Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: wiggy on November 13, 2015, 02:51:PM
-
I have loved reading all the interesting theory's in this forum most are well thought out and some even plausible. The problem is there is no evidence to back any of them up.
this case as I've said before should be overturned not because of theory's but because there is no evidence that would show that without any doubt JB is guilty.
Case rests on 3 things as per trial and summing up of the Judge.
1. Do we believe Julie Mongford
2. The silencer being found and red paint and blood found
3. Did JB get a call from his father
I do not know how appeals work but i believe there needs to be new evidence availible that would have effected the judgement of the jury. If in the opinion of the appeal board there is no such evidence that would change the jurys perception then the appeal would be stopped.
Here is where i have a problem with he judicial system. They always seem to err on the side that the original verdict was sound and seem very seldom to allow appeals there have been a number on convictions overturned on second and third appeals. This shows the bias towards not wanting to admit there may have been mistakes made.
Look at the case of Susan May who supposedly killed her aunt for her money wheb she already had control of her money with a POA although there was good eyesight witnessing a red car at the scene this was ignored as the police had made up there mind the woman was guilty.
This went to appeal several times and the womans name never cleared although its pretty obvious to anyone she was innocent.
If you look at this case ant take the three point that convicted him.
1. Do we believe Julie Mongford
If the jury at the time of trial were made aware that she had been given immunity to be prosecuted in return for her testifying would they have been so inclined to believe her. If also they new that straight after the trial she got £25,000 for selling her story only on a guilty verdict.
Surely this new evidence that the original jury did not have would have changed there perception of her testimony.
2. The silencer and the blood evidence now casts doubt on whether the blood in there was Sheilas. It doesn't prove it wasn't her blood but shows that there is no way to be certain. If the jury was told at trial there was so much uncertainty about the blood that may have changed there perception especially if they doubted JM statement.
Also i have read that there was a log stating that the cupboard where JBs lovely cousin found the silencer was searched by police and nothing found surley there is a doubt that it was actually there. The police didnt see it being found there JBs cousin took it on himself to take it home contaminating the evidence by removing it from the scene and the police pick it up there rather than from the farm.
The red scratches on the fireplace also seem in doubt im not sure that the photographic evidence is clear as the scratches were under the ledge so not sure if the photos show this. However if you take the fact that the silencer was not found by the police which severely taints that as evidence the police who from the start thought there had been a struggle must have looked for signs of this but in all there looking failed to spot the marks on the fireplace so along with the fact the silencer and marks were pointed out by the relatives and missed by the eagle eyed police(sarcasm sorry) this evidence is tainted.
If the jury had been told that the cupboard had been searched at the trial and nothing found this would have possibly changed there opinion.
3. Did JB dad make a call to his son. What evidence did the prosecution bring to disprove this call.
in reading the evidence there is no evidence either way the reason the jury were so easily persuaded that the call may not have happened was that they felt (based on JMs testimony that is was possible that JB was lying) that it was more likely a way of inventing an alibi. However if they knew about JMs immunity and newspaper deal they would not have easily believed her and would have been more likely to take JB at his word.
so to summarize
JMs testimony now tainted as she was to benefit from testifying and a guilty verdict
No definitive blood evidence on silencer , and police not finding silencer or the marks on the fireplace after an extensive search, and the relatives (who gained by JBs guilty verdict) handing in the silencer but from a diffrent address rather than pointing the find out to officers at the farm.
the phone call evidence of which there is none either way can not be used as evidence alone as there is no proof on whether call wa made or not. JB was not believed because the jury were more likely to believe JM but not if they knew about her tainted evidence.
in short theory's are good and entertaining and some quite plausible but lets try and stick to the facts of which there is very little therefore is an unsound conviction.
-
Exactly. No evidence at all and what was used was contaminated which should have been stated as inconclusive. Even in our DNA age,a match has to be a perfect one or the findings are no longer unique to that particular person,so how could the lab. say for absolute certainty that blood found on the silencer belonged to Sheila ? Rabbits blood is similar to human blood when tested,but the blood in question was only grouped of which there are a percentage of people with a similar blood group.
Julie Mugford had been coerced into saying what she'd said,knowing that there was a reward at the end of it. Pity the jury hadn't known ?
Finally I'm 100% certain that Jeremy is innocent. The exaggerations which made in the case beggared belief. EP needed a conviction under their belts or their heads went on the chopping block after their abysmal failures prior to the WHF murders.
-
again i cant say whether he is guilty or not but the verdict is most definitely unsafe
-
Oh god. You obviously haven't read enough threads.
Julie approached the police and completed her WS before they knew anything about hers and SB's minor cheque book fraud. She also told them about Bamber's caravan break in without any pressure from them.
The 25k NOTW offer was made a year after her approach to the police. Because the NOTW got inside information that Bamber was guilty and wouldn't be able to provide an interview. They needed a back up exclusive.
-
The police were not looking for incriminating evidence within the 4 days after the massacre. So were not going to open every box. Especially small one's at the back of cupboards underneath other things.
The relatives were looking for evidence. And found it.
It was human blood. Almost certainly Sheila's.
-
Even the judge called Neville's call 'mysterious'. Which the Oxford dictionary terms 'difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.
There is also a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence. Which has been posted.
-
thanks for that adam that has rely cleared it up.
The evidence is overwhelming.
there definitively was no call as the evidence shows(oh wait there is no evidence to show if there was or wasn't a call) However in his summing up he gave an opinion that it was mysterious there is grounds for a mistrial just on that point )
The blood almost certainly being sheilas means it definitely was sheilas (is almost certainly and definitely the same word)
The police were not looking for any incriminating evidence ah well that explains it( the police would still need to document the crime scene and look for clues even i it was suicide by shelia it was still a murder
plus as i said there is documented evidence that the cupboard was seached and nothing found,
plus if the relatives found the silencer it would be more convincing would it not to have alerted the police to it rather than take it back to the other house. Dosent that raise any doubts at all.
im glad to see that you are however very open minded in you assessment of the facts.
As i have stated i have no idea whether he is guilty or not but where are the facts.
Also as far as JM statement is concerned she has shown to have lied as her first statement contradicts her statements after and only after she finds out she is being cheated on.
I hae no idea why she went to the police to tell them that JB told her he done it but isnt there any doubt in your mind that it happened after she found out he had been cheating on her and not before.
its all about reasonable doubt and in this case there is a lot of reasonable doubt. No concrete evidence and the term almost certainly is not enough.
-
Oh god. You obviously haven't read enough threads.
Julie approached the police and completed her WS before they knew anything about hers and SB's minor cheque book fraud. She also told them about Bamber's caravan break in without any pressure from them.
The 25k NOTW offer was made a year after her approach to the police. Because the NOTW got inside information that Bamber was guilty and wouldn't be able to provide an interview. They needed a back up exclusive.
Adam why do you think it is against the law for a newspaper to make an offer to any key witness in a trial before the trial has finished?
-
The police were not looking for incriminating evidence within the 4 days after the massacre. So were not going to open every box. Especially small one's at the back of cupboards underneath other things.
The relatives were looking for evidence. And found it.
It was human blood. Almost certainly Sheila's.
It was still murder and suicide in their eyes so it still should have been investigated properly . No excuses . They handled the rifle without gloves . They handled the silencer without gloves. They lost count of the amount of officers who entered the crime scene. They did not ask ballistic experts to visit the crime scene . They burnt items in the house ( their idea not that of Jeremy) I could go on.
-
The police were not looking for incriminating evidence within the 4 days after the massacre. So were not going to open every box. Especially small one's at the back of cupboards underneath other things.
The relatives were looking for evidence. And found it.
It was human blood. Almost certainly Sheila's.
Adam - why did they not declare the animal blood that was found on the silencer?
-
Even the judge called Neville's call 'mysterious'. Which the Oxford dictionary terms 'difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.
There is also a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence. Which has been posted.
No there is not a mountain of forensic evidence - your grammar is misleading.
There is nothing to place Jeremy at the scene on that night at the time of the murders.
-
Wiggy - to be clear I am still asking questions about the case and there are plenty of people on the forum who totally believe him to be guilty so someone has the balance the debate :)otherwise it would be too one sided. But there are plenty of actual documents on the site
-
Oh god. You obviously haven't read enough threads.
Julie approached the police and completed her WS before they knew anything about hers and SB's minor cheque book fraud. She also told them about Bamber's caravan break in without any pressure from them.
The 25k NOTW offer was made a year after her approach to the police. Because the NOTW got inside information that Bamber was guilty and wouldn't be able to provide an interview. They needed a back up exclusive.
How do you know how much Wiggy has read? That's a bit rude of you?
-
How do you know how much Wiggy has read? That's a bit rude of you?
Jan that is quite right Adam has not got a clue how much Wiggy has read it takes months to read all his threads never mind Mike's and other information on here.
-
Susan I agree I believe it is bad manners to start insulting posters when they have just joined.
-
thanks folks
I have read and look over quite a bit of stuff over the last week. But to look over everything and take i all in i have not done yet.
A lot of the stuff is ope to so much interpretation so again we come back to the fact there is no overwhelming evidence and on the 3 main reasons for his conviction the silencer , the call, and the testimony of JM are definitely in question and if the judge (and adam i have not read the full summing up yet although i know its on here somewhere) but if he said the telephone call was mysterious that in itself is grounds for a retrial as that is an opinion not a summary but i would need to see the context in which he said it.
In this country we believe in the burden of proof. This means that any suspect is to be seen as innocent unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.
JB in this case needs to prove nothing he doesn't need to prove the phone call or that JM is lying but the prosecution need to prove there was no call and that all of what JM says is true they failed to do this with any actual evidence.
I know JB took a lie detector and i know there not 100% accurate i wonder id JM would pass one. Maybe the sun newspaper should offer her £100 000 to take one if she is confident of passing
-
A good reasonable post. I like the end bit.
-
Exactly. No evidence at all and what was used was contaminated which should have been stated as inconclusive. Even in our DNA age,a match has to be a perfect one or the findings are no longer unique to that particular person,so how could the lab. say for absolute certainty that blood found on the silencer belonged to Sheila ? Rabbits blood is similar to human blood when tested,but the blood in question was only grouped of which there are a percentage of people with a similar blood group.
Julie Mugford had been coerced into saying what she'd said,knowing that there was a reward at the end of it. Pity the jury hadn't known ?
Finally I'm 100% certain that Jeremy is innocent. The exaggerations which made in the case beggared belief. EP needed a conviction under their belts or their heads went on the chopping block after their abysmal failures prior to the WHF murders.
There is defo no evidence that there was a phone call - just a story by Jeremy that kicked the whole thing off so if we're talking about 'lack of evidence' - lets start with that!!
-
There is defo no evidence that there was a phone call - just a story by Jeremy that kicked the whole thing off so if we're talking about 'lack of evidence' - lets start with that!!
Do any of US know for SURE that there was no evidence of a phone-call ? No.
-
Do any of US know for SURE that there was no evidence of a phone-call ? No.
Err yes we do DEFINITELY! Given that the system of the time didn't allow for the call to be registered.
-
Err yes we do DEFINITELY! Given that the system of the time didn't allow for the call to be registered.
Last call number on the digital phone which was used.
-
Perhaps the ct can start trying to raise funds to get jm to take a lie detector as i for ond do not believe her evidence.
-
Perhaps the ct can start trying to raise funds to get jm to take a lie detector as i for ond do not believe her evidence.
Just how do you think she might be persuaded to do such? Isn't there something here about leading a horse to water.............................?
-
You're not on your own,Notsure.
-
She wouldnt take one. Not in a million years but if she did as far as im concerned if it came back that she was truthful then i would believe that and accept he was guilty.
Never going to happen though.
-
Last call number on the digital phone which was used.
