Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on August 03, 2015, 07:50:PM
-
Apart from being savagely vindictive and supremely confident, Julie must have been amazingly brave to do what she did to an innocent Jeremy.
A month after the massacre and Jeremy was a free man. An innocent Jeremy had not said anything to Julie. There would be no evidence supporting a guilty Jeremy.
Despite this she approached the police, and amazingly told unsupported lies to try to get the correct murder/suicide verdict overturned.
She would assume there was no evidence which would support her lies. Meaning she would get into trouble if found to be lying. Maybe she thought she wouldn't get found out and her testimony alone would be enough. Which was very very naive.
She was prepared to and went through with a WS and testifying. Knowing Bamber was innocent and a 'not guilty' verdict would ruin her.
Jesus, she was brave (and stupid).
Although I have to say she was also very brave in going to police after a month if Jeremy was guilty. As I just stated in another thread.
-
There is an ongoing thread already apart from this being debated to death previously. I am going to sponsor a boycott of this thread.
-
This is a different issue to Julie and the books.
Supporters have to agree that Julie was amazingly brave to do what she did to an 'innocent' Jeremy, because he apparently jilted her.
-
Talk about Julie kicking a man when he's down.
He was innocent and had just lost his family, poor man. But she was brave and callous enough to approach the police.
-
Apart from being savagely vindictive and supremely confident, Julie must have been amazingly brave to do what she did to an innocent Jeremy.
A month after the massacre and Jeremy was a free man. An innocent Jeremy had not said anything to Julie. There would be no evidence supporting a guilty Jeremy.
Despite this she approached the police, and amazingly told unsupported lies to try to get the correct murder/suicide verdict overturned.
She would assume there was no evidence which would support her lies. Meaning she would get into trouble if found to be lying. Maybe she thought she wouldn't get found out and her testimony alone would be enough. Which was very very naive.
She was prepared to and went through with a WS and testifying. Knowing a 'not guilty' verdict would ruin her.
Jesus, she was brave (and stupid).
Although I have to say she was also very brave in going to police after a month if Jeremy was guilty. As I just stated in another thread.
and
Innocent Jeremy = Evil extended family
-
and
Innocent Jeremy = Evil extended family
And corrupt police and experts.
In fact, an innocent Jeremy = dozens of amazingly brave (and stupid) people.
-
If Julie wanted to upset Jeremy because he 'apparently' jilted her, then going to the police with a fake story would surely not be the answer.
The police would laugh her out of the station. She may face criminal charges for wasting police time. The news would get out and Jeremy would have a laugh. As well as get an ego boost, that an ex was so upset she attempted this.
It was a month since the massacre. As far as Julie was aware, 😈the police didn't even have Bamber as a suspect.
All in all there is only one credible reason Julie would go to the police. Bamber had said those things to her.
-
And corrupt police and experts.
In fact, an innocent Jeremy = dozens of amazingly brave (and stupid) people.
That is exactly what happened to David Bain. It all began to snowball against him when a police officer though he was faking a fit.
-
A jilted woman that wants revenge will be much more cunning than Julie apparently was.
Julie charging to the police and telling massive lies is much too crude. It would just get her into big trouble. She wasn't stupid. Anyway she wasn't exactly charging to the police and telling lies, as she had ready told five people. Unless she lied to them as well.
Politician Chris Hulne's wife was jilted by him. After a long period she shopped him for a driving offence he committed over ten years earlier, which she had agreed to take the rap for. Quality.
-
A jilted woman that wants revenge will be much more cunning than Julie apparently was.
Julie charging to the police and telling massive lies is much too crude. It would just get her into big trouble. She wasn't stupid. Anyway she wasn't exactly charging to the police and telling lies, as she had ready told five people. Unless she lied to them as well.
Politician Chris Hulne's wife was jilted by him. After a long period she shopped him for a driving offence he committed over ten years earlier, which she had agreed to take the rap for. Quality.
If your going to believe what Julie sais then you have to go with the Hitman scenario, which is what she said he told her
-
If your going to believe what Julie sais then you have to go with the Hitman scenario, which is what she said he told her
That's a good point.
Going to the police and mentioning MM, who she had no idea whether he had an alibi or not was amazingly brave. And amazingly stupid.
An 'innocent' Bamber would be rolling around laughing when he found out.
Bamber gave MM as a proxy to make himself look like less of a monster.
-
That is exactly what happened to David Bain. It all began to snowball against him when a police officer though he was faking a fit.
It's a pity the snowball didn't intensify and propel him down a precipice.
-
It's a pity the snowball didn't intensify and propel him down a precipice.
I take it you believe David Bain is guilty then?
-
I take it you believe David Bain is guilty then?
Yes David. I was on a New Zealand site similar to this one but haven't visited it for some time. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/forum/subliminal-or-other-influences-on-david
-
Yes David. I was on a New Zealand site similar to this one but haven't visited it for some time. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/
That's interesting, why do you believe so?
I thought the court established it was more likely to have been his dad?
-
That's interesting, why do you believe so?
I thought the court established it was more likely to have been his dad?
Well he got off because of suggested incest between the dad and the daughter Laniet,but this was a complete red herring.
-
I wrote an article on 15/7/2013 which you can read here. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/jeremy-bamber-and-david-bain-parallels-and-similarities
-
Well he got off because of suggested incest between the dad and the daughter Laniet,but this was a complete red herring.
How can you be so sure of that?
Surely it must have come down to forensics rather than an accusation of incest.
-
I wrote an article on 15/7/2013 which you can read here. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/jeremy-bamber-and-david-bain-parallels-and-similarities
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893239
-
How can you be so sure of that?
Surely it must have come down to forensics rather than an accusation of incest.
Laniet made up stories. For example she told someone she was pregnant by a black man. The weight of evidence against David Bain is more conclusive than the Jeremy Bamber case. He shot his parents,brother and two sisters. No other scenario is at all feasible and he would have rotted in jail(to use the cliché) had it not been for wealthy benefactor and former All Black national hero Joe Karam.
-
Laniet made up stories. For example she told someone she was pregnant by a black man. The weight of evidence against David Bain is more conclusive than the Jeremy Bamber case. He shot his parents,brother and two sisters. No other scenario is at all feasible and he would have rotted in jail(to use the cliché) had it not been for wealthy benefactor and former All Black national hero Joe Karam.
Sheila Bamber:
A) No physical evidence she loaded a gun, fired a gun or beat Nevill though such would exist had she done so
B) Could not have fired the gun with he moderator attached and then put it away
C) Did not know how to use the murder weapon
D) after her death was moved by someone while her blood was still wet
E) had a Bible placed in a pool of her blood that formed after she died
F) Julie implicated Jeremy
G) No suicide note
Robin Bain
A) was never tested to see whether he loaded or fired a weapon. However photos have since been found of his hands which have tell tale arks that he loaded them. It is the exact kind of marks they looked for on Sheila's hands but could not find.
B) His weapon was short enough to shoot himself with the moderator attached and the moderator was not removed afterwards
C) knew how to use the weapon
Nothing remotely equivalent to D, E and F.
G) suicide note
Saying there is more evidence than against Jeremy doesn't work at all and I didn't even mention all the evidence against Jeremy just the evidence proving Sheila can't have done it versus evidence Bain could have and most likely did do it.
-
Sheila Bamber:
A) No physical evidence she loaded a gun, fired a gun or beat Nevill though such would exist had she done so
B) Could not have fired the gun with he moderator attached and then put it away
C) Did not know how to use the murder weapon
D) after her death was moved by someone while her blood was still wet
E) had a Bible placed in a pool of her blood that formed after she died
F) Julie implicated Jeremy
G) No suicide note
Robin Bain
A) was never tested to see whether he loaded or fired a weapon. However photos have since been found of his hands which have tell tale arks that he loaded them. It is the exact kind of marks they looked for on Sheila's hands but could not find.
B) His weapon was short enough to shoot himself with the moderator attached and the moderator was not removed afterwards
C) knew how to use the weapon
Nothing remotely equivalent to D, E and F.
G) suicide note
Saying there is more evidence than against Jeremy doesn't work at all and I didn't even mention all the evidence against Jeremy just the evidence proving Sheila can't have done it versus evidence Bain could have and most likely did do it.
Scipio you are wrong on this one and I urge you to study the counterspin.nz site again and get back to me. http://www.marzuka.x10.mx/bain/id=1174441/David%20Bain%20why%20he%20is%20most%20prob%28id=1174441%29.html
-
Scipio you are wrong on this one and I urge you to study the counterspin.nz site again and get back to me. http://www.marzuka.x10.mx/bain/id=1174441/David%20Bain%20why%20he%20is%20most%20prob%28id=1174441%29.html
Their site is no better than the Bamber site it is full of distortions. Despite their efforts they do not dent the Binnie Report which establishes reasonable doubt for sure exists and in fact goes further to say he is innocent. This was before they even found the evidence regarding the loading marks on Robin's fingers.
That issue is treated dishonestly as well. The defense doesn't have to prove the marks were loading marks beyond a reasonable doubt merely to establish it was reasonably plausible they were. The prosecution needs to prove it is reasonably likely they are not. The police experts admitted they could not do that. Because of the way the police took the photos there was no way to be able to accurately establish the truth. Their failure to analyze his hands for soot and GSR before taking him to the morgue and cleaning his body is mindboggling. Nor did they analyze the blood on his clothing to see if any of it belonged to the other victims. That makes it impossible to say their blood wasn't present.
They misrepresented the size of the rifle as longer and used that fiction as proof that Robin could have shot himself. On retrial they changed gears saying it wasn't a contact wound though the coroner said it was and said it was fired too far away for it to have been fired by Robin. Clearly the shot was in fact a contact wound his blood was in the moderator. Naturally David could have shot Robin at contact range but so could Robin have done so. Establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on this issue requires proving it is not reasonably likely Robin could have shot himself.
The site still refers to the glasses as David's though the prosecution's own expert said they were his mother's. This was on of the prosecution's misconduct issues. Their own expert changed his mid but they failed to note such and used his original assessment that they were David's. Moreover, the missing lens had been buried and covered in dust it wasn't in the open like claimed. Distortions were used by the prosecution.
This is a prime example of that site's antics:
"It’s completely irrelevant whether you believe David or Robin took in the newspaper on the Monday morning of the murders, the facts are that David said he “did not” and he also said “he could not remember” if the paper was in the box, therefore Ian Binnie has made another shocking error in his failed report by stating that Robin “had already collected the paper before David was home”.
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/disgraceful-errors-in-ian-binnie%E2%80%99s-discredited-report-help-to-find-robin-bain-guilty
They don't have anything valid to hit the significant conclusions in the Binnie report with so set out to attack minor things that don't matter and then say this calls into question whether he made other errors on important issues.
