The body was only discovered later when they broke into her bedroom after it was discovered no one could find her and they were worried.
You are citing an urban legend regarding the footprints:
"Yet investigators had tested the luminol footprints for blood and found them lacking, a truth carefully hidden from December 17, 2007 (when they were collected) until September 2009, when defense expert Sarah Gino outed the negative test during the trial that led to Knox and Sollecito’s conviction. Even now “bloody footprints” are the Knox case’s most persistent urban legend.
“Luminol identified nine prints in the cottage, but none were derived from blood,”
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/08/amanda-knox-bloody-footprints-tested-negative-for-blood/
Luminol reacts with many different things not just blood. It reacts with many cleaning chemicals. If you walk on a wet floor that had an agent that reacts with luminol your print cant be revealed by luminol even though it would not otherwise be visible when the floor dries. In order to prove it is blood that the luminol is reacting with a test must be done to prove the stain is positive for blood. The stain was negative for blood.
The body was behind a locked door,true. But Knox and Sollecito were cleaning up in the bathroom with bleach which they had bought specifically that morning before they even considered calling Police.
-
The body was behind a locked door,true. But Knox and Sollecito were cleaning up in the bathroom with bleach which they had bought specifically that morning before they even considered calling Police.
Cleaning a bathroom is not unusual. There was a leak and he volunteered to help her deal with it. If they were going to clean up evidence they would have not left any evidence to be found because they would have no way to distinguish their bloody prints from Guede's and certianly could not remove their own DNA and Semen from her body yet leave his.
There is nothing at all to establish any collusion among them. No testimony from any party, no evidence that any of them ever phoned, emailed or wrote to eachother ever and nothing to demonstrate Sollecito even knew him. The only evidence of Knox meeting him is when ALL the girls who lived with Knox met him when they were in the flat below and he visited.
The only evidence was against Guede, the prosecutor was embarrassed that he was wrong about Knox and made up the notion she invited Gued over from wholecloth. There is nothing at all to suggest such let alone to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court decision which exonerated her was very thorough and well supported. That shoudl ahve been the end, there was no error in law committed by that court so nothing to reverse on appeal. The Court of Cassation reversed by finding factual error though the Court of Cassation has no authority to make such findings. It is not a Supreme Court which has the authority to decide the facts for itself it is stuck with the facts determined below. That alone makes the retrial where she was convicted again highly unusual and improper.
The actual findings of the court that reconvicted her are not supported by any evidence. There was nothign at all to establish period let alone beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox decided to kill Kercher for calling her dirty and decided to invite Guede to come help kill and rape her. Guede says Kercher invited him and they had consensual sex before Knox arrived. There was thus no testimony to suggest she let him in or invited him. Nor was there any other evidence to suggest such- no evidence they ever communicated by phone, email etc.
It is blatantly obvious that Guede broke in and raped and killed her on his own.
-
Cleaning a bathroom is not unusual. There was a leak and he volunteered to help her deal with it. If they were going to clean up evidence they would have not left any evidence to be found because they would have no way to distinguish their bloody prints from Guede's and certianly could not remove their own DNA and Semen from her body yet leave his.
There is nothing at all to establish any collusion among them. No testimony from any party, no evidence that any of them ever phoned, emailed or wrote to eachother ever and nothing to demonstrate Sollecito even knew him. The only evidence of Knox meeting him is when ALL the girls who lived with Knox met him when they were in the flat below and he visited.
The only evidence was against Guede, the prosecutor was embarrassed that he was wrong about Knox and made up the notion she invited Gued over from wholecloth. There is nothing at all to suggest such let alone to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court decision which exonerated her was very thorough and well supported. That shoudl ahve been the end, there was no error in law committed by that court so nothing to reverse on appeal. The Court of Cassation reversed by finding factual error though the Court of Cassation has no authority to make such findings. It is not a Supreme Court which has the authority to decide the facts for itself it is stuck with the facts determined below. That alone makes the retrial where she was convicted again highly unusual and improper.