What? ;D ;D ;D
-
Perhaps the ct can start trying to raise funds to get jm to take a lie detector as i for ond do not believe her evidence.
How do you think they can force her to take such a test?
-
She wouldnt take one. Not in a million years but if she did as far as im concerned if it came back that she was truthful then i would believe that and accept he was guilty.
Never going to happen though.
Let me get this right. You're saying that the only way in which you'll believe she told the truth is by doing something that you can rest assured she'll never do. Interesting. Can you tell us which part of her testimony you believe to be untruthful?
-
As much as I find Julies Evidence very hard to believe I do appreciate that apparently she was willing to appear at one of the appeals - although apparently she did not in the end say anything ( I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong) So unfortunately we don't know whether she was going to re-enforce her evidence or not .
-
the point being she will never take a lie detector. However if she was so sure of her testimony and to put the people who don't believe her closer to believing her. But as you say it wont happen.
jane the point of there being noproof of the telephone call is that in British law JB does not have to prove that there was a call it is up to the prosecution to prove there wasn't one .
They can not prove that there was no call just as they cant prove that there was definate match of Shirleys blood on the silencer.
The bottom line is JMs testimony is tainted without her testimony which should have been disallowed i believe the jury would have found in his favour.
As again he is presumed innocent until proven different.
I actually think he may be guilty but i also believe that he should not have been convicted on the evidence.
-
that what a lot of us belive.
-
the point being she will never take a lie detector. However if she was so sure of her testimony and to put the people who don't believe her closer to believing her. But as you say it wont happen.
jane the point of there being noproof of the telephone call is that in British law JB does not have to prove that there was a call it is up to the prosecution to prove there wasn't one .
They can not prove that there was no call just as they cant prove that there was definate match of Shirleys blood on the silencer.
The bottom line is JMs testimony is tainted without her testimony which should have been disallowed i believe the jury would have found in his favour.
As again he is presumed innocent until proven different.
I actually think he may be guilty but i also believe that he should not have been convicted on the evidence.
Julie gave her testimony. Her testimony was believed by those to whom it mattered. To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't she who was on trial. Why, on God's earth, would she, 30 years on, threaten the very foundations of her present life simply because a few people don't believe her? With all the variables connected to a STRESS DETECTOR test, would you?
As for proving a telephone call DIDN'T happen, as far as I'm aware, it's still impossible to prove a negative.
-
the point being she will never take a lie detector. However if she was so sure of her testimony and to put the people who don't believe her closer to believing her. But as you say it wont happen. She doesn't have to, unless there is a retrial or an appeal - it's only Jeremy supporters and people interested in the case who question her testimony and in general, I don't think that amounts to a whole lot of people
jane the point of there being noproof of the telephone call is that in British law JB does not have to prove that there was a call it is up to the prosecution to prove there wasn't one . I think they did prove that but if he wants an appeal or a retrial, he would have to PROVE there was a call - he's a convicted man, no longer innocent until proven guilty.
They can not prove that there was no call just as they cant prove that there was definate match of Shirleys blood on the silencer. They don't have to, he's been convicted and don't call me Shirley! ;D ;D
The bottom line is JMs testimony is tainted without her testimony which should have been disallowed i believe the jury would have found in his favour. And a guilty man would have walked free
As again he is presumed innocent until proven different. He has been
I actually think he may be guilty but i also believe that he should not have been convicted on the evidence. There is a whole lot of evidence that convicted him, not just Julie's testimony and the silencer
-
the point being she will never take a lie detector. However if she was so sure of her testimony and to put the people who don't believe her closer to believing her. But as you say it wont happen.
jane the point of there being noproof of the telephone call is that in British law JB does not have to prove that there was a call it is up to the prosecution to prove there wasn't one .
They can not prove that there was no call just as they cant prove that there was definate match of Shirleys blood on the silencer.
The bottom line is JMs testimony is tainted without her testimony which should have been disallowed i believe the jury would have found in his favour.
As again he is presumed innocent until proven different.
I actually think he may be guilty but i also believe that he should not have been convicted on the evidence.
today I think any accused person would have fought tooth and nail to have the moderator evidence excluded because it was removed from the crime scene and handled in a totally non forensic way.
-
thank you jane im glad you agree that the telephone call can not be proved or unproved which is why we have the presumption of innocence.
im glad you now understand this
And i totally get that JM would never do a lie dectector and she was not on trial thats right all her charges were dropped. The point being if the jury knew she had immunity when she testified it would change there perception of her testimony which has never been collaborated by any evidence . Also do you really think she had no conversation prior to the trial re selling her story on a guilty verdict.
Her testimony whether it was true or not is tainted. It was also inaccurate or have they now arrested the hitman that she claims shot the family.
Tell me jane on what piece of actual evidence would you convict JB on.
The blood evidence is not definite the family moved the evidence rather than pointing it out to the police . JMs testimony is tainted. And no proof that JB didn't in fact receive a call from his father.
So what insight do you have to say without any doubt at all that he did it.
-
today I think any accused person would have fought tooth and nail to have the moderator evidence excluded because it was removed from the crime scene and handled in a totally non forensic way.
I do agree with you on this.
-
not only was it removed but removed and given to the police from teh very family members that benifited from JB being convidted
-
There is a lot of disputed evidence about Jeremys character - but the fact is he could have been arrogant and money obsessed ( although this is contradicted by some evidence) but this does not make him a murderer .
And the same goes for Sheila -she could have been very ill ( she was)and possibly depressed - but that does not make her a murderer either- but she would not need a motive.
So if you wanted to convict one of them - what would you do?
-
thank you jane im glad you agree that the telephone call can not be proved or unproved which is why we have the presumption of innocence.
im glad you now understand this
And i totally get that JM would never do a lie dectector and she was not on trial thats right all her charges were dropped. The point being if the jury knew she had immunity when she testified it would change there perception of her testimony which has never been collaborated by any evidence . Also do you really think she had no conversation prior to the trial re selling her story on a guilty verdict.
Her testimony whether it was true or not is tainted. It was also inaccurate or have they now arrested the hitman that she claims shot the family.
Tell me jane on what piece of actual evidence would you convict JB on.
The blood evidence is not definite the family moved the evidence rather than pointing it out to the police . JMs testimony is tainted. And no proof that JB didn't in fact receive a call from his father.
So what insight do you have to say without any doubt at all that he did it.
The angle of the first shot is 45 degree's and impossible to achieve and land in the position that Sheila was found in with the gun laying neatly across her chest. You don't have to be a forensic expert to realise no one holds a gun at a 45 degree angle when shooting themselves or that the crime scene was far too neat. Sheila had never used that weapon before so why would she choose it to shoot the family?
The jury didn't believe he received a call - they have the right to evaluate his story on the evidence provided. They decided it was BS.
-
without proper evidence you cant convict any of them.
There are a few high profile cases where seemingly well people with mental health problems have gone
a bit mad with guns .
Port Arthur massacre and Dunblane and hungerford to name a few
but again is there enough evidence to be sure it was sheila i have no idea .
its not about that its a bout how sound the conviction was with the evidence presented
-
There is a lot of disputed evidence about Jeremys character - but the fact is he could have been arrogant and money obsessed ( although this is contradicted by some evidence) but this does not make him a murderer . No, but it does give a motive
And the same goes for Sheila -she could have been very ill ( she was)and possibly depressed - but that does not make her a murderer either- but she would not need a motive. But if she 'went crazy' her choice of weapon would have been spontaneous not calculated
So if you wanted to convict one of them - what would you do? I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to show Jeremy is guilty and once to dismiss the BS from the OS - it's a no brainer.
-
without proper evidence you cant convict any of them.
There are a few high profile cases where seemingly well people with mental health problems have gone
a bit mad with guns .
Port Arthur massacre and Dunblane and hungerford to name a few
but again is there enough evidence to be sure it was sheila i have no idea .
its not about that its a bout how sound the conviction was with the evidence presented
It's sound even without the moderator.
-
The angle of the first shot is 45 degree's and impossible to achieve and land in the position that Sheila was found in with the gun laying neatly across her chest.
There again does not prove JB shot her and as you can see from the evidence photos there are photos of the body and the gun in more than one position. There is no doubt the crime scene was contaminated so the photos cannot be taken as evidence as we have no idea when the scene was staged but due to actual facts ie the photos the body was definitely moved
Sheila had never used that weapon before so why would she choose it to shoot the family?
there is again no evidence to say she never used that weapon before its unlikely that she did but no evidence and if it was sheila and im not saying it was it may have been the most handy weapon.
The jury didn't believe he received a call - they have the right to evaluate his story on the evidence provided. They decided it was BS.
The Jury gave a verdict of guilty they did not express any views as to what they believed or didn't believe on individual testimony. And if the prosecution cannot prove without reasonable doubt that JB did not have a call this should have been reiterated by the judges summing up not that the phone call was mysterious . Giving an impression to the jury.
-
The angle of the first shot is 45 degree's and impossible to achieve and land in the position that Sheila was found in with the gun laying neatly across her chest.
There again does not prove JB shot her and as you can see from the evidence photos there are photos of the body and the gun in more than one position. There is no doubt the crime scene was contaminated so the photos cannot be taken as evidence as we have no idea when the scene was staged but due to actual facts ie the photos the body was definitely moved
Sheila had never used that weapon before so why would she choose it to shoot the family?
there is again no evidence to say she never used that weapon before its unlikely that she did but no evidence and if it was sheila and im not saying it was it may have been the most handy weapon.
The jury didn't believe he received a call - they have the right to evaluate his story on the evidence provided. They decided it was BS.
The Jury gave a verdict of guilty they did not express any views as to what they believed or didn't believe on individual testimony. And if the prosecution cannot prove without reasonable doubt that JB did not have a call this should have been reiterated by the judges summing up not that the phone call was mysterious . Giving an impression to the jury.
It has been said on this forum that Sheilas body was moved (pulled flat) and that means she did not commit suicide .
And that what worries me .If she could be conscious after the first shot , how do we know that she was not really determined and sat up for the first shot - then when it did not work just moved herself down and flat for the second one?
It also worries me that it was not considered as a crime scene and the two officers were correct about her body and the bible/gun being moved?
So they came across the scene - Sheila was in an embarrassing position ( nightdress up ) so as they had decided it was a cut a dry case they checked the rifle was safe and then moved the body and took the photos .
so therefore the jury were misled.
EP were not going to admit that were they when they were being vilified in the press?
-
thanks for that adam that has rely cleared it up.
The evidence is overwhelming.
there definitively was no call as the evidence shows(oh wait there is no evidence to show if there was or wasn't a call) However in his summing up he gave an opinion that it was mysterious there is grounds for a mistrial just on that point )
The blood almost certainly being sheilas means it definitely was sheilas (is almost certainly and definitely the same word)
The police were not looking for any incriminating evidence ah well that explains it( the police would still need to document the crime scene and look for clues even i it was suicide by shelia it was still a murder
plus as i said there is documented evidence that the cupboard was seached and nothing found,
plus if the relatives found the silencer it would be more convincing would it not to have alerted the police to it rather than take it back to the other house. Dosent that raise any doubts at all.
im glad to see that you are however very open minded in you assessment of the facts.
As i have stated i have no idea whether he is guilty or not but where are the facts.
Also as far as JM statement is concerned she has shown to have lied as her first statement contradicts her statements after and only after she finds out she is being cheated on.
I hae no idea why she went to the police to tell them that JB told her he done it but isnt there any doubt in your mind that it happened after she found out he had been cheating on her and not before.
its all about reasonable doubt and in this case there is a lot of reasonable doubt. No concrete evidence and the term almost certainly is not enough.
Much of what you need to know about what the Jury did not hear can be found in a letter from Bambers Lawyer Paul Terzeon
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754
-
The angle of the first shot is 45 degree's and impossible to achieve and land in the position that Sheila was found in with the gun laying neatly across her chest.