Who took the paper inside is irrelevant. We don't know it it had been delivered before Robin went inside or not. We don't know whether Robin would have bothered taking it in with him or not. David said he took it in but later said he wasn't positive it was a minor issue so he could no remember. Binnie chose to believe his initial statement that he took it in. That he did so bears no significance at all since the issue doesn't matter. This doesn't establish he ignored evidence about anything important.
I care about the main issues not nonsense like this. On those main issues the evidence establishes reasonable doubt.
The second trial featured vastly different evidence than the first. For instance the first featured evidence that David's prints were found in the victims' blood on the rifle. The blood though was unable to be established to be human blood and was most likely animal blood. The prosecution could thus not prove it was most likely the blood of the victims let alone that it got there during the killings beyond a reasonable doubt. In the original trial the experts insisted this was the victim's blood.
One of the pieces of evidence in the original trial concerned bloody footprints made while wearing socks. The jury was told the size matched David in fact David's feet were almost an inch larger it was closer to Robin's size.
David had no injuries till he fainted. The evidence suggests his injuries resulted from hitting something when he fainted not from a struggle.
The blood on his clothing was not spatter it was transfer meaning he came into contact with blood which there was plenty of in the house. The notion he washed some of him bloody clothing but not all his clothing makes no sense at all.
Witnesses place him arriving home after the computer was turned on to write the confession not before.
The temperature of the bodies seems more consistent with them being killed after he left to do his route not before but the police prevented the taking of core temperatures which would have provided the best information. The police in so doing ruined their chance of establishing the deaths occurred prior to him leaving.
The notion he killed 4 of them and then left to do his route risking Robin finding the bodies and calling police is absurd. He would have made sure Robin was dead as well. That would be like Jeremy killing all except Sheila shortly before she would wake up then leaving and planning to return later to kill her risking her finding the bodies and calling police.
Whether you choose to believe him innocent or not makes no difference at all the fact is that there is nothing to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That site fails miserably in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and doesn't honestly discuss the issues. It is just like the Bamber site only it propagandizes in favor of guilt instead of innocence.
-
Laniet made up stories. For example she told someone she was pregnant by a black man. The weight of evidence against David Bain is more conclusive than the Jeremy Bamber case. He shot his parents,brother and two sisters. No other scenario is at all feasible and he would have rotted in jail(to use the cliché) had it not been for wealthy benefactor and former All Black national hero Joe Karam.
I don't think he's guilty at all Steve - think we both read up on the case around about the same time. We came to different conclusions.
-
I don't think he's guilty at all Steve - think we both read up on the case around about the same time. We came to different conclusions.
There are cases where I suspect people are guilty but can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is one of those cases where some people suspect such. I think it is dishonest to say the evidence prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence. I go further and think he didn't do it because a bunch of things weigh against it including the notion he killed only 4 then ran to do his route planning to kill his father later risking his father would find the bodies, call police and ruin his efforts.
He also could have lied and claimed his father borrowed his gun for a while and left the the trigger lock in his dad's trailer. A great many things he could have done. The evidence tends to support the victims were killed after he left to go on his route not before and evidence that he got home after the suicide note was written. It is odd his father decided to let him live but some do let certain family members live including because they are not around to be killed and they don't want to wait before committing suicide. He could have wanted David to keep the family name going who knows.
To kill them then go on his route would have enabled him to dispose of the clothing washing it would be stupid. It doesn't fit.
-
There are cases where I suspect people are guilty but can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is one of those cases where some people suspect such. I think it is dishonest to say the evidence prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence. I go further and think he didn't do it because a bunch of things weigh against it including the notion he killed only 4 then ran to do his route planning to kill his father later risking his father would find the bodies, call police and ruin his efforts.
He also could have lied and claimed his father borrowed his gun for a while and left the the trigger lock in his dad's trailer. A great many things he could have done. The evidence tends to support the victims were killed after he left to go on his route not before and evidence that he got home after the suicide note was written. It is odd his father decided to let him live but some do let certain family members live including because they are not around to be killed and they don't want to wait before committing suicide. He could have wanted David to keep the family name going who knows.
To kill them then go on his route would have enabled him to dispose of the clothing washing it would be stupid. It doesn't fit.
I despair when two sensible people come to that conclusion. David couldn't emulate his father in the same way Jeremy could never hope to emulate Nevill. Maybe Robert was depressed but he would never have killed his eldest daughter Arawa,who was following in her father's footsteps training to be a teacher and most likely the one to be a success. David Bain said he heard his sister Laniet gurgling,so was present at some stage when she was still alive. One of the lenses came out of his glasses as Stephen his younger brother fought for his life by putting a hand over the gun. David's bloodied clothing everywhere including a bloodied palm print on the washing machine where he tried to dispose of the evidence. He had told a friend a few months before the murders that a paper round would be a good subterfuge to rape someone during that time. He was the one who had suffered the most academically when the family returned from Papua New Guinea and was struggling to come to terms with his failure and his siblings' successes. He blamed this on his father.
Who knows how long this idea had been germinating in his head,but it came to the fore when he got a part in the school production of Oedipus Rex,where Oeidipus kills his father Laius..
-
Scipio you are wrong on this one and I urge you to study the counterspin.nz site again and get back to me. http://www.marzuka.x10.mx/bain/id=1174441/David%20Bain%20why%20he%20is%20most%20prob%28id=1174441%29.html
Do you think Julie would have been amazingly brave, optimistic, vindictive and stupid enough to approach the police and try to frame an innocent Jeremy. Believing her lies alone would be enough.
I would have thought the threat of prosecution for making up lies would have put her off. But no.
Don't laugh, because that's what supporters believe. Why ? Because Julie was apparently jilted.
;D ;D ;D
-
I despair when two sensible people come to that conclusion. David couldn't emulate his father in the same way Jeremy could never hope to emulate Nevill. Maybe Robert was depressed but he would never have killed his eldest daughter Arawa,who was following in her father's footsteps training to be a teacher and most likely the one to be a success. David Bain said he heard his sister Laniet gurgling,so was present at some stage when she was still alive. One of the lenses came out of his glasses as Stephen his younger brother fought for his life by putting a hand over the gun. David's bloodied clothing everywhere including a bloodied palm print on the washing machine where he tried to dispose of the evidence. He had told a friend a few months before the murders that a paper round would be a good subterfuge to rape someone during that time. He was the one who had suffered the most academically when the family returned from Papua New Guinea and was struggling to come to terms with his failure and his siblings' successes. He blamed this on his father.
Who knows how long this idea had been germinating in his head,but it came to the fore when he got a part in the school production of Oedipus Rex,where Oeidipus kills his father Laius..
You seem to forget that Caroline and I are in the majority not the minority on whether he could be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most of what you raise are theories why you suspect him not anything that actually proves he did it. To the limited extent you do try to cite actual evidence you are not going by the trial testimony. At trial the coroner admitted Laniet could have survived an extended period and thus could have been making noises when he arrived home.
I don't know whether Laniet lied or not but people believed her, his reputation was in shambles and he was marriage was in shambles he was stuck sleeping in a trailer. There is no way anyone could say for sure he would not commit suicide and murder. In fact feeling wronged by a lying daughter and family he considered ungrateful etc could very well push him over the edge.
The scene had blood around that David touched thus got on his clothing and hand that is how he left the palm print on the washing machine. Nothing establishes he got blood on himself during the murders. If he had spatter on his clothing or body that would prove he was there during the murders but he didn't.
Police didn't test Robin's clothing for foreign blood so it can't be said he didn't have any on him.
In using the same exact principles I use in the Bamber case and all other murders objectively there is not enough evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
You seem to forget that Caroline and I are in the majority not the minority on whether he could be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most of what you raise are theories why you suspect him not anything that actually proves he did it. To the limited extent you do try to cite actual evidence you are not going by the trial testimony. At trial the coroner admitted Laniet could have survived an extended period and thus could have been making noises when he arrived home.
I don't know whether Laniet lied or not but people believed her, his reputation was in shambles and he was marriage was in shambles he was stuck sleeping in a trailer. There is no way anyone could say for sure he would not commit suicide and murder. In fact feeling wronged by a lying daughter and family he considered ungrateful etc could very well push him over the edge.
The scene had blood around that David touched thus got on his clothing and hand that is how he left the palm print on the washing machine. Nothing establishes he got blood on himself during the murders. If he had spatter on his clothing or body that would prove he was there during the murders but he didn't.
Police didn't test Robin's clothing for foreign blood so it can't be said he didn't have any on him.
In using the same exact principles I use in the Bamber case and all other murders objectively there is not enough evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Robin would have had blood on his clothing from the struggle with son Stephen,who fought desperately for his life but was not allowed to live because David had to fulfil his fantasies. There is no credible scenario how Robin shot himself that morning. David told the emergency services that they were all dead,then later admitted he had not been in all the rooms. I really do urge members who are interested in the case to familiarize themselves a little more with it. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-david
-
Robin would have had blood on his clothing from the struggle with son Stephen,who fought desperately for his life but was not allowed to live because David had to fulfil his fantasies. There is no credible scenario how Robin shot himself that morning. David told the emergency services that they were all dead,then later admitted he had not been in all the rooms. I really do urge members who are interested in the case to familiarize themselves a little more with it. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-david
Robin had blood on his hands that were not tested, his fingernails and material under them were destroyed instead of tested and he had marks on his hands that either were injuries during a struggle with others or marks from loading the weapon. The blood stained sweater would have fit him but was too small for David and was not owned by David. He touched that blood stained sweater when he went to wash it. That is the only blood that was on him- blood from transfer. No spatter was found.
You are allowing your own presuppositions of who would commit the crime dictate how you view the evidence. I view it form a clean slate looking at where it leads and it doesn't establish anything close to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt abounds.
Have you only read counterspin or have you actually looked at the evidence presented in court during his acquittal and the Binnie report??
-
Robin had blood on his hands that were not tested, his fingernails and material under them were destroyed instead of tested and he had marks on his hands that either were injuries during a struggle with others or marks from loading the weapon. The blood stained sweater would have fit him but was too small for David and was not owned by David. He touched that blood stained sweater when he went to wash it. That is the only blood that was on him- blood from transfer. No spatter was found.
You are allowing your own presuppositions of who would commit the crime dictate how you view the evidence. I view it form a clean slate looking at where it leads and it doesn't establish anything close to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt abounds.
Have you only read counterspin or have you actually looked at the evidence presented in court during his acquittal and the Binnie report??