The actual findings of the court that reconvicted her are not supported by any evidence. There was nothign at all to establish period let alone beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox decided to kill Kercher for calling her dirty and decided to invite Guede to come help kill and rape her. Guede says Kercher invited him and they had consensual sex before Knox arrived. There was thus no testimony to suggest she let him in or invited him. Nor was there any other evidence to suggest such- no evidence they ever communicated by phone, email etc.
It is blatantly obvious that Guede broke in and raped and killed her on his own.
Nobody is denying Guede's culpability. But both Sollecito and Knox lied about their whereabouts and therefore had no concrete alibi. Have it as you wish,but Knox has received $4 million in blood money for tacky memoirs which I have no wish to read.
-
There is a thread about this case in Other high profile cases. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5044.0.html
-
Me too Alias. He would NOT have functioned properly for a long time,and it would have eventually told on him in all kinds of ways.
In fact,the type of person he was that if he'd done something really out of the ordinary,he'd have turned to JM and said," God,what have I done ?". So to have accused him of murder would have really knocked him sideways,knowing full well he hadn't done it,and this is how he's been able to keep going in order to prove everyone wrong. He'd never have kept the fact that he'd murdered someone,to himself.
A psychopath would have gone about their daily life as if nothing untoward had occurred. They certainly wouldn't have asked of a partner what they'd done because they wouldn't be disturbed by it.
It is said that the best surgeons are psychopaths. I can see more positive than negative reasons for them being so. It would give them the confidence to take risks -HOPEFULLY necessary ones- and they won't become demented wrecks each time something goes wrong, and the law of averages says that, at some point, it will.
-
Nobody is denying Guede's culpability. But both Sollecito and Knox lied about their whereabouts and therefore had no concrete alibi. Have it as you wish,but Knox has received $4 million in blood money for tacky memoirs which I have no wish to read.
I didn't read them either but you have no evidence they stemmed from blood money. Those memoirs were published only because she was jailed for a crime she didn't commit for so long and the joke of a judicial system that Italy has created the opportunity.
It is not enough to say her only alibi the night of the murders is provided by Sollecito. You need evidence she actually acted in concert with Guede and was there with him committing the murders or she assisted him in some other way as an accomplice. You have no such evidence. You are just suspicious that she was doing cartwheel and that she did some cleaning the next morning. That doens't establish any evidence she was there or in some way colluded with Guede.
Guede only tried to blame her after his conviction. If his claims were true that Knox did it and he was just there at Kercher's invitation he would have said that from the outset and certainly at his trial. he didn't he said it after his conviction so his sentence would be reduced. He is clearly the killer and his sentence was reduced to 15 years while they gave Knox 27 and Sollecito 25 for doing nothing. I would be quite angry to know the killer of my loved one got a reduction in exchange for lying and fingering someone else.
It would be like police deciding to blame someone else in addition to Jeremy and reducing Jeremy's sentence after conviction for agreeing to say Nevill called him to blame such person as opposed to blaming Sheila.
-
I didn't read them either but you have no evidence they stemmed from blood money. Those memoirs were published only because she was jailed for a crime she didn't commit for so long and the joke of a judicial system that Italy has created the opportunity.
It is not enough to say her only alibi the night of the murders is provided by Sollecito. You need evidence she actually acted in concert with Guede and was there with him committing the murders or she assisted him in some other way as an accomplice. You have no such evidence. You are just suspicious that she was doing cartwheel and that she did some cleaning the next morning. That doens't establish any evidence she was there or in some way colluded with Guede.
Guede only tried to blame her after his conviction. If his claims were true that Knox did it and he was just there at Kercher's invitation he would have said that from the outset and certainly at his trial. he didn't he said it after his conviction so his sentence would be reduced. He is clearly the killer and his sentence was reduced to 15 years while they gave Knox 27 and Sollecito 25 for doing nothing. I would be quite angry to know the killer of my loved one got a reduction in exchange for lying and fingering someone else.