There again does not prove JB shot her and as you can see from the evidence photos there are photos of the body and the gun in more than one position. There is no doubt the crime scene was contaminated so the photos cannot be taken as evidence as we have no idea when the scene was staged but due to actual facts ie the photos the body was definitely moved.
Sheila had never used that weapon before so why would she choose it to shoot the family?
there is again no evidence to say she never used that weapon before its unlikely that she did but no evidence and if it was sheila and im not saying it was it may have been the most handy weapon.
The jury didn't believe he received a call - they have the right to evaluate his story on the evidence provided. They decided it was BS.
The Jury gave a verdict of guilty they did not express any views as to what they believed or didn't believe on individual testimony. And if the prosecution cannot prove without reasonable doubt that JB did not have a call this should have been reiterated by the judges summing up not that the phone call was mysterious . Giving an impression to the jury.
Who else shot her?
-
you again miss the point its not about who shot her its about does the evidence prove that JB did
-
you again miss the point its not about who shot her its about does the evidence prove that JB did
No, I'm not missing any point, Jeremy called the police and told them he received a call from his father stating that Sheila had gone crazy, she had the gun. If there was a call, Sheila killed herself, if there wasn't - Jeremy HAD to be the killer. Now, if you're now admitting that a 45 degree shot is pretty much impossible - Neville is dead downstairs, June and the twins are also dead (the twins never having moved) and Sheila has the gun placed on her body after one impossible shot and another immediately fatal wound! Who shot Sheila?
I think Jeremy's story about a phone call pretty much proves he is guilty.
-
im not admitting a 45 degree shot is impossible as i don't know if it is no one does but its not enough to prove JB done it.
you seem to have made your mind up based on your opinion not on facts
i have not stated anything that is not a fact.
but you want to take great leeps of supposition. I dont get how you can be so sure and have no doubt whatsoever.
even with the facts i have pointed out
Flawed forensic , flawed testimony ect
-
im not admitting a 45 degree shot is impossible as i don't know if it is no one does but its not enough to prove JB done it.
you seem to have made your mind up based on your opinion not on facts
i have not stated anything that is not a fact.
but you want to take great leeps of supposition. I dont get how you can be so sure and have no doubt whatsoever.
even with the facts i have pointed out
Flawed forensic , flawed testimony ect
You haven't really stated anything at all - just made claims that there was no evidence which is wrong. Circumstantial evidence is used every day to convict and there was an abundance. However, specifically, which testimony was flawed and what proof do you have that it was flawed?
I have no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty - none!
-
there is plenty of circumstancial evidence yes but no factual evidence to back this up.
it is universally agreed he was convicted mainly on three main points
1. The silencer
2. The phone call
3. JMs testimony
1. the silencer evidence is flawed as was found by the very people that had the most to gain by JB being convicted. It was taken from the scene and not pointed out to the police for them to take it. Which would be argued is inadmissible . There is no definite identification that Sheilas blood was on the silencer.
2. The fact JB received a call from his father cannot be disputed as there is no way to disprove it without there being some doubt.
3. JM testimony must be taken with a pinch of salt as there is no way to verify most of what she says plus she was given immunity from prosecution for her testimony and from september 85 was in conversation through a solicitor of Ellison & Company to negotiate the rights to her story on a guilty verdict.
There was other flawed testimony especially David Boutflour who was (and not desclosed at the trial) was to directly gain from JB being convicted. He seemed very unclear on any answers that may have helped JB but more confident with his memory when it did not help him. The whole farce of whether he remembered a shooting outing to scotland. Either say he remembered or he didnt he kept changing what he remembered. Very suspicious.
there was other circumstantial evidence but without the three above the jury would i think have ruled differently.
Plus the police investigation was a nightmare. they definitely re staged the crime scene as you can see by the photos of sheila in two positions. There are also statements to say that they were the ones that did most of the disturbance in the kitchen knocking over chairs and knocking over the sugar bowl. Also although i dont want to speculate but there is suppose to be a recording of the police radios recording open conversations as they entered the farm house but this has never been released. Why.
The sloppy way the calls to the police were logged which causes confusion as to whether the father called the police or if two separate logs were the same log. The police ran this whole operation very badly. I wonder how many officers were disciplined internally.
It is arrogant of anyone with the evidence presented that you can say JB did it.
As i said i think he might have but not on this evidence.
I also think there should be a law passed that no witness in a trial should be able to profit by selling there story on a guilty verdict.
Once a trial is over the witness should not be allowed to gain for the contents of there testimony.
Plus JM should have been charged with conspiracy is JB had in fact told her a number of times his plan and on the day told her tonights the night and she done nothing to alert the police this can be construed as conspiracy as she said nothing the next day. In fact she went and identified the bodies.
If he also told her at the farmhouse as she claims the day after that the hit man did it then the fact she did not go forward on that day that at minimum withholding evidence.
-
there is plenty of circumstancial evidence yes but no factual evidence to back this up.
it is universally agreed he was convicted mainly on three main points
1. The silencer
2. The phone call
3. JMs testimony
1. the silencer evidence is flawed as was found by the very people that had the most to gain by JB being convicted. It was taken from the scene and not pointed out to the police for them to take it. Which would be argued is inadmissible . There is no definite identification that Sheilas blood was on the silencer.
2. The fact JB received a call from his father cannot be disputed as there is no way to disprove it without there being some doubt.
3. JM testimony must be taken with a pinch of salt as there is no way to verify most of what she says plus she was given immunity from prosecution for her testimony and from september 85 was in conversation through a solicitor of Ellison & Company to negotiate the rights to her story on a guilty verdict.
There was other flawed testimony especially David Boutflour who was (and not desclosed at the trial) was to directly gain from JB being convicted. He seemed very unclear on any answers that may have helped JB but more confident with his memory when it did not help him. The whole farce of whether he remembered a shooting outing to scotland. Either say he remembered or he didnt he kept changing what he remembered. Very suspicious.
there was other circumstantial evidence but without the three above the jury would i think have ruled differently.
Plus the police investigation was a nightmare. they definitely re staged the crime scene as you can see by the photos of sheila in two positions. There are also statements to say that they were the ones that did most of the disturbance in the kitchen knocking over chairs and knocking over the sugar bowl. Also although i dont want to speculate but there is suppose to be a recording of the police radios recording open conversations as they entered the farm house but this has never been released. Why.
The sloppy way the calls to the police were logged which causes confusion as to whether the father called the police or if two separate logs were the same log. The police ran this whole operation very badly. I wonder how many officers were disciplined internally.
It is arrogant of anyone with the evidence presented that you can say JB did it.
As i said i think he might have but not on this evidence.
I also think there should be a law passed that no witness in a trial should be able to profit by selling there story on a guilty verdict.
Once a trial is over the witness should not be allowed to gain for the contents of there testimony.
Plus JM should have been charged with conspiracy is JB had in fact told her a number of times his plan and on the day told her tonights the night and she done nothing to alert the police this can be construed as conspiracy as she said nothing the next day. In fact she went and identified the bodies.
If he also told her at the farmhouse as she claims the day after that the hit man did it then the fact she did not go forward on that day that at minimum withholding evidence.
I don't care if you think I'm arrogant or not - it's clear from your posts that you don't know much about the case anyway! When you have sorted you fact from myth, then I might consider your opinion. Right now, you seem to be a newby with a chip or an agenda!
-
ive no chip on my shoulder and i think you may have taken my comments of our arrogance in the wrong way.
I will again say i have no idea whether he is innocent or guilty i probably think on the basis of probability he may have done it.
Again i think though it is arrogant to presume that what JM states is true that the crime scene wasn't compromised and that the silencer evidence is inadmissible due to no definate identification of blood, and of how it was found.
Yes JB had a motive but then every son of a wealthy family would have a motive. Did he have opportunity to commit the crime , yes he did did he have the means to carry it out , yes he did but again this alone can not convict. I cant understand why anyone can not see that there is doubt however small that doubt is then he must not be convicted.
Again i dont mean this in a rude way or a chip on my shoulder way i just dont understand the arrogance of there being no doubt whatsoever even though there was so much as above that was tainted.
im sorry if i offend anyone who can see no doubt in his conviction.
-
Again i think though it is arrogant to presume that what JM states is true that the crime scene wasn't compromised and that the silencer evidence is inadmissible due to no definate identification of blood, and of how it was found.
How's it arrogant to agree with the outcome of the investigation, when it can be backed up with reports?
Yes JB had a motive but then every son of a wealthy family would have a motive.
But not everyone son of a wealthy family talks about ways in which to kill his family, who then suddenly turn up dead.
Again i dont mean this in a rude way or a chip on my shoulder way i just dont understand the arrogance of there being no doubt whatsoever even though there was so much as above that was tainted.
I think you need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. You think there is doubt, and that it is arrogance anyone dares disagree with you, well that is just your opinion. Those in a legal sense that have looked at the case have rejected the appeals and been found just in doing so - are they arrogant too for not agreeing with you?
I think alot of the people believe there is no doubt, because they know the case well enough to have a strong opinion on it.
-
there is plenty of circumstancial evidence yes but no factual evidence to back this up.
it is universally agreed he was convicted mainly on three main points
1. The silencer
2. The phone call
3. JMs testimony
1. the silencer evidence is flawed as was found by the very people that had the most to gain by JB being convicted. It was taken from the scene and not pointed out to the police for them to take it. Which would be argued is inadmissible . There is no definite identification that Sheilas blood was on the silencer.
2. The fact JB received a call from his father cannot be disputed as there is no way to disprove it without there being some doubt.
3. JM testimony must be taken with a pinch of salt as there is no way to verify most of what she says plus she was given immunity from prosecution for her testimony and from september 85 was in conversation through a solicitor of Ellison & Company to negotiate the rights to her story on a guilty verdict.
There was other flawed testimony especially David Boutflour who was (and not desclosed at the trial) was to directly gain from JB being convicted. He seemed very unclear on any answers that may have helped JB but more confident with his memory when it did not help him. The whole farce of whether he remembered a shooting outing to scotland. Either say he remembered or he didnt he kept changing what he remembered. Very suspicious.
there was other circumstantial evidence but without the three above the jury would i think have ruled differently.
Plus the police investigation was a nightmare. they definitely re staged the crime scene as you can see by the photos of sheila in two positions. There are also statements to say that they were the ones that did most of the disturbance in the kitchen knocking over chairs and knocking over the sugar bowl. Also although i dont want to speculate but there is suppose to be a recording of the police radios recording open conversations as they entered the farm house but this has never been released. Why.
The sloppy way the calls to the police were logged which causes confusion as to whether the father called the police or if two separate logs were the same log. The police ran this whole operation very badly. I wonder how many officers were disciplined internally.
It is arrogant of anyone with the evidence presented that you can say JB did it.
As i said i think he might have but not on this evidence.
I also think there should be a law passed that no witness in a trial should be able to profit by selling there story on a guilty verdict.
Once a trial is over the witness should not be allowed to gain for the contents of there testimony.
Plus JM should have been charged with conspiracy is JB had in fact told her a number of times his plan and on the day told her tonights the night and she done nothing to alert the police this can be construed as conspiracy as she said nothing the next day. In fact she went and identified the bodies.
If he also told her at the farmhouse as she claims the day after that the hit man did it then the fact she did not go forward on that day that at minimum withholding evidence.
There are over 30 pieces of incriminating forensic evidence. Which I have posted several times.
-
thanks for that adam that has rely cleared it up.