Of course I have read all those and SOCO frequently make mistakes. But it's quite clear to me that David Bain shot all his family under the subterfuge of a paper round alibi so he could make a new start elsewhere. Robin's prints were not on the gun,the angle at which he would have to shoot himself is incredible,but supports the idea that his son was hiding behind the curtain knowing his father would enter the room at his regular time to pray. The suicide note was a joke. David's bloodied opera gloves were found under Stephen's bed. There are so many more pointers which can only explained by David Bain being guilty I really don't know where to start. https://youtu.be/8FR2yCzl2eM
-
Here's more on Justice Binnie from CK Stead:
Predisposed as he is, Justice Binnie is able to wave away David's brother's blood on his clothes; the broken glasses at the murder scene which were of use to David but not to Robin; David's fingerprints on the murder weapon and his handprint on the washing machine; David's admission that he heard his sister gurgling and that he alone knew where the trigger key to the rifle was hidden; the blood on David's gloves - and many other finer strands in that rope of circumstantial evidence. Instead of David Bain as the killer, Justice Binnie offers us (since there is no third alternative) a murder by the father, Robin, who must have worn gloves (why?) while killing his wife and children, then changed his clothes and put the blood-stained ones in the washing basket (again, why?) before killing himself, still with a silencer on the rifle (why?) and having first turned on the computer to write his confession rather than writing it by hand. Justice Binnie dispenses, it seems to me almost casually, with each of these elements, as with David's strange behaviour after the murders.
Signs of extreme stress would be expected; but what state of mind was David in that he made detailed plans for the victims' funeral; specified what lingerie his deceased sister Arawa would be dressed in; wanted the pop song Who wants to live forever? to be played for Laniet; told his aunt she was not to wear black at the funeral "because we see death as a celebration"; wanted to hold a posthumous party for Arawa on the Sunday after the murders; and spoke of "black hands" taking his family away? To me all this suggests a state of disconnection from the reality - a state of mind in which the crime itself might have been committed - as if the one who had taken responsibility for that (by every report) disastrously dysfunctional family was now ready to tidy it all away with a tasteful funeral.
-
Here's more on Justice Binnie from CK Stead:
Predisposed as he is, Justice Binnie is able to wave away David's brother's blood on his clothes; the broken glasses at the murder scene which were of use to David but not to Robin; David's fingerprints on the murder weapon and his handprint on the washing machine; David's admission that he heard his sister gurgling and that he alone knew where the trigger key to the rifle was hidden; the blood on David's gloves - and many other finer strands in that rope of circumstantial evidence. Instead of David Bain as the killer, Justice Binnie offers us (since there is no third alternative) a murder by the father, Robin, who must have worn gloves (why?) while killing his wife and children, then changed his clothes and put the blood-stained ones in the washing basket (again, why?) before killing himself, still with a silencer on the rifle (why?) and having first turned on the computer to write his confession rather than writing it by hand. Justice Binnie dispenses, it seems to me almost casually, with each of these elements, as with David's strange behaviour after the murders.
Signs of extreme stress would be expected; but what state of mind was David in that he made detailed plans for the victims' funeral; specified what lingerie his deceased sister Arawa would be dressed in; wanted the pop song Who wants to live forever? to be played for Laniet; told his aunt she was not to wear black at the funeral "because we see death as a celebration"; wanted to hold a posthumous party for Arawa on the Sunday after the murders; and spoke of "black hands" taking his family away? To me all this suggests a state of disconnection from the reality - a state of mind in which the crime itself might have been committed - as if the one who had taken responsibility for that (by every report) disastrously dysfunctional family was now ready to tidy it all away with a tasteful funeral.
We already discussed some of the very issues in this section. Why would you bother quoting from someone who is distorting?
David's prints were not in animal blood not human blood. The glasses were assessed to not be his and the lens was buried not dropped recently. David got blood on his hand from the sweater he washed (which was not his) and that his not only how he got blood on the washer but on his clothing. There is no doubt at all that is how the transfer of blood happened. The prosecution said he changed then washed the clothing and touched it getting the blood on the washer and his new clothing. The defense said he didn't change he simply did wash he found. There is no proof he changed out of the clothes to wash them as opposed to found them and since they were too small for him the evidence suggests he found them simply. It is not true that only he knew where the key was to his trigger guard his father borrowed his weapon in the past. The prosecution expert admitted his sister could have been gurgling when he arrived. I can continue but it is pointless because you are demonstrating you are not interested in the actual facts discussed at the trial simply the bogus spin by the website you are citing.
What you are doing is no different than Jeremy supporters who refuse to discuss the actual trial testimony and various governmental reports like the COLP report but rather simply citing the campaign site allegations.
-
We already discussed some of the very issues in this section. Why would you bother quoting from someone who is distorting?
David's prints were not in animal blood not human blood. The glasses were assessed to not be his and the lens was buried not dropped recently. David got blood on his hand from the sweater he washed (which was not his) and that his not only how he got blood on the washer but on his clothing. There is no doubt at all that is how the transfer of blood happened. The prosecution said he changed then washed the clothing and touched it getting the blood on the washer and his new clothing. The defense said he didn't change he simply did wash he found. There is no proof he changed out of the clothes to wash them as opposed to found them and since they were too small for him the evidence suggests he found them simply. It is not true that only he knew where the key was to his trigger guard his father borrowed his weapon in the past. The prosecution expert admitted his sister could have been gurgling when he arrived. I can continue but it is pointless because you are demonstrating you are not interested in the actual facts discussed at the trial simply the bogus spin by the website you are citing.
What you are doing is no different than Jeremy supporters who refuse to discuss the actual trial testimony and various governmental reports like the COLP report but rather simply citing the campaign site allegations.
I wasn't there at trial so have to rely on second hand reports just as members are doing here with the Jeremy Bamber case. There is no way a Headteacher would kill his daughter who was training to be a teacher,neither would he single out David as the chosen one to remain alive,the fake suicide note symbolic of David's desperation cognizant of the weakness of his cause. The bloodied glove under Stephen's bed was not old,neither were David's bodily injuries,which were consistent with a struggle.
-
I wasn't there at trial so have to rely on second hand reports just as members are doing here with the Jeremy Bamber case. There is no way a Headteacher would kill his daughter who was training to be a teacher,neither would he single out David as the chosen one to remain alive,the fake suicide note symbolic of David's desperation cognizant of the weakness of his cause. The bloodied glove under Stephen's bed was not old,neither were David's bodily injuries,which were consistent with a struggle.
There are plenty of articles that go into great detail about the evidence adduced at trial. Binnie's report is online somewhere I read it quite a while ago.
David's injuries were not present until after he fainted and hit something when he did so. No officers saw any injury to his head till he fainted then it appeared and they saw it.
Robin wasn't in great shape his wife forced him to sleep in a trailer and his daughter accused him of raping her. His world was in a shambles. It is possible he did decide to kill them saying no way would he do that is just your opinion as if you know him though you don't. He could have decided to to kill everyone then run away but afterwards simply decided to kill himself rather than bother running.
You developed preconceived notions that he would not have killed anyone and that David did it and then seek out anything that supports such ignoring anything that doesn't support your preferred theory including that the computer was turned on before witnesses said they saw David arrive home, that the bloody sweater was too small for David to have worn it and so forth. All of such combined amounts to reasonable doubt the prosecution filled miserably to meet its burden of establishing David did it.
Some of David's supporters are just as bad such as claiming he wrote fantasies about family murder though it was his students who did such. I'm concerned purely with what the evidence demonstrated and at trial it was demonstrated Robin may have done it there was no way to say David did it beyond a reasonable doubt. There happens to be evidence that suggests they can't have died before he went on his route they died closer to the time he arrived home. This and other evidence not only amounts to reasonable doubt it makes me think he is innocent. If the police didn't stop the pathologist from taking their core temperature we would have an even better idea of their time of death.
-
There are plenty of articles that go into great detail about the evidence adduced at trial. Binnie's report is online somewhere I read it quite a while ago.
David's injuries were not present until after he fainted and hit something when he did so. No officers saw any injury to his head till he fainted then it appeared and they saw it.
Robin wasn't in great shape his wife forced him to sleep in a trailer and his daughter accused him of raping her. His world was in a shambles. It is possible he did decide to kill them saying no way would he do that is just your opinion as if you know him though you don't. He could have decided to to kill everyone then run away but afterwards simply decided to kill himself rather than bother running.
You developed preconceived notions that he would not have killed anyone and that David did it and then seek out anything that supports such ignoring anything that doesn't support your preferred theory including that the computer was turned on before witnesses said they saw David arrive home, that the bloody sweater was too small for David to have worn it and so forth. All of such combined amounts to reasonable doubt the prosecution filled miserably to meet its burden of establishing David did it.
Some of David's supporters are just as bad such as claiming he wrote fantasies about family murder though it was his students who did such. I'm concerned purely with what the evidence demonstrated and at trial it was demonstrated Robin may have done it there was no way to say David did it beyond a reasonable doubt. There happens to be evidence that suggests they can't have died before he went on his route they died closer to the time he arrived home. This and other evidence not only amounts to reasonable doubt it makes me think he is innocent. If the police didn't stop the pathologist from taking their core temperature we would have an even better idea of their time of death.
The computer turn on time proves nothing: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-computer-turn-on-time-was-a-red-herring
David got his injuries whilst struggling with his brother Stephen,who was fighting for his life. The idea that his syncope (or whatever you wish to call that charade) caused them is a complete misnomer,from a man who has shown no remorse whatsoever at any time for the loss of his family. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-davids-clothes-belonged-to-stephen
-
The computer turn on time proves nothing: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-computer-turn-on-time-was-a-red-herring
It seems you know nothing about this case yourself you have no ability to discuss the facts in your won words you have to rely on propaganda links for everything.
In the broader context is stands in the way of what the people you fancy so much allege. They claim David got home and turned the computer on in order to type up a fake suicide note before Robin went inside. Obviously that didn't happen. The allegation is Robin went there to pray so why would he turn the computer on? It wasn't used beyond for the suicide note. He turned it on for the sake of it just? In the meantime he didn't notice anything amiss supposedly but David should have immediately noticed.
The notion David killed everyone before he left risking Robin finding them and calling police is not credible at all.
David got his injuries whilst struggling with his brother Stephen,who was fighting for his life. The idea that his syncope (or whatever you wish to call that charade) caused them is a complete misnomer,from a man who has shown no remorse whatsoever at any time for the loss of his family. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-davids-clothes-belonged-to-stephen
The blood didn't get on his clothing while fighting with Stephen it was not spatter. It got there from touching the sweater that had Stephen's blood on it- a sweater too small for David to wear. It was among the laundry David touched.
David supposedly
1) Killed everyone but Robin
2) changed his clothes and washed the laundry
3) went to work
4) returned form work
5) killed Robin
Stephen's blood was found on the clothing David was wearing. He supposedly changed after killing Stephen. So that means it is alleged he was wearing other clothing when he killed Stephen. That makes the allegation he got the blood on the clothing he was wearing when police arrived when he killed Stephen totally contradictory.