It would be like police deciding to blame someone else in addition to Jeremy and reducing Jeremy's sentence after conviction for agreeing to say Nevill called him to blame such person as opposed to blaming Sheila.
There is evidence that Meredith was held down by more than one person,I must inform you..
-
A psychopath would have gone about their daily life as if nothing untoward had occurred. They certainly wouldn't have asked of a partner what they'd done because they wouldn't be disturbed by it.
It is said that the best surgeons are psychopaths. I can see more positive than negative reasons for them being so. It would give them the confidence to take risks -HOPEFULLY necessary ones- and they won't become demented wrecks each time something goes wrong, and the law of averages says that, at some point, it will.
Jeremy comes nowhere near the skill of a surgeon for starters. In fact,he hasn't got a skill,so that doesn't put him in the same bracket as a high-flying managing director of anything,or even a the bright scholar category. He did nothing to tax his brain to any extent at all.
Jeremy was no risk-taker either,unless you class robbing from his own a risk. In fact,didn't he pull his jumper over his head at one time ? I can't see a psychopath doing that somehow.
-
Jeremy comes nowhere near the skill of a surgeon for starters. In fact,he hasn't got a skill,so that doesn't put him in the same bracket as a high-flying managing director of anything,or even a the bright scholar category. He did nothing to tax his brain to any extent at all.
Jeremy was no risk-taker either,unless you class robbing from his own a risk. In fact,didn't he pull his jumper over his head at one time ? I can't see a psychopath doing that somehow.
Firstly, I was in NO way suggesting that Jeremy could be considered to have the skills of a surgeon but he DID like to imagine himself as a high flyer without having to put in the background work to achieve it. I would suggest that he liked to be seen as a risk taker........................and a psychopath CAN'T be judged by whether or not they'd pull a jumper over their heads.
-
There is evidence that Meredith was held down by more than one person,I really hate to inform you..
Let's go to the thread about this instead of continuing here. You can post there what evidence there is that someone other than Guede held her down. There is no such evidence it is as made up as your claim Knox's footprint was detected in blood.
You are just doing the same thing you criticize Jeremy supporters of doing except in the opposite direction where you are doing it to suggest her guilt.
Edit: I posted in the Knox thread about this and await your response.
-
Lookout, you admit you don't know Jeremy personally. You don't have any real basis to judge his character. You simply have invented up in your own might he is a great guy and thus would not have committed the murders and would not have been able to enjoy himself after committing them.
This bias you have makes you ignore all the evidence that actually matters and instead you are deciding his innocence on things that don't matter and that you have no way to even accurately assess.
-
What does it matter what Lookout or anybody else thinks? Jeremy is where you want him to be, what we think is irrelevant, don´t get your panties in a knot. ;)
-
Let's go to the thread about this instead of continuing here. You cna post there what evidence there is that someone held her down. There is no such evidence it is as made up as your claim Knox's footprint was detected in blood.
You are just doing the same thing you criticize Jeremy supporters of doing except in the opposite direction where you are doing it to suggest her guilt.
I'm only going off what I read as with many things. It has made up for the sheltered life I have led hitherto.http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/93444/Meredith-was-held-down-in-a-horrific-rape
-
Firstly, I was in NO way suggesting that Jeremy could be considered to have the skills of a surgeon but he DID like to imagine himself as a high flyer without having to put in the background work to achieve it. I would suggest that he liked to be seen as a risk taker........................and a psychopath CAN'T be judged by whether or not they'd pull a jumper over their heads.
I'd have had him down as a big Jessie,as I was never fond of " pretty boys ".A wimp who never liked getting his hands dirty.I bet he didn't have any segs on his hands like his dad would have had.