The evidence is overwhelming.
there definitively was no call as the evidence shows(oh wait there is no evidence to show if there was or wasn't a call) However in his summing up he gave an opinion that it was mysterious there is grounds for a mistrial just on that point )
The blood almost certainly being sheilas means it definitely was sheilas (is almost certainly and definitely the same word)
The police were not looking for any incriminating evidence ah well that explains it( the police would still need to document the crime scene and look for clues even i it was suicide by shelia it was still a murder
plus as i said there is documented evidence that the cupboard was seached and nothing found,
plus if the relatives found the silencer it would be more convincing would it not to have alerted the police to it rather than take it back to the other house. Dosent that raise any doubts at all.
im glad to see that you are however very open minded in you assessment of the facts.
As i have stated i have no idea whether he is guilty or not but where are the facts.
Also as far as JM statement is concerned she has shown to have lied as her first statement contradicts her statements after and only after she finds out she is being cheated on.
I hae no idea why she went to the police to tell them that JB told her he done it but isnt there any doubt in your mind that it happened after she found out he had been cheating on her and not before.
its all about reasonable doubt and in this case there is a lot of reasonable doubt. No concrete evidence and the term almost certainly is not enough.
Do you believe Julie went to the police because she was jilted ?
She was then one warped, savage, confident, brave, and vindictive 21 year old woman. And her outright lies were amazingly believed.
It is inconclusive whether she was jilted. And even more inconclusive that she was bothered. Anyway jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.
Several threads on this.
-
thank you jane im glad you agree that the telephone call can not be proved or unproved which is why we have the presumption of innocence.
im glad you now understand this
And i totally get that JM would never do a lie dectector and she was not on trial thats right all her charges were dropped. The point being if the jury knew she had immunity when she testified it would change there perception of her testimony which has never been collaborated by any evidence . Also do you really think she had no conversation prior to the trial re selling her story on a guilty verdict.
Her testimony whether it was true or not is tainted. It was also inaccurate or have they now arrested the hitman that she claims shot the family.
Tell me jane on what piece of actual evidence would you convict JB on.
The blood evidence is not definite the family moved the evidence rather than pointing it out to the police . JMs testimony is tainted. And no proof that JB didn't in fact receive a call from his father.
So what insight do you have to say without any doubt at all that he did it.
Regarding the phone call. Try to put yourself in the position of anyone receiving an out of the blue call at around 3 am -it MAY turn out to be a wrong number or a hoax but you don't know that yet- every sense is going to be on high alert anticipating the worst. It IS the worst. Someone in that person's family has gone mad. They've got hold of a gun. There are children in the house. The caller sounds panicked -TERRIFIED!!!!!! If YOUR first instincts are to ignore the panic and terror, find the phone directory, diddle your way through it to look for a local -and probably unmanned- police station, phone a friend, then call yet another local numbered police station, rather than call 999 immediately, I TRULY hope no one in your family calls you in an emergency..........................
...........................Back to Jeremy. There was no sense of urgency when he relayed his story to the police other than the arrogant, last minute reprimand for keeping him waiting. The reason for this being that the call had been a fiction in which Jeremy had learned only the lines and not, what would naturally have been, the accompanying emotion which would have been conveyed to him.
Let's look at Julie and the immunity you allege she was given. A sprat to catch a mackerel? Bigger fish to fry? Actually, you're wrong when you say that she claimed a hit man was responsible. She claimed no such thing. She repeated what she claimed was told her by Jeremy...........................
...........................I WILL allow, however, that she knew more than she was willing to tell. If she provided Jeremy with the means to drug his family -albeit, it was a failure- she was obviously privy to what was happening. Might she have seen it as getting revenge on June for calling her a "harlot"? Might Jeremy have used it to get Julie on side?
That Julie may not have revealed to the court the full extent of her knowledge, points more to her deeper involvement AND Jeremy's guilt.
-
I don't care if you think I'm arrogant or not - it's clear from your posts that you don't know much about the case anyway! When you have sorted you fact from myth, then I might consider your opinion. Right now, you seem to be a newby with a chip or an agenda!
It's correct that Wiggy does not know much about the case. But I'm sure that will improve.
I recommend Roger Wilkes's book.
-
It's correct that Wiggy does not know much about the case. But I'm sure that will improve.
I recommend Roger Wilkes's book.
I recommend reading the documents in the archive here first before reading any books . And the CAL book is more up to date .
-
Lol i love how you manage to judge other peoples reactions in the way you may react. Im afraid we all react in a different way we cant judge how others would react.
You keep trying to make out that i think e is innocent i have never said that i have no idea whether he is my gut would be that yes he probably did it.
But you keep saying there is all this forensic evidence ect there is not. You seem to think im just an idiot and although i would not profess to be as clever as any of you pro guilt folk there is still no evidence that allows for reasonable doubt.
Im sorry if you cant see there is any room for doubt. This would not even get to court these days. There was so much incompetence from the police the conviction was tainted straight away.
The silencer would be inadmissible as evidence having been removed from the crime scene. JMs testimony would be stricken if the defense had argued she had received immunity plus was in negotiations to sell her story on a guilty verdict. There would have been no trial.
-
Do you believe Julie went to the police because she was jilted ?
She was then one warped, savage, confident, brave, and vindictive 21 year old woman. And her outright lies were amazingly believed.
It is inconclusive whether she was jilted. And even more inconclusive that she was bothered. Anyway jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.
Several threads on this.
But it WAS established in court that she'd been "very much in love with him and had hoped to marry him". She had also accepted his proposal of marriage on to have him renege on it. I think, as far as it went, she told the truth......................but not the whole truth.
-
Posters can join the forum whenever they want.
Before joining I read the most acclaimed available book and all the internet articles. I also read this forum for a few weeks before joining. It was pro Jeremy but none of the arguments convinced me.
While Susan said she joined the forum after watching one documentary.
Wiggy is in between the two and has done a bit of reading. But her arguments about why Bamber shouldn't have been convicted have been discussed and dismissed before, so posters are having to repeat things.
-
Lol i love how you manage to judge other peoples reactions in the way you may react. Im afraid we all react in a different way we cant judge how others would react.
You keep trying to make out that i think e is innocent i have never said that i have no idea whether he is my gut would be that yes he probably did it.
But you keep saying there is all this forensic evidence ect there is not. You seem to think im just an idiot and although i would not profess to be as clever as any of you pro guilt folk there is still no evidence that allows for reasonable doubt.
Im sorry if you cant see there is any room for doubt. This would not even get to court these days. There was so much incompetence from the police the conviction was tainted straight away.
The silencer would be inadmissible as evidence having been removed from the crime scene. JMs testimony would be stricken if the defense had argued she had received immunity plus was in negotiations to sell her story on a guilty verdict. There would have been no trial.
There are over 30 pieces of forensic evidence. Which I have already posted.
The police changed stance after one month. After further investigation. It was really only Bamber and the media promoting murder/suicide from day one. Which they are allowed to do, just as the police are allowed to act on new information.
The silencer being removed from the crime scene was allowed. Otherwise it would not have been a piece of evidence.
The jury were aware of Julie's and SB's minor cheque book fraud committed two years earlier.
-
One of the bits of her evidence I find really strange is the bit about the fingerprints on the rifle . Now we know the story about the hitman was a load of rubbish but this particular piece of evidence still seems to fit the scenario, the police did not use gloves when handling the gun or it was wiped - so this bit of info fitted in well with the situation the police were in. Now I know Adam is going to say she told her friends before the police but if the police were in contact with her earlier than we thought then perhaps they had sown that seed. I still think at one stage they did think a third person was involved.
I would love to think the police would not lie to get a conviction - but unfortunately they have admitted that in the 80s they did ):
-
i think its quite rude you have no idea what i have or haven't read.
And just because something has been dismissed before by yourself doesn't make it any less valid.
If you believe the crime scene was not contaminated and that it was ok for the silencer to be removed from the scene and that JM testimony had nothing to do with being jilted and then selling her story on a guilty verdict then your not as bright as some of your posts suggest.
Again i agree with most of what you say but in British law there should not have been a trial with the evidence presented.
There are areas of doubt in every aspect of what was presented.
Please expalin why you have no doubts based on the facts.
-
Posters can join the forum whenever they want.
Before joining I read the most acclaimed available book and all the internet articles. I also read this forum for a few weeks before joining. It was pro Jeremy but none of the arguments convinced me.
While Susan said she joined the forum after watching one documentary.
Wiggy is in between the two and has done a bit of reading. But her arguments about why Bamber shouldn't have been convicted have been discussed and dismissed before, so posters are having to repeat things.
That's ok Adam - don't repeat things . There are plenty of other posters who are willing to debate if you don't want to. :)
How do you know Wiggy is female?
-
i think its quite rude you have no idea what i have or haven't read.
And just because something has been dismissed before by yourself doesn't make it any less valid.
If you believe the crime scene was not contaminated and that it was ok for the silencer to be removed from the scene and that JM testimony had nothing to do with being jilted and then selling her story on a guilty verdict then your not as bright as some of your posts suggest.
Again i agree with most of what you say but in British law there should not have been a trial with the evidence presented.
There are areas of doubt in every aspect of what was presented.
Please expalin why you have no doubts based on the facts.
How was the crime scene contaminated ?
I am not a lawyer. But a person bringing a silencer to the police does not make that piece of evidence useless. In 1985 anyway, otherwise it would not have been presented at court.
Well the evidence gathered got through the DPP, got a guilty verdict which still stands despite 30 years of appealing. So not sure why this case wouldn't get past first base now.
-
i think its quite rude you have no idea what i have or haven't read.
And just because something has been dismissed before by yourself doesn't make it any less valid.
If you believe the crime scene was not contaminated and that it was ok for the silencer to be removed from the scene and that JM testimony had nothing to do with being jilted and then selling her story on a guilty verdict then your not as bright as some of your posts suggest.
Again i agree with most of what you say but in British law there should not have been a trial with the evidence presented.
There are areas of doubt in every aspect of what was presented.
Please expalin why you have no doubts based on the facts.
Apparently one of the jurors said that the reason Jeremy was convicted was because of the direction from the judge - if after they had asked for clarification about the blood evidence and the possible inheritance of monies by the family who had given evidence they felt he was telling them the right thing to do was convict . If he had not said those final words the consensus was he would have walked free.
So it does appear that rightly or wrongly Julie was not totally a convincing witness
-
How was the crime scene contaminated ?
I am not a lawyer. But a person bringing a silencer to the police does not make that piece of evidence useless.
Well the evidence gathered got through the DPP, got a guilty verdict which still stands despite 30 years of appealing. So not sure why this case wouldn't get past first base now.
there were 40 officers eventually at the scene - only 11 of them gave evidence.
I think it is quite obvious that the crime scene was not treated as such ? Apparently they looked in the cupboard where the silencer was found four times ? What were they looking for ? And why was the search not thorough?
Do you think it is right that a police officer does not handle the vital piece of evidence with gloves? And then sits around with the family drinking whisky? what did they discuss? Is that professional?
-
there were 40 officers eventually at the scene - only 11 of them gave evidence.
I think it is quite obvious that the crime scene was not treated as such ? Apparently they looked in the cupboard where the silencer was found four times ? What were they looking for ? And why was the search not thorough?
Do you think it is right that a police officer does not handle the vital piece of evidence with gloves? And then sits around with the family drinking whisky? what did they discuss? Is that professional?
If Bamber's lawyers wanted 40 officers to give evidence, they should have made an application.
I don't see why handling with gloves makes any difference. Both Bamber's and Sheila's finger prints will be all over WHF.
-
If Bamber's lawyers wanted 40 officers to give evidence, they should have made an application.
I don't see why handling with gloves makes any difference. Both Bamber's and Sheila's finger prints will be all over WHF.
The rifle and the moderator were handled without gloves . So you think that makes no difference?
Surely Jeremy would have pressed Sheilas prints on to the rifle amongst his to show she was the murderer so why were they not there ? The police knew that by the time Julie reluctantly came in - so the story about the glove conveniently fitted the scene - but then they found the hitman did not exist so it was conveniently forgotten .