None of the BS on counterspin helps establish reasonable doubt. In fact the more they distort the more David looks to be innocent.
-
It seems you know nothing about this case yourself you have no ability to discuss the facts in your won words you have to rely on propaganda links for everything.
In the broader context is stands in the way of what the people you fancy so much allege. They claim David got home and turned the computer on in order to type up a fake suicide note before Robin went inside. Obviously that didn't happen. The allegation is Robin went there to pray so why would he turn the computer on? It wasn't used beyond for the suicide note. He turned it on for the sake of it just? In the meantime he didn't notice anything amiss supposedly but David should have immediately noticed.
The notion David killed everyone before he left risking Robin finding them and calling police is not credible at all.
The blood didn't get on his clothing while fighting with Stephen it was not spatter. It got there from touching the sweater that had Stephen's blood on it- a sweater too small for David to wear. It was among the laundry David touched.
David supposedly
1) Killed everyone but Robin
2) changed his clothes and washed the laundry
3) went to work
4) returned form work
5) killed Robin
Stephen's blood was found on the clothing David was wearing. He supposedly changed after killing Stephen. So that means it is alleged he was wearing other clothing when he killed Stephen. That makes the allegation he got the blood on the clothing he was wearing when police arrived when he killed Stephen totally contradictory.
None of the BS on counterspin helps establish reasonable doubt. In fact the more they distort the more David looks to be innocent.
David Bain knew his father's routine. David had the whole main house to himself in which to commit the murders. If his father came in unannounced he would just have shot him dead there and then and proceeded with his plan of the paper round alibi. As it was David hid behind a curtain and took Robin by surprise as he came into the lounge and sat on the bean bag.
Robin and David had had an argument over a chainsaw,which is how Robin Bain got the marks on his thumb. He would not have typed that silly note because he just did not feel that way about his son. It was Arawa who was the success,not David. The note is confirmation that David was the culprit.
I post links which put the murders in context. I do not post them to obviate the need for debate. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-two-marks-on-robins-thumb-are-not-likely-to-be-caused-by-gun-residue
-
David Bain knew his father's routine. David had the whole main house to himself in which to commit the murders. If his father came in unannounced he would just have shot him dead there and then and proceeded with his plan of the paper round alibi. As it was David hid behind a curtain and took Robin by surprise as he came into the lounge and sat on the bean bag.
Robin and David had had an argument over a chainsaw,which is how Robin Bain got the marks on his thumb. He would not have typed that silly note because he just did not feel that way about his son. It was Arawa who was the success,not David. The note is confirmation that David was the culprit.
I post links which put the murders in context. I do not post them to obviate the need for debate. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-two-marks-on-robins-thumb-are-not-likely-to-be-caused-by-gun-residue
Robin's supposed routine was made up. There was no evidence of a routine. The whole story about him praying daily at 7AM was fictional someone observed such once years earlier and it was distorted as a routine.
The evidence shows he was shot while he was standing up that is how blood got on his foot.
I already discussed the issue of the marks on his hand. I read the testimony of those at trial as well as the reports of the experts who analyzed the issue including police experts. They said the photos limit good analysis and there is no way to rule them out as being loading marks. They conceded that it is possible there were more not seen because the photos don't who all the finger or show well plus when you do multiple loadings some wash off so you get mixed and matched streaks. You would know this if you actually read all the materials instead of the propaganda on counterspin.
The prosecution never tested them like they didn't test a lot of things including the blood under Robin's nails. They make the cops in the Bamber case look good.
The defense experts came up with a position in which Robin could kill himself which account for blood staining patterns of blood going in two different directions on the leg of his pants and his foot. The only prosecution theory to account for such would be if he were sitting on the floor like this (without the book):
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/smiling-guy-sitting-floor-reading-book-28018446.jpg)
The position put by the defense would result in Robin's body landing in the location and position where it was found.
You seem to have tossed the whole concept of reasonable doubt out the window simply because of bias.
-
Robin's supposed routine was made up. There was no evidence of a routine. The whole story about him praying daily at 7AM was fictional someone observed such once years earlier and it was distorted as a routine.
The evidence shows he was shot while he was standing up that is how blood got on his foot.
I already discussed the issue of the marks on his hand. I read the testimony of those at trial as well as the reports of the experts who analyzed the issue including police experts. They said the photos limit good analysis and there is no way to rule them out as being loading marks. They conceded that it is possible there were more not seen because the photos don't who all the finger or show well plus when you do multiple loadings some wash off so you get mixed and matched streaks. You would know this if you actually read all the materials instead of the propaganda on counterspin.
The prosecution never tested them like they didn't test a lot of things including the blood under Robin's nails. They make the cops in the Bamber case look good.
The defense experts came up with a position in which Robin could kill himself which account for blood staining patterns of blood going in two different directions on the leg of his pants and his foot. The only prosecution theory to account for such would be if he were sitting on the floor like this (without the book):
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/smiling-guy-sitting-floor-reading-book-28018446.jpg)
The position put by the defense would result in Robin's body landing in the location and position where it was found.
You seem to have tossed the whole concept of reasonable doubt out the window simply because of bias.
I don't have access to the full trial transcript but that makes me neither stupid nor gullible. It's highly unlikely Robin committed suicide in the way he would have to have done for the theory to be viable.
Two quick links: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-david
and someone who actually knew David Bain and what he was like: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/story/as-i-knew-david
-
I don't have access to the full trial transcript but that makes me neither stupid nor gullible. It's highly unlikely Robin committed suicide in the way he would have to have done for the theory to be viable.
Two quick links: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-david
and someone who actually knew David Bain and what he was like: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/story/as-i-knew-david
You are gullible for posting propaganda.
That site has distortion after distortion posting the same lies about how his fingerprints were found in blood on the rifle etc ignoring all the relevant facts such as that the blood was animal blood. You don't need access to the court transcript to read the Binnie report or the various articles out there that were published daily to recount the evidence discussed in court.
Those behind counterspin like you decided who they wanted to believe did it then chose anything they could to justify their position regardless of the accuracy.
The evidence put before the jury failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that is why they acquitted him. The prosecution experts admitted the defense claims were possible. No matter how much spinning is done there is no way to establish reasonable doubt under the facts of the case.
Detractors don't want to face all the problems Robin had but he had plenty and the evidence that his daughter was going to report him for incest is strong. Calling her a liar would not necessarily save his reputation. I believe Robin decided to kill them and planned to try to find a way to avoid liability but realized he couldn't and simply decided to end his life rather than go to prison. That certainly is plausible regardless of the babble from people saying his life was so wonderful.
He would have fit in the sweater that had David's blood on it and of which fibers from David had under his nails indicating he was pulling at it. Pulling at a sweater doesn't mean he would injure his killer though. He was down one hand because his hand had been shot so could not fight competently.
It is not black and white there is lots of gray and that gray amounts to reasonable doubt.
-
You are gullible for posting propaganda.
That site has distortion after distortion posting the same lies about how his fingerprints were found in blood on the rifle etc ignoring all the relevant facts such as that the blood was animal blood. You don't need access to the court transcript to read the Binnie report or the various articles out there that were published daily to recount the evidence discussed in court.
Those behind counterspin like you decided who they wanted to believe did it then chose anything they could to justify their position regardless of the accuracy.
The evidence put before the jury failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that is why they acquitted him. The prosecution experts admitted the defense claims were possible. No matter how much spinning is done there is no way to establish reasonable doubt under the facts of the case.
Detractors don't want to face all the problems Robin had but he had plenty and the evidence that his daughter was going to report him for incest is strong. Calling her a liar would not necessarily save his reputation. I believe Robin decided to kill them and planned to try to find a way to avoid liability but realized he couldn't and simply decided to end his life rather than go to prison. That certainly is plausible regardless of the babble from people saying his life was so wonderful.
He would have fit in the sweater that had David's blood on it and of which fibers from David had under his nails indicating he was pulling at it. Pulling at a sweater doesn't mean he would injure his killer though. He was down one hand because his hand had been shot so could not fight competently.
It is not black and white there is lots of gray and that gray amounts to reasonable doubt.
There's no reason for Robin Bain to kill his family. He just wasn't the bitter type who looked back on his life from the perspective of middle age and wanted to destroy. You overlook the bloodied opera gloves dumped in Stephen's room,the blood on the light switches and on David's socks consistent with Stephen's or Laniet's blood he could not have picked up from the floor. No blood on Robin at all,which is curious if he changes clothes,washes yet is the murderer and doesn't want his son to be implicated in any way.
Here's more evidence the jury didn't hear: http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video
-
There's no reason for Robin Bain to kill his family. He just wasn't the bitter type who looked back on his life from the perspective of middle age and wanted to destroy. You overlook the bloodied opera gloves dumped in Stephen's room,the blood on the light switches and on David's socks consistent with Stephen's or Laniet's blood he could not have picked up from the floor. No blood on Robin at all,which is curious if he changes clothes,washes yet is the murderer and doesn't want his son to be implicated in any way.
Here's more evidence the jury didn't hear: http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video
You presuming you know anything about his type is absurd. Even if you knew him well that doesn't mean you coudl judge for sure what he would do under the circumstances of his marriage falling apart and being accused of incest. Most people close to those who commit murder suicide are shocked by it. We only know he had problems that could have resulted in him doing so. You don't want to admit it but that is in keeping with your character. You presume to know so much about the Bambers though we know very little about their true natures.
Nothing you post erases the reasonable doubt you have not looked at the evidence in detail to see whether reasonable doubt exists. You have decided you believe the propaganda that Bain would not kill himself and thus accept any propaganda they post about the evidence in the case instead of looking in detail at what was testified to in court to see whether they established a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is nothing that indicates Robin can't have done it and therefore someone else must have killed them. Such evidence does exist int he Bamber case though there is evidence Sheila can't have killed herself and didn't do anything to anyone else. There was clothing that fit Robin that was changed out of but none in the Bamber case that Sheila could have changed out of.
Had police not done a poor job there would have been other evidence that would have been valuable like core body temperature of the victims to provide a better clue as to how long they were dead and testing Robin for GSR right away instead of after he was washed. We are limited to the TOD evidence they did allow and it tends to support they died after he went to work and is strong enough for sure to help create reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is the standard to convict in part so that people don't jail on the basis of their subjective notions of who they believe is more apt to have done it based on their perception of personality. Yo keep harping on such instead of the murder evidence and when pushed you cite counterspin propaganda about such evidence instead of looking at such objectively.