-
I'd have had him down as a big Jessie,as I was never fond of " pretty boys ".A wimp who never liked getting his hands dirty.I bet he didn't have any segs on his hands like his dad would have had.
But sometimes these can be the worst offenders when they do finally blow their top. Jeremy seemed to be a curious mix of pub loudmouth when he wanted to impress and taciturn individual midweek when he perceived that he had been put out to grass at Bourtree Cottage.
-
I'd have had him down as a big Jessie,as I was never fond of " pretty boys ".A wimp who never liked getting his hands dirty.I bet he didn't have any segs on his hands like his dad would have had.
Lookout, I think you're correct in that he probably HATED getting his hands dirty. I wouldn't have fitted with the image of himself he appeared to have. It must also be remembered that some of this recall is from his peer group and probably goes back 35 years.
-
But sometimes these can be the worst offenders when they do finally blow their top. Jeremy seemed to be a curious mix of pub loudmouth when he wanted to impress and taciturn individual midweek when he perceived that he had been put out to grass at Bourtree Cottage.
I can't even imagine him having had the energy to blow his top.Yes a loudmouth no doubt,but loudmouths have a habit of speaking out of turn and usually go too far if you get what my meaning is. In other words,he wouldn't have been able to have kept quiet for very long if he'd been a murderer. It would have surfaced sooner or later.
It's the quiet,insignificant ones that are the ones to watch. You won't very often find an out-going flamboyant person who's a murderer.
Because Jeremy was the type I've described,everyone,including Julie especially would have noticed the immediate change if he'd killed someone.
-
I can't even imagine him having had the energy to blow his top.Yes a loudmouth no doubt,but loudmouths have a habit of speaking out of turn and usually go too far if you get what my meaning is. In other words,he wouldn't have been able to have kept quiet for very long if he'd been a murderer. It would have surfaced sooner or later.
It's the quiet,insignificant ones that are the ones to watch. You won't very often find an out-going flamboyant person who's a murderer.
Because Jeremy was the type I've described,everyone,including Julie especially would have noticed the immediate change if he'd killed someone.
In another thread you swore your objectivity claiming you didn't know Jeremy or anything about him and thus were not evaluating things based on being biased toward him.
Now you are suggesting you know his character so well you know he can't have done it.
Aside from contradicting yourself you are ultimately demonstrating that instead of evaluating this case on the evidence you are deciding it based on emotion.
-
I can't even imagine him having had the energy to blow his top.Yes a loudmouth no doubt,but loudmouths have a habit of speaking out of turn and usually go too far if you get what my meaning is. In other words,he wouldn't have been able to have kept quiet for very long if he'd been a murderer. It would have surfaced sooner or later.
It's the quiet,insignificant ones that are the ones to watch. You won't very often find an out-going flamboyant person who's a murderer.
Because Jeremy was the type I've described,everyone,including Julie especially would have noticed the immediate change if he'd killed someone.
There is bound to have been a change in him in any case. Either he killed his whole family or he lost his whole family in one go. In both instances, there would be change in him, and Julie wouldn´t be able to tell what was what.
-
I can't even imagine him having had the energy to blow his top.Yes a loudmouth no doubt,but loudmouths have a habit of speaking out of turn and usually go too far if you get what my meaning is. In other words,he wouldn't have been able to have kept quiet for very long if he'd been a murderer. It would have surfaced sooner or later.
It's the quiet,insignificant ones that are the ones to watch. You won't very often find an out-going flamboyant person who's a murderer.
Because Jeremy was the type I've described,everyone,including Julie especially would have noticed the immediate change if he'd killed someone.
I think he learned to keep quiet during his Gresham days,when he must have realized there were some brilliant pupils who liked to hog the limelight,yet he himself had no intellect to proffer in placing him in the consciousness of his schoolmasters. There was Jeremy desperate for attention,yet abandoned in that bleak Norfolk outpost for weeks on end with no recorded visit from either parent. The modicum of respectability he received was for his gun skills,a talent inherited from his biological father,and this must have stuck in his memory.