Adam who do you think decided what evidence was given to Jeremys defence team?
-
The rifle and the moderator were handled without gloves . So you think that makes no difference?
Surely Jeremy would have pressed Sheilas prints on to the rifle amongst his to show she was the murderer so why were they not there ? The police knew that by the time Julie reluctantly came in - so the story about the glove conveniently fitted the scene - but then they found the hitman did not exist so it was conveniently forgotten .
Adam who do you think decided what evidence was given to Jeremys defence team?
It makes no difference if the rifle and moderator were handled by other people.
Julie approached the police after speaking to five people. Wilkes's book says it was a great relief to her. She had threatened to do it before, but Bamber told her he was watertight and it was an open and shut case. He said she would not be believed. Julie said on TV that Bamber seemed terribly confident.
The hitman theory has not been forgotten.
The defence can ask for whatever information they want.
-
It makes no difference if the rifle and moderator were handled by other people.
Julie approached the police after speaking to five people. Wilkes's book says it was a great relief to her. She had threatened to do it before, but Bamber told her he was watertight and it was an open and shut case. He said she would not be believed. Julie said on TV that Bamber seemed terribly confident.
The hitman theory has not been forgotten.
The defence can ask for whatever information they want.
You can not possibly believe what you have just written? It does not matter that other people have handled the rifle and moderator?
You have to realise that contamination in that way actually could have removed the absolute proof that Jeremy was the killer?
Members of the same family with the same DNA as June handled the moderator?
The evidence about the blood was misrepresented by the judge?
-
You can not possibly believe what you have just written? It does not matter that other people have handled the rifle and moderator?
You have to realise that contamination in that way actually could have removed the absolute proof that Jeremy was the killer?
Members of the same family with the same DNA as June handled the moderator?
The evidence about the blood was misrepresented by the judge?
There has already been threads on the relatives expertly contaminating the silencer.
Supporters are just repeating the same arguments. Or claiming the police are withholding documents.
The relatives would have to -
Decide to frame.
Know the silencer was not used.
Know the rifle was too long for Sheila to use with the silencer on.
Know Sheila's blood type.
Know each others blood type.
Expertly put blood into the silencer creating the rifle back splatter effect.
Expertly put red paint onto the silencer.
Not wilt or retract over the next 30 years.
All within a short period.
-
there were 40 officers eventually at the scene - only 11 of them gave evidence.
I think it is quite obvious that the crime scene was not treated as such ? Apparently they looked in the cupboard where the silencer was found four times ? What were they looking for ? And why was the search not thorough?
Do you think it is right that a police officer does not handle the vital piece of evidence with gloves? And then sits around with the family drinking whisky? what did they discuss? Is that professional?
They weren't looking for a silencer and had no reason to assume one was used.
-
the relatives wernt looking for silencer but they manged to find one.
-
They weren't looking for a silencer and had no reason to assume one was used.
But it was discussed by the relatives with the police allegedly the next day? so why did they not go back and look then? At least then the risk of contamination would be less.
-
But it was discussed by the relatives with the police allegedly the next day? so why did they not go back and look then? At least then the risk of contamination would be less.
Why would the relatives discuss a silencer the next day with the police ? Although they would know how quiet a silencer makes a rifle. Anyway Taff was refusing to entertain the murder theory. Have you got a source ?
-
But it was discussed by the relatives with the police allegedly the next day? so why did they not go back and look then? At least then the risk of contamination would be less.
A silencer was mentioned on 9th, the family said they found it on 10th. I'm not sticking up for the silencer evidence because I don't believe it to be genuine.
-
Why would the relatives discuss a silencer the next day with the police ? Although they would know how quiet a silencer makes a rifle. Anyway Taff was refusing to entertain the murder theory. Have you got a source ?
Yes it was Anne who said she overheard Jeremy saying why the silencer was not on the gun.Dont forget her note cards
-
Why would the relatives discuss a silencer the next day with the police ? Although they would know how quiet a silencer makes a rifle. Anyway Taff was refusing to entertain the murder theory. Have you got a source ?
They didn't it was two days later at the police station when AP mentioned that the last time he saw the rifle the silencer and sights were attached.
-
Let me get this right. You're saying that the only way in which you'll believe she told the truth is by doing something that you can rest assured she'll never do. Interesting. Can you tell us which part of her testimony you believe to be untruthful?
sorry jane only just catching up on threads.
i dont believe jb said to her he was going to have his family killed.
i suppose what i was saying was that, if she took a lie detector and was asked if she told the whole truth then i would believe her as i dont ghink she would be able to cheat it.
however, that isnt going to happen
-
How do you think they can force her to take such a test?
i dont think they can force her but she could be asked
-
sorry jane only just catching up on threads.
i dont believe jb said to her he was going to have his family killed.
i suppose what i was saying was that, if she took a lie detector and was asked if she told the whole truth then i would believe her as i dont ghink she would be able to cheat it.
however, that isnt going to happen
It's actually a stress detector and as such, despite telling 100% of the truth, I'd fail because I'd be putting myself under enormous stress by taking the test.
-
It's actually a stress detector and as such, despite telling 100% of the truth, I'd fail because I'd be putting myself under enormous stress by taking the test.
That's why Jeremy passed it.
-
It's actually a stress detector and as such, despite telling 100% of the truth, I'd fail because I'd be putting myself under enormous stress by taking the test.
This is why I was always diagnosed as having high blood-pressure when at the surgery,but I knew in my mind that it was because I was at the surgery and it was later classed as " white coat syndrome ".Neverthless I was given medication for high blood-pressure but didn't need it. ::)
The moral here is that I would also fail a detector test because of being prone to anxiety.
-
This is why I was always diagnosed as having high blood-pressure when at the surgery,but I knew in my mind that it was because I was at the surgery and it was later classed as " white coat syndrome ".Neverthless I was given medication for high blood-pressure but didn't need it. ::)
The moral here is that I would also fail a detector test because of being prone to anxiety.
Hi lookout
I have "white coat syndrome" and I would fail a lie detector as it has been said I am a very anxious person.
-
Hi lookout
I have "white coat syndrome" and I would fail a lie detector as it has been said I am a very anxious person.
Hi Susan,I'm so glad I'm not on my own. Horrible though isn't it ? Try as you might you can't help it. It's the result of hanging on to my emotions ( it's what I say anyway ) though I'm not a " nervy " type.
-
Hello wiggy. I personally am impressed by yiur pists as they seem to be based on what has been presented not what assumptions we all make on here.
i do hope you will continue posting.
i swing from guilty to innocent on a daily basis.
crazes me
-
That's why Jeremy passed it.
I assume you are against them now being used for sex offenders ?
-
Hi Susan,I'm so glad I'm not on my own. Horrible though isn't it ? Try as you might you can't help it. It's the result of hanging on to my emotions ( it's what I say anyway ) though I'm not a " nervy " type.
Lookout I guess being in the type of work you were in you would have to appear cool and in control otherwise the patients would have run a mile hahaha (kidding) I am not cool but not bad tempered gawd knows what I am maybe sensitive is the word.
-
al im trying to do is take circumstantial and supposition out of the question and base his sittuation on actual known facts which there are very few.
It comes down to what you believe and what is probable.
However being probably guilty should not be enough as you must not give gulty if there is any reasonable doubt.
thats all i am mean i agree that with all the circumstantial evidence and if you believe the family and JM then circumstantially hes probably guilty but that is not enough.
And i have grave doubts about JMS testimony and in the familys motive enough to allow reasonable doubt.
But what do i Know
-
al im trying to do is take circumstantial and supposition out of the question and base his sittuation on actual known facts which there are very few.
It comes down to what you believe and what is probable.
However being probably guilty should not be enough as you must not give gulty if there is any reasonable doubt.
thats all i am mean i agree that with all the circumstantial evidence and if you believe the family and JM then circumstantially hes probably guilty but that is not enough.
And i have grave doubts about JMS testimony and in the familys motive enough to allow reasonable doubt.
But what do i Know
But it was enough - hence the conviction.
-
it was enough based uon the jury had noide the family would benifit from jbs verdict nor that jm had immunity or that she was negotiating with the newspapers .
Also it was enough in many cases that are overturned.
But as i say what do i know just think that there is a case for doubt.
-
it was enough based uon the jury had noide the family would benifit from jbs verdict nor that jm had immunity or that she was negotiating with the newspapers .
Also it was enough in many cases that are overturned.
But as i say what do i know just think that there is a case for doubt.
Supposing the jury HAD known that the family would benefit from his conviction. Would that have "unguiltied" him? It's only your opinion that circumstantial evidence isn't enough to convict. It obviously was because they convicted him. Are you suggesting they'd have let a guilty man walk free to prevent his relatives from benefiting? Or because his ex was going to do a deal with a newspaper and they felt sorry for him. I'm prepared to bet he'd have demanded a hell of a lot more than £25,000.
-
Supposing the jury HAD known that the family would benefit from his conviction. Would that have "unguiltied" him? It's only your opinion that circumstantial evidence isn't enough to convict. It obviously was because they convicted him. Are you suggesting they'd have let a guilty man walk free to prevent his relatives from benefiting? Or because his ex was going to do a deal with a newspaper and they felt sorry for him. I'm prepared to bet he'd have demanded a hell of a lot more than £25,000.
He'd made his own deal - for £40,000.00 - perhaps the jury should have known that?
-
He'd made his own deal - for £40,000.00 - perhaps the jury should have known that?
We never seem to hear about Jeremy's deal! ;D
But as much as I am sure he wanted the 40k, he had much more reason to lie, his freedom!
-
He'd made his own deal - for £40,000.00 - perhaps the jury should have known that?
Caroline, it occurs to me that as the jury don't get to know about the defendant's "previous" because of possible prejudice, this COULD be said to apply to what they allowed to know of witnesses.
-
We never seem to hear about Jeremy's deal! ;D
But as much as I am sure he wanted the 40k, he had much more reason to lie, his freedom!
So add that to the inheritance and we're talking approx. half a million. And there was Adam saying he wasn't clever enough to go out and make his own millions!!!
-
According to Claire Powell,where the £40,000 came in was the debt which had belonged to Sheila to which her mother paid by cheque,but I suppose any old lie will do so long as what's said implicates Jeremy ?
-
According to Claire Powell,where the £40,000 came in was the debt which had belonged to Sheila to which her mother paid by cheque,but I suppose any old lie will do so long as what's said implicates Jeremy ?
Have you asked yourself just how CP managed to find this information and from whom? When she wrote that book there was no one left alive who could authenticate/corroborate that story.........................unless she got it from Jeremy who was trying to deflect the £40,000 he'd asked the newspaper for.
-
Have you asked yourself just how CP managed to find this information and from whom? When she wrote that book there was no one left alive who could authenticate/corroborate that story.........................unless she got it from Jeremy who was trying to deflect the £40,000 he'd asked the newspaper for.
The information was evident in a cheque stub which Jeremy had found in his mother's cheque book., It had been made out to Sheila,so with bills that had mounted up,he'd have also found out through the " drug-world " which existed at the time,that she'd also owed that bill too which wasn't that long before the tragedy.
-
It's actually referenced in page 156 of Wilkes's book. A heading had appeared in the Mirror about her owing two notorious drug barons the amount of £40,000.
-
And because the press told the world that Jeremy was the murderer we have to believe ALL the media says !! The aforementioned being no different.
-
The information was evident in a cheque stub which Jeremy had found in his mother's cheque book., It had been made out to Sheila,so with bills that had mounted up,he'd have also found out through the " drug-world " which existed at the time,that she'd also owed that bill too which wasn't that long before the tragedy.
So what you're saying is, this is hearsay. There is no proof that Jeremy found this check stub. No mention has ever been made of £40,000 going out of June's account -a vast amount NOW, a FORTUNE then- and nothing to say if such an amount, IF it was missing, was drug related. If Sheila had managed to get through that amount, she'd undoubtedly have been an addict rather than a social user.