More solid evidence needs to be found to try to establish guilt, what exists now doesn't establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and thus is not going to change my mind. Citing counterspin to me will remain non-productive I want solid evidence so unless something new ifs found my mind is not changing. If some new evidence comes up in the news you can point it out and discuss it with me but apart form that I see no point in continuing we will have to agree to disagree.
-
You presuming you know anything about his type is absurd. Even if you knew him well that doesn't mean you coudl judge for sure what he would do under the circumstances of his marriage falling apart and being accused of incest. Most people close to those who commit murder suicide are shocked by it. We only know he had problems that could have resulted in him doing so. You don't want to admit it but that is in keeping with your character. You presume to know so much about the Bambers though we know very little about their true natures.
Nothing you post erases the reasonable doubt you have not looked at the evidence in detail to see whether reasonable doubt exists. You have decided you believe the propaganda that Bain would not kill himself and thus accept any propaganda they post about the evidence in the case instead of looking in detail at what was testified to in court to see whether they established a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is nothing that indicates Robin can't have done it and therefore someone else must have killed them. Such evidence does exist int he Bamber case though there is evidence Sheila can't have killed herself and didn't do anything to anyone else. There was clothing that fit Robin that was changed out of but none in the Bamber case that Sheila could have changed out of.
Had police not done a poor job there would have been other evidence that would have been valuable like core body temperature of the victims to provide a better clue as to how long they were dead and testing Robin for GSR right away instead of after he was washed. We are limited to the TOD evidence they did allow and it tends to support they died after he went to work and is strong enough for sure to help create reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is the standard to convict in part so that people don't jail on the basis of their subjective notions of who they believe is more apt to have done it based on their perception of personality. Yo keep harping on such instead of the murder evidence and when pushed you cite counterspin propaganda about such evidence instead of looking at such objectively.
More solid evidence needs to be found to try to establish guilt, what exists now doesn't establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and thus is not going to change my mind. Citing counterspin to me will remain non-productive I want solid evidence so unless something new ifs found my mind is not changing. If some new evidence comes up in the news you can point it out and discuss it with me but apart form that I see no point in continuing we will have to agree to disagree.
The perpetrator was either Robin Bain or his son David. It was David who had marks on his face consistent with a struggle with Stephen and blood on his socks which could not have just come from walking round the house in stocking feet. On the other hand you have Robin Bain who had a meeting that morning,which is why he may have turned on the computer after bringing in the morning paper who was then shot in the head by David,who was hiding behind a curtain in the recess. No blood on Robin,no bloody clothing,no blood anywhere,whilst David was full of it. There's a 20 minute gap unexplained before David eventually called the Police and the call itself is a joke as is his faint. David killed four of the five before the paper round and after killing Robin tried to clear up some of the evidence by starting the washing machine.
I'm sorry,but nothing could be clearer..
-
The perpetrator was either Robin Bain or his son David. It was David who had marks on his face consistent with a struggle with Stephen and blood on his socks which could not have just come from walking round the house in stocking feet. On the other hand you have Robin Bain who had a meeting that morning,which is why he may have turned on the computer after bringing in the morning paper who was then shot in the head by David,who was hiding behind a curtain in the recess. No blood on Robin,no bloody clothing,no blood anywhere,whilst David was full of it. There's a 20 minute gap unexplained before David eventually called the Police and the call itself is a joke as is his faint. David killed four of the five before the paper round and after killing Robin tried to clear up some of the evidence by starting the washing machine.
I'm sorry,but nothing could be clearer..
He didn't have marks on his face period let alone consistent with a struggle. After he fainted then police observed wounds caused by the fall. What is clear is that you made up your mind in advance of the facts and subscribe to false claims made on counterspin and don't have any real interest in reading about the real evidence and the defense case. The system has advocates on both side for a reason. You have to look at what both sides argued at trial and the witnesses testified to at trial. What is clear is you don't want to ad don't care about reasonable doubt. You are not a juror so that is fine you don't have to. I have looked at the trial evidence and it is clear reaosnable doubt existed. As I said we will have to agree to disagree.
-
He didn't have marks on his face period let alone consistent with a struggle. After he fainted then police observed wounds caused by the fall. What is clear is that you made up your mind in advance of the facts and subscribe to false claims made on counterspin and don't have any real interest in reading about the real evidence and the defense case. The system has advocates on both side for a reason. You have to look at what both sides argued at trial and the witnesses testified to at trial. What is clear is you don't want to ad don't care about reasonable doubt. You are not a juror so that is fine you don't have to. I have looked at the trial evidence and it is clear reaosnable doubt existed. As I said we will have to agree to disagree.
David Bain had exactly such marks on his head. The way you compose your specious posts with complete certainty makes me believe that there's a lot more truth in Mike's posts than first meets the eye. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-had-injuries-consistent-with-a-fight-with-stephen
-
David Bain had exactly such marks on his head. The way you compose your specious posts with complete certainty makes me believe that there's a lot more truth in Mike's posts than first meets the eye. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-had-injuries-consistent-with-a-fight-with-stephen
ALl you are doing is hurting your own creidibliy by linking to propaganda.
Facts:
1) Police testified they saw no injuries to David's body while speaking to him initially
2) After he fainted and fell injuries developed and the police then observed them
3) these injuries were deemed consistent with falling as he fainted
4) there is no evidence that Stephen managed to do anything to his attacker. His hand was shot so he could not use it effectively. There is no evidence to suggest that one handed he was able to cause any injuries at all to his attacker.
You are the one acting like Mike in posting links to propaganda and ignoring the trial evidence.
-
ALl you are doing is hurting your own creidibliy by linking to propaganda.
Facts:
1) Police testified they saw no injuries to David's body while speaking to him initially
2) After he fainted and fell injuries developed and the police then observed them
3) these injuries were deemed consistent with falling as he fainted
4) there is no evidence that Stephen managed to do anything to his attacker. His hand was shot so he could not use it effectively. There is no evidence to suggest that one handed he was able to cause any injuries at all to his attacker.
You are the one acting like Mike in posting links to propaganda and ignoring the trial evidence.
Stephen grasped hold of a green fibre from a jersey which was found in the washing machine. Now are you seriously suggesting that Robin Bain that Monday morning woke up,retrieved the morning paper from the postbox,placed it on the table in the hall,killed all his family except David,changed his clothes and started a washing cycle?
Scipio we may be Europeans but I have formed the distinct opinion that you think the whole lot of us are stupid and you are superior in some way. I can tell you now that nothing is further from the truth,and in many ways from my experience the reverse happens to be the case. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-changed-his-testimony-regarding-the-green-jersey
-
Stephen grasped hold of a green fibre from a jersey which was found in the washing machine. Now are you seriously suggesting that Robin Bain that Monday morning woke up,retrieved the morning paper from the postbox,placed it on the table in the hall,killed all his family except David,changed his clothes and started a washing cycle?
Scipio we may be Europeans but I have formed the distinct opinion that you think the whole lot of us are stupid and you are superior in some way. I can tell you now that nothing is further from the truth,and in many ways from my experience the reverse happens to be the case. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-changed-his-testimony-regarding-the-green-jersey
If you had half a brain you would stop bringing up the sweater because it was too small for David. SOmeoen wearing that sweater was choking Stepehn and all Stepehn coudl do becaus ehe wa sinjured was pull as the sweater getting the fibers under his fingers. That sweater didn't fit David but did fit Robin thus supports Robin took it off after killing him while wearing it.
David arrived home after Robin was dead and he didn't realize it had blood on it and touched it getting blood on his hand and a little on his clothes. He put it and other clothing in the washing machine thus leaving the palm print. This is what the defense argues and is quite plausible the prosecution could not establish this was not what happened.
Each time you post a link to that propaganda site you just look as bad as Mike.
-
If you had half a brain you would stop bringing up the sweater because it was too small for David. SOmeoen wearing that sweater was choking Stepehn and all Stepehn coudl do becaus ehe wa sinjured was pull as the sweater getting the fibers under his fingers. That sweater didn't fit David but did fit Robin thus supports Robin took it off after killing him while wearing it.
David arrived home after Robin was dead and he didn't realize it had blood on it and touched it getting blood on his hand and a little on his clothes. He put it and other clothing in the washing machine thus leaving the palm print. This is what the defense argues and is quite plausible the prosecution could not establish this was not what happened.
Each time you post a link to that propaganda site you just look as bad as Mike.
It might have been a tight fit,but you ignore the bloodied gloves in Stephen's room and Robin's overall appearance that morning,which manifests clearly he had not traipsed around the house dripping blood.
-
If you had half a brain you would stop bringing up the sweater because it was too small for David. SOmeoen wearing that sweater was choking Stepehn and all Stepehn coudl do becaus ehe wa sinjured was pull as the sweater getting the fibers under his fingers. That sweater didn't fit David but did fit Robin thus supports Robin took it off after killing him while wearing it.
David arrived home after Robin was dead and he didn't realize it had blood on it and touched it getting blood on his hand and a little on his clothes. He put it and other clothing in the washing machine thus leaving the palm print. This is what the defense argues and is quite plausible the prosecution could not establish this was not what happened.
Each time you post a link to that propaganda site you just look as bad as Mike.
Oh! You sure it was a palm print? This one has your endorsement does it? ;D ;D ;D ;D :P
-
Oh! You sure it was a palm print? This one has your endorsement does it? ;D ;D ;D ;D :P
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I am speaking for the victims in this case which is my main motivation. I feel strongly about this case just as Mike and Lookout feel that justice has not been served in the Jeremy Bamber case.
-
I am speaking for the victims in this case which is my main motivation. I feel strongly about this case just as Mike and Lookout feel that justice has not been served in the Jeremy Bamber case.
Good for you Steve!! You stick to your guns!!
-
Oh! You sure it was a palm print? This one has your endorsement does it? ;D ;D ;D ;D :P
The experts said it was a bloody palm print which was left while loading the machine. In contrast the experts who analyzed the Bamber Bible found no bloody prints of any kind.
-
The experts said it was a bloody palm print which was left while loading the machine. In contrast the experts who analyzed the Bamber Bible found no bloody prints of any kind.
Which ones?
-
Which ones?
The ones who processed the Bible for prints and found only no prints in blood only prints belonging to June and those so small they must have belonged to a child.
-
The ones who processed the Bible for prints and found only no prints in blood only prints belonging to June and those so small they must have belonged to a child.
You got the documentation on that?
-
You got the documentation on that?
The examination documents were seen by the lawyers. So were photos of the inside of Sheila's hands showing them free of blood. So were photos of the floor under the Bible showing the Bible sat on her pool of blood. Leon MacDOnnell saw such photo and he said the Bible was placed in such blood after she was dead. He saw the same photo you did plus more and he didn't assess the blood stain to be a palm print.