Of course Jeremy did blurt out truths from time to time,such as telling Suzanne Battersby shortly after the murders that he was "the only one who knew the truth that night",but the truth remained dormant as the relentless tease regained command and the enigmatic Jeremy attempts to make up for lost time by coveting the recognition he never received all those years ago from the comfort and safety of a prison cell.
-
I can't even imagine him having had the energy to blow his top.Yes a loudmouth no doubt,but loudmouths have a habit of speaking out of turn and usually go too far if you get what my meaning is. In other words,he wouldn't have been able to have kept quiet for very long if he'd been a murderer. It would have surfaced sooner or later.
It's the quiet,insignificant ones that are the ones to watch. You won't very often find an out-going flamboyant person who's a murderer.
Because Jeremy was the type I've described,everyone,including Julie especially would have noticed the immediate change if he'd killed someone.
Not so much a loud mouth as a big mouth, Lookout. Boastful and self important. He'd been educated to the point where he knew exactly WHAT to say and HOW to say it to have the greatest impact.
-
Not so much a loud mouth as a big mouth, Lookout. Boastful and self important. He'd been educated to the point where he knew exactly WHAT to say and HOW to say it to have the greatest impact.
I think that most people can be that way from time to time.It would depend on the circumstances at that time. Particularly when young. He won't be like that now he's faced reality after a pretty sheltered life. Though not a nice way to find out.
-
I can't even imagine him having had the energy to blow his top.Yes a loudmouth no doubt,but loudmouths have a habit of speaking out of turn and usually go too far if you get what my meaning is. In other words,he wouldn't have been able to have kept quiet for very long if he'd been a murderer. It would have surfaced sooner or later.
It's the quiet,insignificant ones that are the ones to watch. You won't very often find an out-going flamboyant person who's a murderer.
Because Jeremy was the type I've described,everyone,including Julie especially would have noticed the immediate change if he'd killed someone.
Lookout, I don't believe that Jeremy EVER "was the type I've described." The person you've described is quite other than the person described by his contemporaries. However, if the person YOU describe is the person Jeremy has conveyed himself to you as having once been, it's very possible that this is the person he WANTS you to see him as being and I suspect you wouldn't have a problem with seeing him that way. 35 years on it can't be easy for him to recall exactly who he was then but he probably IS different now.
-
There is no evidence that Jeremy is a psychopath. If he had been deemed so,by a professional, Im sure it would have leaked out into the media.But 30 years and........nothing.
-
There is no evidence that Jeremy is a psychopath. If he had been deemed so,by a professional, Im sure it would have leaked out into the media.But 30 years and........nothing.
How many times has he been tested specifically for psychopathy? Yes, he has had assessments but if they're non specific then we can't really say in 30 years no one has detected psychopathy.
-
How many times has he been tested specifically for psychopathy? Yes, he has had assessments but if they're non specific then we can't really say in 30 years no one has detected psychopathy.
I rather feel that prisoners such as Jeremy are assessed on an annual basis to cover their own backs,in case those who HAVE got an underlying mental health problem don't " fall through the net ",for as we know,those who've shown signs of having a violent tendency are usually transferred to Broadmoor or similar for their own safety as well as that of the staff and the other in-mates.
30 years IS a long time,and certainly ample time for a mental problem not to show itself in some way.
It would take a " normal " person all their time to be pinned down and scrutinised on a daily basis without bursting into a tirade of physical and verbal abuse.
Nobody knows the prisoners better than the officers who are there on a daily/nightly basis who make reports exactly the same as is done in hospital,more so today on account of the many litigations that are in progress,both in prisons and the NHS.
-
I rather feel that prisoners such as Jeremy are assessed on an annual basis to cover their own backs,in case those who HAVE got an underlying mental health problem don't " fall through the net ",for as we know,those who've shown signs of having a violent tendency are usually transferred to Broadmoor or similar for their own safety as well as that of the staff and the other in-mates.