-
So what you're saying is, this is hearsay. There is no proof that Jeremy found this check stub. No mention has ever been made of £40,000 going out of June's account -a vast amount NOW, a FORTUNE then- and nothing to say if such an amount, IF it was missing, was drug related. If Sheila had managed to get through that amount, she'd undoubtedly have been an addict rather than a social user.
Like there's no proof that Jeremy carried out the murders,it was all hearsay in the form of circumstantial with plenty of character assassination thrown in to look the part.
Apparently it was pointed out by both parents that they didn't like the company that Sheila was keeping,latterly. Sheila may have obtained drugs " on tick " in order to sell them to get her out of the debt that she was in because she wasn't working. She'd done the " nude " photo's for the same reason,to get some sort of income. How she was surviving God only knows. Didn't one author write that she'd resorted to " thieving from houses ?" Or was that more written lies ??
-
So what you're saying is, this is hearsay. There is no proof that Jeremy found this check stub. No mention has ever been made of £40,000 going out of June's account -a vast amount NOW, a FORTUNE then- and nothing to say if such an amount, IF it was missing, was drug related. If Sheila had managed to get through that amount, she'd undoubtedly have been an addict rather than a social user.
If Jeremy had found it then he would have mentioned it, 40k drug debt? What was Sheila doing with it all? Flushing it down the toilet? It's unsubstantiated and seems illogical, I don't for a second believe it.
-
Like there's no proof that Jeremy carried out the murders,it was all hearsay in the form of circumstantial with plenty of character assassination thrown in to look the part.
Apparently it was pointed out by both parents that they didn't like the company that Sheila was keeping,latterly. Sheila may have obtained drugs " on tick " in order to sell them to get her out of the debt that she was in because she wasn't working. She'd done the " nude " photo's for the same reason,to get some sort of income. How she was surviving God only knows. Didn't one author write that she'd resorted to " thieving from houses ?" Or was that more written lies ??
Drugs? Stealing from houses? Sounds more like you're describing Jeremy who is proven to have done both of those things.
-
So what you're saying is, this is hearsay. There is no proof that Jeremy found this check stub. No mention has ever been made of £40,000 going out of June's account -a vast amount NOW, a FORTUNE then- and nothing to say if such an amount, IF it was missing, was drug related. If Sheila had managed to get through that amount, she'd undoubtedly have been an addict rather than a social user.
Wilkes,pro-guilty and you don't believe what he's written ?
-
Wilkes,pro-guilty and you don't believe what he's written ?
Wilkes may believe it, he may have been told about it and believed his source. Doesn't mean it's true. The fact he wrote it doesn't make it true and just because he believes in Bamber guilt doesn't mean those that also believe in his guilt will take all claims by Wilkes as truth.Do you believe everything a supporter writes? Wait.. don't answer that.. ;D
-
Ask yourselves how the press got hold of a story like that.
-
Because I don't remember Jeremy having gained financially from telling lies !! That was left to others.
-
The proof would have been in June's handbag so what happened to that ? Find out and there's your answer !
-
Because I don't remember Jeremy having gained financially from telling lies !! That was left to others.
He tried to though, with his deal with the newspaper. But thankfully he wasn't able to add to the money he'd already claimed by killing his family and taking the inheritance because the police, courts and jury saw through him.
The proof would have been in June's handbag so what happened to that ? Find out and there's your answer !
In Junes handbag? I guess you're saying that's where the apparent cheque stub was - you said Jeremy found that so he must have had the handbag, that would be no surprise!!
-
Wilkes,pro-guilty and you don't believe what he's written ?
Whether Jeremy is guilty or not, it doesn't make Sheila a saint imo.
She had huge problems and is known to have smoked cannabis on a regular basis and various people who knew her have suggested she took harder drugs. It seems she had money problems hence the food delivered to her from June. Why did June take the food rather than send her money? Maybe because she knew money wouldn't go on food, I'm sure June had more to do than travel up to London each week but she did it to ensure sheila ate.
I am not attacking or bad mouthing Sheila but she did appear to be chaotic and out of control and many PS's use drugs because they believe it makes them better ie. They self medicate.
Did Sheila have a huge drug debt? She may have done, drugs are expensive and over years you could build up a huge bill. Where did £40,000 come from anyway, who first mentioned it?
Even if not so huge she may very well have had a debt, I have personal experience of someone regularly taking drugs, it's easy to build up a bill of £400 a month and easy enough to double that, maybe the debt was £4000 not £40,000? :-\
-
Like there's no proof that Jeremy carried out the murders,it was all hearsay in the form of circumstantial with plenty of character assassination thrown in to look the part.
Apparently it was pointed out by both parents that they didn't like the company that Sheila was keeping,latterly. Sheila may have obtained drugs " on tick " in order to sell them to get her out of the debt that she was in because she wasn't working. She'd done the " nude " photo's for the same reason,to get some sort of income. How she was surviving God only knows. Didn't one author write that she'd resorted to " thieving from houses ?" Or was that more written lies ??
And the jury believed circumstantial to be enough. Frankly Lookout, the casuyal and churlish way in which he reacted to the ALLEGED call from his father would have probably gone more than 50% of the way to persuading me of his guilt.
So June and Nevill didn't like the company their adult daughter kept. Neither did mine. Big deal. Sheila probably did NOT get drugs "on tick". She'd have needed to be working all day and all night to have run up a debt that size. She didn't make money from the pictures although Jeremy tried to. I wonder from where the author acquired the information that she'd resorted to stealing from country houses. I looks like you jump from a great height on those you believe to be lying about Jeremy but you appear perfectly at ease with supporting lies about Sheila.
-
Wilkes,pro-guilty and you don't believe what he's written ?
I'M inclined not to believe -or at the cvery least, doubt- anything which can't be corroborated, be it pro or anti guilt.
-
Ask yourselves how the press got hold of a story like that.
Chinese Whispers and failure to double check?
-
Because I don't remember Jeremy having gained financially from telling lies !! That was left to others.
But he came within a whisper of collecting big time by so doing.
-
The proof would have been in June's handbag so what happened to that ? Find out and there's your answer !
Don't need to Lookout. HAD such been available, you can rest assured that Jeremy would have shown/told his defence and produced bank statements to back it up. He may have been lax enough to "lose/mislay" the cheque stub, but Sheila and June's banks wouldn't have been so.
-
Whether Jeremy is guilty or not, it doesn't make Sheila a saint imo.
She had huge problems and is known to have smoked cannabis on a regular basis and various people who knew her have suggested she took harder drugs. It seems she had money problems hence the food delivered to her from June. Why did June take the food rather than send her money? Maybe because she knew money wouldn't go on food, I'm sure June had more to do than travel up to London each week but she did it to ensure sheila ate.
I am not attacking or bad mouthing Sheila but she did appear to be chaotic and out of control and many PS's use drugs because they believe it makes them better ie. They self medicate.
Did Sheila have a huge drug debt? She may have done, drugs are expensive and over years you could build up a huge bill. Where did £40,000 come from anyway, who first mentioned it?
Even if not so huge she may very well have had a debt, I have personal experience of someone regularly taking drugs, it's easy to build up a bill of £400 a month and easy enough to double that, maybe the debt was £4000 not £40,000? :-\
I agree entirely that Sheila was no saint. In fact I think she may have been all you have said of her, but I think you'll agree that she'd have had cannabis coming out of her ears had she run up a debt that size. She'd admitted to doing coke, only socially. IF there had been a drugs debt, I'm far more inclined to believe it would have been £4000 as opposed to £40,000 and even if it was, it doesn't mean she slaughtered her family.
-
He'd made his own deal - for £40,000.00 - perhaps the jury should have known that?
The newspapers should not have discussed deals with anyone involved in the case .
But I don't think any deal would have changed anything Jeremy had said .
Julie? Who knows . If she had been thinking of changing her evidence , could the money have spurred her on to stick to her story . A few hours in court then she had enough to buy a flat?
There are obvious reasons why it is not allowed for the press to do this ( not that they care)
-
The newspapers should not have discussed deals with anyone involved in the case .
But I don't think any deal would have changed anything Jeremy had said .
Julie? Who knows . If she had been thinking of changing her evidence , could the money have spurred her on to stick to her story . A few hours in court then she had enough to buy a flat?
There are obvious reasons why it is not allowed for the press to do this ( not that they care)
That's beside the point, people crow about Julie's deal and forget that Jeremy had one too. I doubt Jeremy would have changed his story - although he could have done because of double jeopardy. Not sure how he'd fair after the law was changed though.
-
I agree entirely that Sheila was no saint. In fact I think she may have been all you have said of her, but I think you'll agree that she'd have had cannabis coming out of her ears had she run up a debt that size. She'd admitted to doing coke, only socially. IF there had been a drugs debt, I'm far more inclined to believe it would have been £4000 as opposed to £40,000 and even if it was, it doesn't mean she slaughtered her family.
I agree Jane, it doesn't mean she killed anyone. Maybe I am cynical but in my experience anyone who admits doing coke 'only socially'
Isn't necessarily telling the truth. One side effect of taking drugs on a regular basis is an inability to admit it even to yourself never mind anyone else.
It was just an observation that where drugs are involved often things are not as they may seem and we should maybe be aware of this, who ever is taking them.
IMO, unless the drugs have a connection with the killings I would think it's irrelevant and Sheila's way of life is not particularly our business except it may explain the worry and been a financial drain on June and Neville. I believe she was a dreadful worry to them if not the only one, whatever their mistakes they certainly paid dearly for making them.
-
I agree Jane, it doesn't mean she killed anyone. Maybe I am cynical but in my experience anyone who admits doing coke 'only socially'
Isn't necessarily telling the truth. One side effect of taking drugs on a regular basis is an inability to admit it even to yourself never mind anyone else.
It was just an observation that where drugs are involved often things are not as they may seem and we should maybe be aware of this, who ever is taking them.
IMO, unless the drugs have a connection with the killings I would think it's irrelevant and Sheila's way of life is not particularly our business except it may explain the worry and been a financial drain on June and Neville. I believe she was a dreadful worry to them if not the only one, whatever their mistakes they certainly paid dearly for making them.
I think her life was as tragic as her death, but I also believe it to have been an entirely separate issue from the case.
-
I think her life was as tragic as her death, but I also believe it to have been an entirely separate issue from the case.
I think you are probably right but then what of Jeremy, how heavy was his drug intake? :-\ Did he smoke crack or sniff coke heavily? Cocaine can cause violent and , dangerous psychotic behaviour.....
-
I think you are probably right but then what of Jeremy, how heavy was his drug intake? :-\ Did he smoke crack or sniff coke heavily? Cocaine can cause violent and , dangerous psychotic behaviour.....
I think it unlikely that he used anything in quantity -I know Julie said at one time he was doing cannabis all the time, but that's relative- or he could have used it as an excuse as to why he'd reacted so slowly to his father's call.
-
There again,Claire Powell contradicted herself by saying that Sheila " had only tried drugs " but never took them as people made out that she did ?
-
Then you have the likes of Wilkes who'd said that she'd ran up a drug debt. So did Sheila take drugs or didn't she ? We DON'T know either way do we ?
-
There was only a trace of cannabis found in her system.Hardly enough to prompt an attack of any sort if she wasn't a drug-taker.
-
So in ALL the books that have been written about Sheila taking drugs have been lies.
-
There again,Claire Powell contradicted herself by saying that Sheila " had only tried drugs " but never took them as people made out that she did ?
Well, Lookout, as I said earlier of Julie's assertion that Jeremy was doing cannabis "all the time", it's relative. She had no idea, for example, what he did when he wasn't in her company and as being in her company may have been social, it COULD have been the only time he did it. Something tells me that he probably wasn't the type who would want to lose control.