If it had been assessed as a palm print there would be documents noting it and they would have tried to figure out who's blood it was and who's print it was. They assumed it was Sheila's blood because it was resting in her blood.
The COA decision noted it was printed and that nothing was found in blood just some ordinary prints. If a bloody palm print were found it would have been noted and would have been interest to both sides.
-
The examination documents were seen by the lawyers. So were photos of the inside of Sheila's hands showing them free of blood. So were photos of the floor under the Bible showing the Bible sat on her pool of blood. Leon MacDOnnell saw such photo and he said the Bible was placed in such blood after she was dead. He saw the same photo you did plus more and he didn't assess the blood stain to be a palm print.
If it had been assessed as a palm print there would be documents noting it and they would have tried to figure out who's blood it was and who's print it was. They assumed it was Sheila's blood because it was resting in her blood.
The COA decision noted it was printed and that nothing was found in blood just some ordinary prints. If a bloody palm print were found it would have been noted and would have been interest to both sides.
I've seen the 2002 appeal doc which simply makes a lots of assumptions about the stain but we have no idea if they actually viewed the bible or not - I suspect 'not'. So you don't have a reference for the rest of the above then? The defence claimed not to have seen the bible so which lawyers?
They assumed it was Sheila's blood so perhaps they assumed it was Sheila's print - it makes no never mind to the outcome so it would hardly form a major part of the investigation. Are you saying that even though they were convinced that Sheila was the killer, they would have identified every bloody print at the scene?
-
I've seen the 2002 appeal doc which simply makes a lots of assumptions about the stain but we have no idea if they actually viewed the bible or not - I suspect 'not'. So you don't have a reference for the rest of the above then? The defence claimed not to have seen the bible so which lawyers?
They assumed it was Sheila's blood so perhaps they assumed it was Sheila's print - it makes no never mind to the outcome so it would hardly form a major part of the investigation. Are you saying that even though they were convinced that Sheila was the killer, they would have identified every bloody print at the scene?
1) I said the defense lawyers received the documents concerning the fingerprint analysis of the Bible- the fingerprint analysis by the lab which found no prints of any kind in blood only ordinary prints. Whether they looked at the Bible itself is irrelevant the point is that the Bible was examined for prints by the lab and none of any kind were found in blood.
2) The 2002 Appeal discussed the results of such fingerpint analysis- simply June's prints, children prints and some prints of such poor quality they could not even be compared to an fingerprint cards. No plam prints at all let alone in blood.
3) The judges didn't speculate about the Bible, the prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the blood just like they had expert testimony about Sheila's body being moved. Neither qualified as new testimony so could not be considered for purposes of establishing guilt however the Bible evidence was able to be used for the lesser purpose of providing a plausible reason why the trial defense could have chose not to raise any claims with respect to the Bible.
4) Even experts consulted by the defense like MacDonnell said the Bible was placed in her blood after she was already dead. Neither he nor any other experts opined that stain was a palm print they opined it got on the Bible from the pool of blood it was sitting in.
The 2002 Appeal:
No prints in blood found just ordinary prints
"The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child."
Defense obtained closeups of the bloodstaining (these had been submitted to experts none of who identified it as a palmprint
"Two further photographs of the Bible have been located by those advising the appellant. When they were taken and by whom they were taken is not known. It is clear from the photographs themselves that they were not taken at the scene. But must have been taken at some other location following the removal of the Bible as a potential exhibit by the police. The photographs record the blood staining on the Bible."
The prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the pool of blood after
"The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial."
-
If the Bible had been closed with blood adhered to the pages,then those pages wouldn't have opened without tearing,as blood is sticky and once dried has the same effect as glue. Meaning that the blood couldn't have been there that long for that to have happened. Those people hadn't been dead for hours on end !
-
If the Bible had been closed with blood adhered to the pages,then those pages wouldn't have opened without tearing,as blood is sticky and once dried has the same effect as glue. Meaning that the blood couldn't have been there that long for that to have happened. Those people hadn't been dead for hours on end !
I agree Lookout, blood is sticky and the pages of the bible look quite delicate, if it had been closed for more than a very short time you would expect some damage to the pages. If it had been wet when placed on a dry carpet wouldn't it have stuck to the carpet when drying? If it had been placed wet on wet blood spots and dried in that position wouldn't it have stuck and torn when removed? Will have to think more about this. :-\
-
I agree Lookout, blood is sticky and the pages of the bible look quite delicate, if it had been closed for more than a very short time you would expect some damage to the pages. If it had been wet when placed on a dry carpet wouldn't it have stuck to the carpet when drying? If it had been placed wet on wet blood spots and dried in that position wouldn't it have stuck and torn when removed? Will have to think more about this. :-\
Yes Maggie,the pages are like tissue paper.
-
1) I said the defense lawyers received the documents concerning the fingerprint analysis of the Bible- the fingerprint analysis by the lab which found no prints of any kind in blood only ordinary prints. Whether they looked at the Bible itself is irrelevant the point is that the Bible was examined for prints by the lab and none of any kind were found in blood.
2) The 2002 Appeal discussed the results of such fingerpint analysis- simply June's prints, children prints and some prints of such poor quality they could not even be compared to an fingerprint cards. No plam prints at all let alone in blood.
3) The judges didn't speculate about the Bible, the prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the blood just like they had expert testimony about Sheila's body being moved. Neither qualified as new testimony so could not be considered for purposes of establishing guilt however the Bible evidence was able to be used for the lesser purpose of providing a plausible reason why the trial defense could have chose not to raise any claims with respect to the Bible.
4) Even experts consulted by the defense like MacDonnell said the Bible was placed in her blood after she was already dead. Neither he nor any other experts opined that stain was a palm print they opined it got on the Bible from the pool of blood it was sitting in.
The 2002 Appeal:
No prints in blood found just ordinary prints
"The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child."
Defense obtained closeups of the bloodstaining (these had been submitted to experts none of who identified it as a palmprint
"Two further photographs of the Bible have been located by those advising the appellant. When they were taken and by whom they were taken is not known. It is clear from the photographs themselves that they were not taken at the scene. But must have been taken at some other location following the removal of the Bible as a potential exhibit by the police. The photographs record the blood staining on the Bible."
The prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the pool of blood after
"The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial."
I've read the above passage many times. Firstly, they're only discussing finger prints, I'm not talking about finger prints and they formed their OPINION in respect to the large stain in the same way - looking at a photograph. Suthurst was discredited for forming 'expert' opinion from a photograph - we can all look and form an opinion, I don't agree with theirs (or yours). Also you claim the staining on the opposite page (left side open) is from the floor? Take a ruler and measure the length, it's the same as the top of the large stain. Rather than it coming from the floor, it looks as though it transferred from the large stain (which must have dried somewhat) when the bible was closed. Also in your example, you have the pages bent too far over to the right side (face down). The book you used in your example isn't any good, the bible has tissue pages that don't handle in the same way. If you're going to try and replicate, you need to use like with like. Also in your example, there is a clear line where the pages had been folded back - there is no such line on the Bamber bible.
-
1) I said the defense lawyers received the documents concerning the fingerprint analysis of the Bible- the fingerprint analysis by the lab which found no prints of any kind in blood only ordinary prints. Whether they looked at the Bible itself is irrelevant the point is that the Bible was examined for prints by the lab and none of any kind were found in blood.
2) The 2002 Appeal discussed the results of such fingerpint analysis- simply June's prints, children prints and some prints of such poor quality they could not even be compared to an fingerprint cards. No plam prints at all let alone in blood.
3) The judges didn't speculate about the Bible, the prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the blood just like they had expert testimony about Sheila's body being moved. Neither qualified as new testimony so could not be considered for purposes of establishing guilt however the Bible evidence was able to be used for the lesser purpose of providing a plausible reason why the trial defense could have chose not to raise any claims with respect to the Bible.
4) Even experts consulted by the defense like MacDonnell said the Bible was placed in her blood after she was already dead. Neither he nor any other experts opined that stain was a palm print they opined it got on the Bible from the pool of blood it was sitting in.
The 2002 Appeal:
No prints in blood found just ordinary prints
"The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child."
Defense obtained closeups of the bloodstaining (these had been submitted to experts none of who identified it as a palmprint
"Two further photographs of the Bible have been located by those advising the appellant. When they were taken and by whom they were taken is not known. It is clear from the photographs themselves that they were not taken at the scene. But must have been taken at some other location following the removal of the Bible as a potential exhibit by the police. The photographs record the blood staining on the Bible."
The prosecution had experts testify about the Bible being placed in the pool of blood after
"The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial."
But I'm not on the side of the prosecution and no matter how long your lengthy Sermons are------they're wrong------------------------according to me. :D
-
I agree Lookout, blood is sticky and the pages of the bible look quite delicate, if it had been closed for more than a very short time you would expect some damage to the pages. If it had been wet when placed on a dry carpet wouldn't it have stuck to the carpet when drying? If it had been placed wet on wet blood spots and dried in that position wouldn't it have stuck and torn when removed? Will have to think more about this. :-\
You're right Maggie, they are like tissue, just mentioned the same thing in a reply to Scip. The stain could have dried somewhat before it was closed because there is some staining to the other size which is the same length as the palm stain. We don't know the series of events that occurred that night, we can't say for sure when the stain got on the bible or who's blood it is. It was assumed to have come from the pool on the floor because that's where it was ultimately picked up from.
-
I would have said that it was June's blood on the Bible,as the drips on the carpet were hers both in the bedroom and boxroom,silencer and socks too.
-
I would have said that it was June's blood on the Bible,as the drips on the carpet were hers both in the bedroom and boxroom,silencer and socks too.
Well, we can't say for sure and the bible is gone now - BUT I know someone who has a high resolution picture of the stain. Too many 'assumptions' were made without checking things out properly (for whatever reason).
-
Well, we can't say for sure and the bible is gone now - BUT I know someone who has a high resolution picture of the stain. Too many 'assumptions' were made without checking things out properly (for whatever reason).
I agree,there were lots of aspects of the case which weren't thoroughly investigated.It was a complete sham.
-
Apart from being savagely vindictive and supremely confident, Julie must have been amazingly brave to do what she did to an innocent Jeremy.
A month after the massacre and Jeremy was a free man. An innocent Jeremy had not said anything to Julie. There would be no evidence supporting a guilty Jeremy.
Despite this she approached the police, and amazingly told unsupported lies to try to get the correct murder/suicide verdict overturned.
She would assume there was no evidence which would support her lies. Meaning she would get into
trouble if found to be lying. Maybe she thought she wouldn't get found out and her testimony alone would be enough. Which was very very naive.
She was prepared to and went through with a WS and testifying. Knowing Bamber was innocent and a 'not guilty' verdict would ruin her.