30 years IS a long time,and certainly ample time for a mental problem not to show itself in some way.
It would take a " normal " person all their time to be pinned down and scrutinised on a daily basis without bursting into a tirade of physical and verbal abuse.
Nobody knows the prisoners better than the officers who are there on a daily/nightly basis who make reports exactly the same as is done in hospital,more so today on account of the many litigations that are in progress,both in prisons and the NHS.
No they aren't.
-
No they aren't.
Have you been told so ?
Do they not report any sudden " strange " behaviour ,so that a further assessment can take place ?
-
No they aren't.
Do they not get a check or review for their mental health and well being? :-\
I thought that was the suggestion when it was claimed he'd had 27 (or something like that) tests to see if he was a psychopath.
I don't know, but it sounded feasible at the time. :-\
-
Do they not get a check or review for their mental health and well being? :-\
I thought that was the suggestion when it was claimed he'd had 27 (or something like that) tests to see if he was a psychopath.
I don't know, but it sounded feasible at the time. :-\
Wouldn´t it be awfully expensive to evaluate every single (cat A?) prisoner on a yearly basis?
Of course I have heard of those 27 psychological tests, but I always found it strange that he would be tested once a year; but then, what do I know!
-
Have you been told so ?
Do they not report any sudden " strange " behaviour ,so that a further assessment can take place ?
The annual assessment is nothing to do with psychological tests (they would be too expensive), they are simply to review the category status and level of dangerousness the inmate would pose if he/she escaped.
It is an assessment of 'risk' not a psychological evaluation.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2011/psi-40-2011-categorisation-adult-males.doc
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2013/psi-05-2013-categ-mgt-potential-cat-a.doc
-
Do they not get a check or review for their mental health and well being? :-\
I thought that was the suggestion when it was claimed he'd had 27 (or something like that) tests to see if he was a psychopath.
I don't know, but it sounded feasible at the time. :-\
Hartley, if you go down the road of the possibility of a general, non specific, yearly check up, 27 years/27 checks sounds about right.
-
Wouldn´t it be awfully expensive to evaluate every single (cat A?) prisoner on a yearly basis?
Of course I have heard of those 27 psychological tests, but I always found it strange that he would be tested once a year; but then, what do I know!
I don't know either.
-
Do they not get a check or review for their mental health and well being? :-\
I thought that was the suggestion when it was claimed he'd had 27 (or something like that) tests to see if he was a psychopath.
I don't know, but it sounded feasible at the time. :-\
He said he had been 'assessed' 27 times and at that point, he would have had 27 annual assessments - of 'risk' not a psychological evaluation. You only get those kinds of reviews IF you show signs on mental deterioration. Like Alias says, it would be too expensive.
-
Hartley, if you go down the road of the possibility of a general, non specific, yearly check up, 27 years/27 checks sounds about right.
Yeah that's pretty much where I was going.
-
The annual assessment is nothing to do with psychological tests (they would be too expensive), they are simply to review the category status and level of dangerousness the inmate would pose if he/she escaped.
It is an assessment of 'risk' not a psychological evaluation.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2011/psi-40-2011-categorisation-adult-males.doc
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2013/psi-05-2013-categ-mgt-potential-cat-a.doc
Jeremy seems to have stayed out of trouble while inside as far as I know ???
-
He said he had been 'assessed' 27 times and at that point, he would have had 27 annual assessments - of 'risk' not a psychological evaluation. You only get those kinds of reviews IF you show signs on mental deterioration. Like Alias says, it would be too expensive.
Are you telling me I've been lied to then? :o ;D
-
Jeremy seems to have stayed out of trouble while inside as far as I know ???
He's been in trouble a few times but I guess you can't be in that kind of environment without getting in a few scrapes.