There's a vast chasm between Sheila having "only tried drugs" and racking up a £40,000 debt for them. I suspect, like much else, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
-
There was only a trace of cannabis found in her system.Hardly enough to prompt an attack of any sort if she wasn't a drug-taker.
WHO has suggested that cannabis prompted an attack?
-
So in ALL the books that have been written about Sheila taking drugs have been lies.
Why do you have to polarize everything. There DOES exist a middle road and you CAN use it.
-
So in ALL the books that have been written about Sheila taking drugs have been lies.
No one here is saying that she never took/tried drugs. But I think all are in agreement (other than yourself) that a £40k drug debt for Sheila is highly unlikely and certainly has not been proven and no evidence has ever been seen that
Jeremy found a cheque stub.
June paid off anything for Sheila for the sum of 40k
Sheila was a heavy enough user to ever get even close to that debt.
-
it was enough based uon the jury had noide the family would benifit from jbs verdict nor that jm had immunity or that she was negotiating with the newspapers .
Also it was enough in many cases that are overturned.
But as i say what do i know just think that there is a case for doubt.
If your interested about what the Jury did not hear allot can be found in this document from Bambers Lawyer Paul Terzeon
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754
-
An utter and bloody disgrace !!
-
One word describes this--------------DELIBERATE !!
Those who had Jeremy convicted,one word for them----------MALICIOUS !!
-
An utter and bloody disgrace !!
what is? elaborate
-
what is? elaborate
What do you mean " what is ?". The fact that the defence knew bugger all,that's what is !
-
what is? elaborate
Of course your thoughts are bound to be different seeing as you say he's guilty.
-
What do you mean " what is ?". The fact that the defence knew bugger all,that's what is !
If the defence did a poor job, that's their fault.
-
If the defence did a poor job, that's their fault.
They obviously wouldn't have done a poor job if ALL the appropriate/correct information had been given to them at the time. It's no good years later.
Although saying that there should have been far more questions asked and enquiries sought at the time.
I still say it's a disgrace that not only false information was given but nothing was questioned at the time. I'd have been more on the ball than they were and would have matched AE no problem. :))
-
If your interested about what the Jury did not hear allot can be found in this document from Bambers Lawyer Paul Terzeon
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754
Given the amount he claims NOT to have known, I'm surprised enough was known to put a case together. Is he just passing the buck here or making excuses?
-
No one here is saying that she never took/tried drugs. But I think all are in agreement (other than yourself) that a £40k drug debt for Sheila is highly unlikely and certainly has not been proven and no evidence has ever been seen that
Jeremy found a cheque stub.
June paid off anything for Sheila for the sum of 40k
Sheila was a heavy enough user to ever get even close to that debt.
I agree - something that appears in a paper and is not proven and then re-appears in books must not be taken too seriously as newspapers always have an ulterior motive. But the same should be said about things written about Jeremy as well.
-
I agree - something that appears in a paper and is not proven and then re-appears in books must not be taken too seriously as newspapers always have an ulterior motive. But the same should be said about things written about Jeremy as well.
I agree Jan.
-
I agree - something that appears in a paper and is not proven and then re-appears in books must not be taken too seriously as newspapers always have an ulterior motive. But the same should be said about things written about Jeremy as well.
Absolutely Jan. It works both ways. I've never thought or said differently.
-
Recreational or a heavy user ? Or just a " taster " ? There is a difference,to the brain that is.
-
I agree - something that appears in a paper and is not proven and then re-appears in books must not be taken too seriously as newspapers always have an ulterior motive. But the same should be said about things written about Jeremy as well.
I agree and it is when written about Jeremy.
There is more proof that Jeremy had the photos of Sheila and tried to sell them to the press, there are statements about that but supporters state how you shouldn't believe books/the press... funny how when it's to do with Sheila it is suddenly true. Just shows you how some don't care if something is true.
-
I agree and it is when written about Jeremy.
There is more proof that Jeremy had the photos of Sheila and tried to sell them to the press, there are statements about that but supporters state how you shouldn't believe books/the press...
funny how when it's to do with Sheila it is suddenly true. Just shows you how some don't care if something is true.
This works both ways too !!
-
Recreational or a heavy user ? Or just a " taster " ? There is a difference,to the brain that is.
Generally speaking, journalists/authors couldn't care less. It isn't part of their remit, which is to sell copy and will do whatever it takes.
-
Generally speaking, journalists/authors couldn't care less. It isn't part of their remit, which is to sell copy and will do whatever it takes.
You're telling me. If people believed everything that was written then their mentality is questionable.
-
You're telling me. If people believed everything that was written then their mentality is questionable.
That's a strange thing to say, almost seems like a self assessment - since you're the one constantly in hot water on here for repeating things you've heard and then blaming blogs, books and the official site when they turn out not to be quite right.
-
That's a strange thing to say, almost seems like a self assessment - since you're the one constantly in hot water on here for repeating things you've heard and then blaming blogs, books and the official site when they turn out not to be quite right.
It doesn't mean that I believe it though.
-
What about yourself anyway ? You only repeat what others say or have said.I've never once seen anything constructive,in your OWN words,said by yourself yet.
-
It doesn't mean that I believe it though.
Why repeat t if you don't believe it or at least when it clear when you post?
-
It doesn't mean that I believe it though.
Do You mean your just playing Devil's advocate OR.............................you believe Jeremy's guilty?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I agree and it is when written about Jeremy.
There is more proof that Jeremy had the photos of Sheila and tried to sell them to the press, there are statements about that but supporters state how you shouldn't believe books/the press... funny how when it's to do with Sheila it is suddenly true. Just shows you how some don't care if something is true.
Colin is PROOF that Jeremy tried to sell those pictures of Sheila to The Sun.
-
What about yourself anyway ? You only repeat what others say or have said.I've never once seen anything constructive,in your OWN words,said by yourself yet.
That's because you don't read posts longer than 4 lines, Lookout.
I've been on here discussing the musical phones, the DNA and the blood in the silencer, Julie's evidence and my opinion on Jeremy's blogs longer than most people have been here.
It's ironic for you to say I just repeat what others say when that is what you find yourself continuously accused of, but then you add your own spin on it - so what you say is in a COLP report, a police statement, autopsy report or a book isn't quite in it as you claim it to be, because you've added your own spin - LookoutTheLiar.
Colin is PROOF that Jeremy tried to sell those pictures of Sheila to The Sun.
Yes, I agree 100%. But even without Colin, there is still MORE for the nude photo story than there is for the outlandish 40k drug debt.
Why repeat t if you don't believe it or at least when it clear when you post?
Anything that makes Jeremy sound good and Sheila sound bad is fair game. Doesn't have to be true.
-
That's because you don't read posts longer than 4 lines, Lookout.
I've been on here discussing the musical phones, the DNA and the blood in the silencer, Julie's evidence and my opinion on Jeremy's blogs longer than most people have been here.
It's ironic for you to say I just repeat what others say when that is what you find yourself continuously accused of, but then you add your own spin on it - so what you say is in a COLP report, a police statement, autopsy report or a book isn't quite in it as you claim it to be, because you've added your own spin - LookoutTheLiar.
Yes, I agree 100%. But even without Colin, there is still MORE for the nude photo story than there is for the outlandish 40k drug debt.
Anything that makes Jeremy sound good and Sheila sound bad is fair game. Doesn't have to be true.
Oh not the 40K thing again!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh not the 40K thing again!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes. Poor Sheila, without a penny to bless herself with, is allowed to rack up £40,000 of drug debt...................................according to CP. Wouldn't you just LOVE to know who told her.
-
Oh not the 40K thing again!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
With even more added to it that I've not heard before. Apparently Jeremy found a cheque stub in his mothers handbag proving that she has given Sheila £40,000.
So doesn't that mean it was paid???
(Not that I think it existed)
Now I have to wonder.
Who would be killed or rampaging over a 40k drug debt..........That had been paid.
-
With even more added to it that I've not heard before. Apparently Jeremy found a cheque stub in his mothers handbag proving that she has given Sheila £40,000.
So doesn't that mean it was paid???
(Not that I think it existed)
Now I have to wonder.
Who would be killed or rampaging over a 40k drug debt..........That had been paid.
So where is the stub? Not something you would throw away and also it would have been clear that 40K was deducted from June's account?
If the suggestion is that some drug baron was responsible - people need to remember the phone call which makes the killer either Jeremy or Sheila.
-
So where is the stub? Not something you would throw away and also it would have been clear that 40K was deducted from June's account?
If the suggestion is that some drug baron was responsible - people need to remember the phone call which makes the killer either Jeremy or Sheila.
I've not read Wilkes book and I guess that is the source - although I've heard the claim before but never with the stub part.
Lookout said if you want to know where the stub is, you need to find June's handbag. I am not sure where the handbag ended up.
-
So where is the stub? Not something you would throw away and also it would have been clear that 40K was deducted from June's account?
If the suggestion is that some drug baron was responsible - people need to remember the phone call which makes the killer either Jeremy or Sheila.
And even if Jeremy had been careless enough to "mislay" it, the banks -both Sheila's and June's would have had records. I mean, c'mon. It's mid 1980's. We're talking FORTY THOUSAND POUNDS not forty, four hundred, or even four thousand.
-
Yes. Poor Sheila, without a penny to bless herself with, is allowed to rack up £40,000 of drug debt...................................according to CP. Wouldn't you just LOVE to know who told her.
Jane no drug dealer would allow Sheila to run up a bill of £40.000.
-
I've not read Wilkes book and I guess that is the source - although I've heard the claim before but never with the stub part.
Lookout said if you want to know where the stub is, you need to find June's handbag. I am not sure where the handbag ended up.
I think it was CP who spoke of the debt, but nobody -other than Lookout, to my knowledge- has said that Jeremy said he found his mother's cheque book in her handbag and saw the cheque stub. How remiss of him to mislay it and not tell anyone else about it.
-
If Jeremy found a cheque stub for 40K made out to Sheila - how could he assume it was for drugs? Presumably June wouldn't have written what it was for on the stub? ::)
-
If Jeremy found a cheque stub for 40K made out to Sheila - how could he assume it was for drugs? Presumably June wouldn't have written what it was for on the stub? ::)
Think it CAN be guaranteed that IF the find was real and IF the stub said "Sheila's drugs" he'd have made much more noise about it............................still wouldn't have made her guilty of murder though.
-
Jane no drug dealer would allow Sheila to run up a bill of £40.000.
No they wouldn't susan but £4000 is easy for a regular user.
-
Think it CAN be guaranteed that IF the find was real and IF the stub said "Sheila's drugs" he'd have made much more noise about it............................still wouldn't have made her guilty of murder though.
Why would Jeremy " have made much more noise ?" He made very little about anything else which was of much more importance. Imagine trying to remember,or think of something to say when you've done nothing to warrant having to cast your mind back over a life-time.
-
No they wouldn't susan but £4000 is easy for a regular user.
Maggie
it is quite frightening what debts are incurred by a serious drug user. So sad really. :'(
-
Susan this is when you read about a targeted/contract shooting,usually from a vehicle as it invariably involves drugs where someone owes money,though how the shooters expect to get it back from a dead person,God knows,but this is the stark reality of those who deal in them.
-
Maggie
it is quite frightening what debts are incurred by a serious drug user. So sad really. :'(
It certainly is and as they don't have any sense of responsibility they will never pay it, someone who worries about them ends up paying, over and over. It's not exaggerated, its very true.
-
Susan this is when you read about a targeted/contract shooting,usually from a vehicle as it invariably involves drugs where someone owes money,though how the shooters expect to get it back from a dead person,God knows,but this is the stark reality of those who deal in them.
Yes, no on would be killed for £4000 they are worth more alive than dead to the dealer but it's a very slippery slope.