Jesus, she was brave (and stupid).
you dont have to brave to tell somone somthing they allready want to hear
Although I have to say she was also very brave in going to police after a month if Jeremy was guilty. As I just stated in another thread.
-
if hand swabs were done at the scene would that have removed any blood?
Just that mike posted that a while ago?
-
It seems that Skippy has information that we have not seen . I found this about the finger prints - so perhaps he could show us his source .
Documents given to the Defence by the Crown Prosecution service from material previously under Public Interest Immunity were disclosed in 2002 after the Appeal, but before the judgement. These reveal that at the time of the original trial the Bible had not been destroyed and police knew this. Appeal judges stated that the Bible was a material exhibit and was available at the time of Jeremy’s trial, in effect, Jeremy explains, he was told “Bad luck, Jeremy – you had your chance at trial and blew it.” The Bible was not exhibited at trial because the material exhibits list shows that it was never brought into the court and it was not assigned a court exhibit number. Curiously though, disparity in the material disclosed to the defence from the 1991 City of London Police enquiry shows, that the Bible was assigned the police exhibit reference DRH/44 and handed to the relatives in one document; in another it is listed a destroyed.[4] Curiously again the same reference of DRH/44 was originally assigned to the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell at the mortuary on the 7th of August 1985 and which were then examined at Huntingdon Laboratory on the 9th of September 1985.[5]
Forensic examination of the bloodied fingerprints on the Bible.
Amid the 3.5 million pages of documents disclosed at this time we discovered that Essex Police undertook a forensic test on prints taken from the bloodied Bible and the additional items which found a “positive result”. This means that police were aware that the prints matched an individual, yet at no point during the lead up to Jeremy’s trial nor the decade following did they disclose who they belonged to. It was only in 1999 that further supporting evidence of fingerprinting of the Bible emerged through an informal interview with an ex police Inspector who worked on the case who also detailed that the bible was found to carry fingerprints.[6] In 1999 the Defence lawyer made a request for the result of these fingerprint tests to the CCRC but no documents on the results of tests were obtained.
-
It seems that Skippy has information that we have not seen . I found this about the finger prints - so perhaps he could show us his source .
Documents given to the Defence by the Crown Prosecution service from material previously under Public Interest Immunity were disclosed in 2002 after the Appeal, but before the judgement. These reveal that at the time of the original trial the Bible had not been destroyed and police knew this. Appeal judges stated that the Bible was a material exhibit and was available at the time of Jeremy’s trial, in effect, Jeremy explains, he was told “Bad luck, Jeremy – you had your chance at trial and blew it.” The Bible was not exhibited at trial because the material exhibits list shows that it was never brought into the court and it was not assigned a court exhibit number. Curiously though, disparity in the material disclosed to the defence from the 1991 City of London Police enquiry shows, that the Bible was assigned the police exhibit reference DRH/44 and handed to the relatives in one document; in another it is listed a destroyed.[4] Curiously again the same reference of DRH/44 was originally assigned to the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell at the mortuary on the 7th of August 1985 and which were then examined at Huntingdon Laboratory on the 9th of September 1985.[5]
Forensic examination of the bloodied fingerprints on the Bible.
Amid the 3.5 million pages of documents disclosed at this time we discovered that Essex Police undertook a forensic test on prints taken from the bloodied Bible and the additional items which found a “positive result”. This means that police were aware that the prints matched an individual, yet at no point during the lead up to Jeremy’s trial nor the decade following did they disclose who they belonged to. It was only in 1999 that further supporting evidence of fingerprinting of the Bible emerged through an informal interview with an ex police Inspector who worked on the case who also detailed that the bible was found to carry fingerprints.[6] In 1999 the Defence lawyer made a request for the result of these fingerprint tests to the CCRC but no documents on the results of tests were obtained.
I did ask him to provide documented evidence - it's clear that not everything about the bible was disclosed. I honestly don't think it would make a difference one way or the other but it would be interesting to see documented facts as opposed to someone saying 'an expert said'.
-
It seems that Skippy has information that we have not seen . I found this about the finger prints - so perhaps he could show us his source .
Documents given to the Defence by the Crown Prosecution service from material previously under Public Interest Immunity were disclosed in 2002 after the Appeal, but before the judgement. These reveal that at the time of the original trial the Bible had not been destroyed and police knew this. Appeal judges stated that the Bible was a material exhibit and was available at the time of Jeremy’s trial, in effect, Jeremy explains, he was told “Bad luck, Jeremy – you had your chance at trial and blew it.” The Bible was not exhibited at trial because the material exhibits list shows that it was never brought into the court and it was not assigned a court exhibit number. Curiously though, disparity in the material disclosed to the defence from the 1991 City of London Police enquiry shows, that the Bible was assigned the police exhibit reference DRH/44 and handed to the relatives in one document; in another it is listed a destroyed.[4] Curiously again the same reference of DRH/44 was originally assigned to the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell at the mortuary on the 7th of August 1985 and which were then examined at Huntingdon Laboratory on the 9th of September 1985.[5]
Forensic examination of the bloodied fingerprints on the Bible.
Amid the 3.5 million pages of documents disclosed at this time we discovered that Essex Police undertook a forensic test on prints taken from the bloodied Bible and the additional items which found a “positive result”. This means that police were aware that the prints matched an individual, yet at no point during the lead up to Jeremy’s trial nor the decade following did they disclose who they belonged to. It was only in 1999 that further supporting evidence of fingerprinting of the Bible emerged through an informal interview with an ex police Inspector who worked on the case who also detailed that the bible was found to carry fingerprints.[6] In 1999 the Defence lawyer made a request for the result of these fingerprint tests to the CCRC but no documents on the results of tests were obtained.
Thanks Jan....... food for thought!!
-
Thanks Jan....... food for thought!!
Would you find it surprising that Julie would go to the police a month after the massacre, if Jeremy was innocent ? Because he apparently jilted her !
She would be doing herself more harm than an innocent Jeremy.
Seems amazingly vindictive, stupid, brave and reckless. She was not stupid and was studying for her second degree. Women are usually a lot more cunning when seeking out revenge on men.
She didn't approach the police in a rage of anger after Jeremy apparently jilted her, as she had already told five people what she knew. So her approach and WS was hardly made up as she went along. If it was the police would have sussed her out straight away.
-
Thanks Jan....... food for thought!!
Maggie
I am trying to get my tiny brain around what this could imply have you any idea?
-
Would you find it surprising that Julie would go to the police a month after the massacre, if Jeremy was innocent ?
She would be doing herself more harm than an innocent Jeremy.
Seems amazingly vindictive, stupid, brave and reckless. She was not stupid and was studying for her second degree. Women are usually a lot more cunning when seeking out revenge on men.
She didn't approach the police in a rage of anger after Jeremy apparently jilted her, as she had already told five people what she knew. So her approach and WS was hardly made up as she went along.
Sorry Adam but I wouldn't find it particularly surprising, am afraid I personally find it far more surprising that she stayed with a young man, however much she 'loved' him who spoke about murdering his parents and continued to stay with him after they whole family had been murdered and he had admitted at the very least that he hired a hit man to do it.
I find this almost impossible to understand and remember I have been a young woman of her age with a certain degree of intelligence. I can tell you I would have never stayed within a hundred miles of such an appalling person and my main reason at that age would have been that I would have been absolutely terrified of him.
I might add she claims to have been terrified and yet she told 5 people who may very well have repeated it back to Jeremy. I do make allowances for youth, in fact I have 2 daughters myself who are far from strait laced and sheltered but neither of them would have stayed within a hundred miles of the persona she paints of JB and his actions. They would both have told me he was weird, what he was saying etc.and I would have told them to keep well away from him.
It's a part of this case which doesn't make any sense to me at all.
-
Maggie
I am trying to get my tiny brain around what this could imply have you any idea?
That prints were found, that they know who's but they ain't tellin.
-
That prints were found, that they know who's but they ain't tellin.
One thing for sure,they couldn't have been Jeremy's because we'd have all known about it long before now.
-
One thing for sure,they couldn't have been Jeremy's because we'd have all known about it long before now.
I have never been able to think of a reasonable explanation why EP would have framed Jeremy Bamber. However, have just had a thought come into my head .....
We know EP went with four murders and a suicide but some members of the force were never convinced and believed it was JB, over a short time those believing him guilty managed to convince doubters he was in fact guilty. At the same time the relatives were pressurising with the same opinion.
Taff was removed from the investigation and the case became five murders with Jeremy Bamber as the perpetrator. This caused an uproar in the media as EP were seen as incompetent idiots and Taff Jones a highly successful DCI was personally diminished etc.
What if, at some point after changing direction and the evidence of the moderator had been exposed there was a discovery which showed proof JB couldn't have carried out the murders or that Sheila did? Would EP have had the courage to say they had been wrong all along, Taff was right and Sheila did kill the family and commit suicide.
Most of EP force wouldn't need to know about such evidence it could have been disappeared by a few people and no one was ever the wiser? That would be a reason for EP to frame or not just tell 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'
Just a thought and there may be a reason I haven't thought of why this isn't possible any ideas?
-
Sorry Adam but I wouldn't find it particularly surprising, am afraid I personally find it far more surprising that she stayed with a young man, however much she 'loved' him who spoke about murdering his parents and continued to stay with him after they whole family had been murdered and he had admitted at the very least that he hired a hit man to do it.
I find this almost impossible to understand and remember I have been a young woman of her age with a certain degree of intelligence. I can tell you I would have never stayed within a hundred miles of such an appalling person and my main reason at that age would have been that I would have been absolutely terrified of him.
I might add she claims to have been terrified and yet she told 5 people who may very well have repeated it back to Jeremy. I do make allowances for youth, in fact I have 2 daughters myself who are far from strait laced and sheltered but neither of them would have stayed within a hundred miles of the persona she paints of JB and his actions. They would both have told me he was weird, what he was saying etc.and I would have told them to keep well away from him.
It's a part of this case which doesn't make any sense to me at all.
I'm sorry but nothing is more surprising than a lone woman approaching the police and trying to frame an innocent man.
With no evidence to back up her claims.
All the other issues have had threads created.
She stayed with Jeremy because she loved him and did not believe he would do anything. Family massacres in TD were zero. Her WS also says there was a period in their 18 months together where Jeremy didn't mention it.
She stayed with him for one month afterwards. A young woman in turmoil while he whisked her around England and Europe. Being told there was nothing she could do and she would not believed. Going to the police after speaking to 5 people.
There is a recent thread on Julie approaching 5 people beforehand. She hasn't claimed it. It's in Wilkes's book. I have no doubt it is true. Telling five people beforehand badly refutes the claim she went to the police in a rage because she was jilted.