-
He said he had been 'assessed' 27 times and at that point, he would have had 27 annual assessments - of 'risk' not a psychological evaluation. You only get those kinds of reviews IF you show signs on mental deterioration. Like Alias says, it would be too expensive.
And a bit pointless really. I think a sly attempt was made to make it sound as if his annual assessment was to see if he was a phsycopath or not - it sounds like a general thing that every prisoner recieves so not sure why Bamber or the OCT made mention of it.
-
Are you telling me I've been lied to then? :o ;D
Lied to? Hmmmm, maybe a bit strong - 'hoodwinked' might be a better description!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And a bit pointless really. I think a sly attempt was made to make it sound as if his annual assessment was to see if he was a phsycopath or not - it sounds like a general thing that every prisoner recieves so not sure why Bamber or the OCT made mention of it.
That's exactly what it is.
-
Jeremy seems to have stayed out of trouble while inside as far as I know ???
Nice caveat, there have been a couple of incidents.
I forget the exact details, but he had his throat slashed, he attacked another inmate with a broken bottle (may be the same incident), and participated in dirty protests.
-
Lied to? Hmmmm, maybe a bit strong - 'hoodwinked' might be a better description!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am just mucking abooot. :-[
-
He's been in trouble a few times but I guess you can't be in that kind of environment without getting in a few scrapes.
I wonder what the inmates think of him? it could be divided
To some he is a wrongly convicted Gresham posh boy and to others he is a mass murdering psychopath
-
I wonder what the inmates think of him? it could be divided
To some he is a wrongly convicted Gresham posh boy and to others he is a mass murdering psychopath
Are you referring to his fellow residents or the forum? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I wonder what the inmates think of him? it could be divided
To some he is a wrongly convicted Gresham posh boy and to others he is a mass murdering psychopath
I'm sure he has friends - and enemies. I think some see him as having had special privileges (being allowed hold an interview over the phone). And because he's quite well known, I guess that brings it's own difficulties.
-
I'm sure he has friends - and enemies. I think some see him as having had special privileges (being allowed hold an interview over the phone). And because he's quite well known, I guess that brings it's own difficulties.
The kind of prisons he stays in there are many known people. One of Krays mentions meeting him.
Dennis Neilson is in full Sutton its difficult to stand out in a cat A prison
-
David Charles Manson who was in Full Sutton wrote an article not so long ago and he said Jeremy is guilty. He did not elaborate on this statement.
-
Hartley strange but true ;D ;D ;D
-
So you are all gossiping! :'( :'( :'(
-
David Charles Manson who was in Full Sutton wrote an article not so long ago and he said Jeremy is guilty. He did not elaborate on this statement.
Charles Manson? lol what the hell would he be doing in the UK don't know where you got that one from
-
David Charles Manson who was in Full Sutton wrote an article not so long ago and he said Jeremy is guilty. He did not elaborate on this statement.
I think you might have that a little wrong Susan.
-
I think you might have that a little wrong Susan.
a little wrong? Chares Manson lol
-
a little wrong? Chares Manson lol
Maybe he was on holiday? :-\ ;D
-
Hi Caroline just read back and I meant to say Charles Bronson cannot get it right all the time like David ;D ;D ;D just noticed Caroline provided you with a laugh so hey ho happy to oblige ;D
-
David least I spell his name correctly ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
David least I spell his name correctly ;D ;D ;D ;D
Correct spelling but wrong person ;D
-
David hahaha only half of a wrong person ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
For the reasons ive just given on another post, English is a hard language to learn and speak and only a fraction of the population can actually speak it well Jeremy is on that list .
-
That's another reason why he's not liked.
-
For the reasons ive just given on another post, English is a hard language to learn and speak and only a fraction of the population can actually speak it well Jeremy is on that list .
Utter nonsense.
-
That's another reason why he's not liked.
I would have thought that after 30 years he'd have become a patriarchal figure.