Time to apologise to Julie ?
-
I'm sorry but nothing is more surprising than a lone woman approaching the police and trying to frame an innocent man.
With no evidence to back up her claims.
All the other issues have had threads created.
She stayed with Jeremy because she loved him and did not believe he would do anything. Family massacres in TD were zero. Her WS also says there was a period in their 18 months together where Jeremy didn't mention it.
She stayed with him for one month afterwards. A young woman in turmoil while he whisked her around England and Europe. Being told there was nothing she could do and she would not believed. Going to the police after speaking to 5 people.
There is a recent thread on Julie approaching 5 people beforehand. She hasn't claimed it. It's in Wilkes's book. I have no doubt it is true. Telling five people beforehand badly refutes the claim she went to the police in a rage because she was jilted.
Time to apologise to Julie ?
She was very close to her mother, she wasn''t alone. Why not tell her mother?
-
She was very close to her mother, she wasn''t alone. Why not tell her mother?
Who knows.
Maybe she did not want to worry her.
There is not much written about Julie being with her mother after the massacre. She was with Jeremy, his family and friends most of the time. Eventually having time to speak to her own trusted friends.
-
I have never been able to think of a reasonable explanation why EP would have framed Jeremy Bamber. However, have just had a thought come into my head .....
We know EP went with four murders and a suicide but some members of the force were never convinced and believed it was JB, over a short time those believing him guilty managed to convince doubters he was in fact guilty. At the same time the relatives were pressurising with the same opinion.
Taff was removed from the investigation and the case became five murders with Jeremy Bamber as the perpetrator. This caused an uproar in the media as EP were seen as incompetent idiots and Taff Jones a highly successful DCI was personally diminished etc.
What if, at some point after changing direction and the evidence of the moderator had been exposed there was a discovery which showed proof JB couldn't have carried out the murders or that Sheila did? Would EP have had the courage to say they had been wrong all along, Taff was right and Sheila did kill the family and commit suicide.
Most of EP force wouldn't need to know about such evidence it could have been disappeared by a few people and no one was ever the wiser? That would be a reason for EP to frame or not just tell 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'
Just a thought and there may be a reason I haven't thought of why this isn't possible any ideas?
There was a lot of pressure that is quite clear from the Dickinson report and I agree that EP were given a hard time in the press as well so it is a possibility. Also I have to say that I can see why Jeremy clings to any little clue of what the truth is because we have to remember if he is innocent he actually knows very little . He does not know what happened when the raid team went in or about any subsequent investigations or interviews . He is grasping at straws all the time .Julie must know the truth though because if he is innocent she is telling lies - although as she said in the newspaper interview he never told her that he did it.
-
Who knows.
Maybe she did not want to worry her.
There is not much written about Julie being with her mother after the massacre. She was with Jeremy, his family and friends most of the time. Eventually having time to speak to her own trusted friends.
Sorry, we're talking about 5 murders Adam, it all may be true but it's difficult to believe. imo You are correct she was with Jeremy and his family and friends, I would have thought if she was worried and fearful she would have found a way to speak to her mother sometime over the few weeks before she went to the police. Her mother knew Jeremy well, it doesn't make any sense imo. There's something that doesn't get.
-
Sorry, we're talking about 5 murders Adam, it all may be true but it's difficult to believe. imo
that will be the trusted friend who slept with her boyfriend then.
-
I have never been able to think of a reasonable explanation why EP would have framed Jeremy Bamber. However, have just had a thought come into my head .....
We know EP went with four murders and a suicide but some members of the force were never convinced and believed it was JB, over a short time those believing him guilty managed to convince doubters he was in fact guilty. At the same time the relatives were pressurising with the same opinion.
Taff was removed from the investigation and the case became five murders with Jeremy Bamber as the perpetrator. This caused an uproar in the media as EP were seen as incompetent idiots and Taff Jones a highly successful DCI was personally diminished etc.
What if, at some point after changing direction and the evidence of the moderator had been exposed there was a discovery which showed proof JB couldn't have carried out the murders or that Sheila did? Would EP have had the courage to say they had been wrong all along, Taff was right and Sheila did kill the family and commit suicide.
Most of EP force wouldn't need to know about such evidence it could have been disappeared by a few people and no one was ever the wiser? That would be a reason for EP to frame or not just tell 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'
Just a thought and there may be a reason I haven't thought of why this isn't possible any ideas?
DCI Jones wasn't replaced and then instantly it treated as 5 murders. They simply went over everything a new keeping an open mind.
There are countless cases where suspects are arrested and the let go and never tried because of insufficient evidence. There is nothing to suggest that they would have had a problem with releasing him if they could not make the case.
The Dickinson Report was commissioned after they knew he was guilty and that there was nothing to refute it. They wanted to make sure they didn't botch things in the future in such manner. The investigators decided what happened prior to hearing from the people experts in the very areas in question relevant to figuring out what happened. Many experts didn't look at everything till a month later. They had to reply on photos at that point or examine physical evidence later than they should have.
They treated things in isolation being totally unaware of relevant factors and facts when writing reports such as the autopsy report. A very simple recommendation that should have been made was not because they were looking at more broad recommendations. In firearm crimes they should always collect all firearms, ammunition and firearms related accessories. They collected the firearms and accessories over the course of months.
-
DCI Jones wasn't replaced and then instantly it treated as 5 murders. They simply went over everything a new keeping an open mind.
There are countless cases where suspects are arrested and the let go and never tried because of insufficient evidence. There is nothing to suggest that they would have had a problem with releasing him if they could not make the case.
The Dickinson Report was commissioned after they knew he was guilty and that there was nothing to refute it. They wanted to make sure they didn't botch things in the future in such manner. The investigators decided what happened prior to hearing from the people experts in the very areas in question relevant to figuring out what happened. Many experts didn't look at everything till a month later. They had to reply on photos at that point or examine physical evidence later than they should have.
They treated things in isolation being totally unaware of relevant factors and facts when writing reports such as the autopsy report. A very simple recommendation that should have been made was not because they were looking at more broad recommendations. In firearm crimes they should always collect all firearms, ammunition and firearms related accessories. They collected the firearms and accessories over the course of months.
I know thanks scipio. :)
-
Sorry, we're talking about 5 murders Adam, it all may be true but it's difficult to believe. imo You are correct she was with Jeremy and his family and friends, I would have thought if she was worried and fearful she would have found a way to speak to her mother sometime over the few weeks before she went to the police. Her mother knew Jeremy well, it doesn't make any sense imo. There's something that doesn't get.
Maybe they didn't have that sort of relationship. Anyway she spoke to five people so didn't speak to her mother. Or did she ?
Anyway it's up to her who she speaks to. As it happened it was five people, the police and the courts.
-
Maybe they didn't have that sort of relationship. Anyway she spoke to five people so didn't speak to her mother. Or did she ?
Anyway it's up to her who she speaks to. As it happened it was five people, the police and the courts.
Of course it was up to her but that makes no difference to me I still say her behaviour was very strange. You're quick enough to point out every move JB made but leap to Julie's defence at the slightest sign of perceived criticism. I am not accusing her of anything but still say her behaviour right through to the interview after the trial was difficult to understand, imo.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5798.msg256880.html#msg256880
Lots of reasons why it took her one month.
-
Of course it was up to her but that makes no difference to me I still say her behaviour was very strange. You're quick enough to point out every move JB made but leap to Julie's defence at the slightest sign of perceived criticism. I am not accusing her of anything but still say her behaviour right through to the interview after the trial was difficult to understand, imo.
What is difficult to understand?
She loved Jeremy, wanted to be with him instead of visiting him in jail so she didn't rat him out. Even after they broke up she only ratted him out after someone else got the ball rolling. It might have taken her far longer to do it on her own or she may never have done so.
She ratted him out, did a press story assuming it would result in her being left alone, did another story to correct the nonsense they posted and each time the story was in the press they bothered her again but she refused to comment she wanted to move on and be left alone.
-
What is difficult to understand?
She loved Jeremy, wanted to be with him instead of visiting him in jail so she didn't rat him out. Even after they broke up she only ratted him out after someone else got the ball rolling. It might have taken her far longer to do it on her own or she may never have done so.
She ratted him out, did a press story assuming it would result in her being left alone, did another story to correct the nonsense they posted and each time the story was in the press they bothered her again but she refused to comment she wanted to move on and be left alone.
But there was no reason to smile so profusely when she had the blood of the twins on her hands.
-
But there was no reason to smile so profusely when she had the blood of the twins on her hands.
She showed no discretion and zero empathy. If she carried no guilt, no one would have expected her to slink away, but the way she behaved showed no respect for the victims or their family.
-
But there was no reason to smile so profusely when she had the blood of the twins on her hands.
She didn't have their blood on her hands. Jeremy decided to kill them for money. He knew it upset her he did so and lied telling her that M did it so he could disclaim being as cold-hearted as he was.
-
She didn't say no to receiving blood money though !!
-
She didn't say no to receiving blood money though !!
To the extent that he sold some of their property and used it to fund their food and lodgings that is true but only for a short while. She left him before he got the bulk of his inheritance and in fact ended up helping stop him from getting it.
-
To the extent that he sold some of their property and used it to fund their food and lodgings that is true but only for a short while. She left him before he got the bulk of his inheritance and in fact ended up helping stop him from getting it.
Yes,after she'd accepted her freebie holiday with spends.
-
Yes,after she'd accepted her freebie holiday with spends.
That still doesn't amount to their blood being on her hands. What she has to live with is knowing that she could have thwarted him had she told people about his plans. She said she didn't think he would really do it. Had she told people what he was saying then he would not have been able to do it because then he would be blamed. That is what she has pondered since.
-
That still doesn't amount to their blood being on her hands. What she has to live with is knowing that she could have thwarted him had she told people about his plans. She said she didn't think he would really do it. Had she told people what he was saying then he would not have been able to do it because then he would be blamed. That is what she has pondered since.
Where did she say "she didn't think he'd do it ?". Another of Aesops little jobbies ?
-
Where did she say "she didn't think he'd do it ?". Another of Aesops little jobbies ?
In her statements and at trial she said she didn't think he was serious and thought he was just blowing off steam.
-
That still doesn't amount to their blood being on her hands. What she has to live with is knowing that she could have thwarted him had she told people about his plans. She said she didn't think he would really do it. Had she told people what he was saying then he would not have been able to do it because then he would be blamed. That is what she has pondered since.
You're very good sometimes at stating the obvious making it look so profound..
-
You're very good sometimes at stating the obvious making it look so profound..
I stated the obvious to refute false claims being made about her having blood on her hands.
-
I stated the obvious to refute false claims being made about her having blood on her hands.
METAPHOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!