-
Susan this is when you read about a targeted/contract shooting,usually from a vehicle as it invariably involves drugs where someone owes money,though how the shooters expect to get it back from a dead person,God knows,but this is the stark reality of those who deal in them.
But this wasn't a targeted contract shooting!
-
Susan this is when you read about a targeted/contract shooting,usually from a vehicle as it invariably involves drugs where someone owes money,though how the shooters expect to get it back from a dead person,God knows,but this is the stark reality of those who deal in them.
lookout this is happening all the time so many young kids loose their life over drugs and it is so sad and terrible for their parents
-
I know-----------------let's think of some really outlandish theories . It seems to come as second-nature to some.
-
I know-----------------let's think of some really outlandish theories . It seems to come as second-nature to some.
I hope you're including yourself in that Lookout!!
-
I know-----------------let's think of some really outlandish theories . It seems to come as second-nature to some.
Lookout, I rather think, that between you, you and Adam have it covered ;) ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
-
Lookout, I rather think, that between you, you and Adam have it covered ;) ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
I would have thought others already have it cut and dried------------in their own tin-pot way.
-
I would have thought others already have it cut and dried------------in their own tin-pot way.
But you're the one who comes up with all the outlandish theories to make him appear innocent. WE don't have to. We don't need any. He's already been found guilty
-
But you're the one who comes up with all the outlandish theories to make him appear innocent. WE don't have to. We don't need any. He's already been found guilty
Exactly. Yours is by far the easiest option and needs no over-usage of thoughts on the subject. Because I don't believe in theories because they're dangerous,I'd rather say that I suggest rather than theorise.
-
If I thought like you,I'd just say guilty and be done with because I'd see no reason for continuing seeing as the man is in prison anyway. I don't understand your logic,if you can call it that. ??? ??? Why carry on discussing when there's no more to discuss ? Maybe it's me,but I don't get it.
-
Exactly. Yours is by far the easiest option and needs no over-usage of thoughts on the subject. Because I don't believe in theories because they're dangerous,I'd rather say that I suggest rather than theorise.
Oh right. OTHERS come out with ridiculous theories. You just make ridiculous suggestions ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
-
Surely your questioning is beyond saturation ? Or is it that you're not 100% sure ?
-
Surely your questioning is beyond saturation ? Or is it that you're not 100% sure ?
I know-----------------let's think of some really outlandish theories . It seems to come as second-nature to some.
Not when you throw out invitations like the above.
-
Surely your questioning is beyond saturation ? Or is it that you're not 100% sure ?
Oh not this old chestnut. Are you so insecure with the lack of people that support Bamber and believe him innocent that you have to accuse those of us who believe in his guilt of being unsure! ;D
-
Oh not this old chestnut. Are you so insecure with the lack of people that support Bamber and believe him innocent that you have to accuse those of us who believe in his guilt of being unsure! ;D
On the contrary there's nothing insecure about me. I'm as sure as I'll ever be that the man is innocent. As I've already pointed out it's easier to find him guilty !!
-
On the contrary there's nothing insecure about me. I'm as sure as I'll ever be that the man is innocent. As I've already pointed out it's easier to find him guilty !!
As far as I'm concerned, that's both a dangerous and arrogant place to be. I DO have doubts -I'm not omnipotent- and I'm glad. When I have them I just refer back to the information I have which convinces me of his guilt.
-
If I thought like you,I'd just say guilty and be done with because I'd see no reason for continuing seeing as the man is in prison anyway. I don't understand your logic,if you can call it that. ??? ??? Why carry on discussing when there's no more to discuss ? Maybe it's me,but I don't get it.
How can you debate a case when you have no opposition to argue against? I guess then you could say anything you liked whether true or not and there would be no one to tell you you're wrong. Oh well - if only this was Utopia! ;D ;D ;D
-
As far as I'm concerned, that's both a dangerous and arrogant place to be. I DO have doubts -I'm not omnipotent- and I'm glad. When I have them I just refer back to the information I have which convinces me of his guilt.
I'm just dangerous and arrogant then! ;) ;D ;D
-
The point of this thread was to try and stop outlandish theories and try and stick to what actualy was cold hard facts .
I dont think its worked lol
Here is a theory that is even more ridiculous and circumstantial.
David Boultflour Finds out that the bambers own most of his land and are leasing it back he was previously unaware of this. He thinks he and his family have been hard done by. He hates the Bambers June and her religious views piss him off and sheila and Jeremy are not blood and he thinks sheila is off her head and does not like Jeremy at all and his lifestyle and hate that he will inherit most of his land.
He knows about the kitchen window so on the night in question he uses it hes the one that murders them and try's to make it look like a staged suicide so that he can implicate Jeremy at a later stage.
He is the one that calls Jeremy from the farm and says sheila gone mad he keeps the phrase short hoping that that Jeremy thinks its his dad then rings off.
He then goes home waits for the police to find the silencer that he has placed in the box to make the police think the suicide was staged . When they dont find it he then has to change plan and he says he finds it. Pointing the guilt to Jeremy.
This of course is not what happened but we need to stop guessing what happened and focus on actual evidence and facts .
Which the conclusion would be Jeremy probably did it but there is enough doubt to say the conviction unsafe
-
The point of this thread was to try and stop outlandish theories and try and stick to what actualy was cold hard facts .
I dont think its worked lol
Here is a theory that is even more ridiculous and circumstantial.
David Boultflour Finds out that the bambers own most of his land and are leasing it back he was previously unaware of this. He thinks he and his family have been hard done by. He hates the Bambers June and her religious views piss him off and sheila and Jeremy are not blood and he thinks sheila is off her head and does not like Jeremy at all and his lifestyle and hate that he will inherit most of his land.
He knows about the kitchen window so on the night in question he uses it hes the one that murders them and try's to make it look like a staged suicide so that he can implicate Jeremy at a later stage.
He is the one that calls Jeremy from the farm and says sheila gone mad he keeps the phrase short hoping that that Jeremy thinks its his dad then rings off.
He then goes home waits for the police to find the silencer that he has placed in the box to make the police think the suicide was staged . When they dont find it he then has to change plan and he says he finds it. Pointing the guilt to Jeremy.
This of course is not what happened but we need to stop guessing what happened and focus on actual evidence and facts .
Which the conclusion would be Jeremy probably did it but there is enough doubt to say the conviction unsafe
Naughty!!! I think you've just made that up.
-
thats the point without evidence you can make anything up
-
thats the point without evidence you can make anything up
I will find my post highlighting the forensic evidence.
The judge said there was also a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Which is just as important.
There is also several motives, only one alive suspect, who knew about the crime, and no alibi.
How much more does a jury need to vote 'guilty' ?
-
Bamber's supporters have often claimed there was no forensic evidence linking him to the massacre.
Is it correct that there is no forensic evidence ?
Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
There is June's bike which was outside Bamber's cottage. Brought over just before the massacre.
There is the bible that landed on top of Sheila's blood. Which could not be achieved by Sheila.
There is Sheila's legs being pulled after she had been shot.
There is the time scale the judge mentioned - 3.26am - 3.48am. It is impossible for Sheila to have committed the massacre in this time.
There is the fact that no one can explain how Sheila committed the massacre, which matches the forensic crime scene.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber.
There are 14 forensic pieces of evidence showing it was not Sheila, which has been posted several times. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
The twins not waking is forensic evidence pointing to an execution, rather than a long term crazy woman episode.
There is the silencer evidence.
There is Bamber's telephone call to the police. Which rounded the suspects down to two. One dead. Paper logs are forensic evidence of the call happening. Which is not disputed by anyone.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not to give him easy access on the massacre night.
There is the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside is more forensic evidence.
There is Neville's smashed in face after a ferocious fight. Bamber not having a mark on him, suggesting he had body and face protection.
-
So over the wetsuit,Jeremy also wore a suit of armour to guard against injuries,which also acted as a magnet for any GSR that was floating about.
-
So over the wetsuit,Jeremy also wore a suit of armour to guard against injuries,which also acted as a magnet for any GSR that was floating about.
I agree \Lookout, this is a ridiculous idea. ;D
-
So over the wetsuit,Jeremy also wore a suit of armour to guard against injuries,which also acted as a magnet for any GSR that was floating about.
We don't know if Jeremy had any GSR on him or not.
So over the wetsuit,Jeremy also wore a suit of armour to guard against injuries,which also acted as a magnet for any GSR that was floating about.
Sheilas also had no injuries on her. Nor did she have any blood splatter on her. Nor were any clothes found that she could have been wearing whilst committing the massacre. Nor did she have any time to remove such clothing from WHF, Bamber did.
I agree \Lookout, this is a ridiculous idea. ;D
It would be a ridiculous idea if anyone was suggesting it, but they are not.
-
I agree \Lookout, this is a ridiculous idea. ;D
It gets worse Maggie ;D ;D ;D ;D I can only answer with quips like this now,as afterall,the heading is " outlandish ". :))
-
Far-fetched might have been better. :))
-
We don't know if Jeremy had any GSR on him or not.
Sheilas also had no injuries on her. Nor did she have any blood splatter on her. Nor were any clothes found that she could have been wearing whilst committing the massacre. Nor did she have any time to remove such clothing from WHF, Bamber did.
It would be a ridiculous idea if anyone was suggesting it, but they are not.
Think Adam has suggested it.
-
Adam have you suggested that Jeremy wore a wetsuit,Jeremy also wore a suit of armour to guard against injuries,which also acted as a magnet for any GSR that was floating about.
-
Adam have you suggested that Jeremy wore a wetsuit,Jeremy also wore a suit of armour to guard against injuries,which also acted as a magnet for any GSR that was floating about.
I will find my thread called 'Did Jeremy wear a wet suit'.
Notice I said 'Did'.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6151.msg272624.html#msg272624
-
Wiggy has not thanked me for my post highlighting 28 pieces of forensic evidence.
It took at least 2 minutes to copy and paste.
Anyway, Sheila's 14 reasons is available for you. Upon request.
-
adam i am so sorry didnt answer right away i dont actually sit waiting on your every word.
You have not listed one singe piece of forensic evidence that ties him to the crime.
Its All supposition on your part.
what you say is possible but only possible not definite thats the point.
Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.
So no forensic to show he was there at the time of the shooting
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
So as he had this time to dispose no evidence found there can be a number of reasons for having human blood in a bathrood jacket or car people bleed. But none of this was linked to the murders,
There is June's bike which was outside Bamber's cottage. Brought over just before the massacre.
No forensic on the bike to link it to the crime
There is the bible that landed on top of Sheila's blood. Which could not be achieved by Sheila.
[
Who Knows how the bible got there since the police moved just about everthing on the crime scene before the photos were taken does not link JB to the crime .
There is Sheila's legs being pulled after she had been shot.
This is pure supposition and does not link JB to the crime.
There is the time scale the judge mentioned - 3.26am - 3.48am. It is impossible for Sheila to have committed the massacre in this time.
That again is an opinion however unlikely we dont actually know what happened and what sequence it happened as we were not there but this again is not evidence that is not open to doubt.
There is the fact that no one can explain how Sheila committed the massacre, which matches the forensic crime scene.
There is no way of explaining how anyone committed it as the scene was compromised by the police we dont know how badly compromised but we know from photos that sheilas body was moved and that things like the kitchen table evidence there are different views as to whether the table was disturbed as there are crime scene photos with the table up and the table set.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber.
That makes perfect sense But still just saying that one of them had to do it isn't evidence.
There are 14 forensic pieces of evidence showing it was not Sheila, which has been posted several times. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
Thats just a silly statement just because there is lack of evidence for one theory dodent mean that even with the lack of evidence for another theory that must be correct. You cant convict someone on the strength someone else didnt do it.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
It not forensic evidence it a conclusion but again proves nothing it is more likely it wasn't sheila but not impossible.
The twins not waking is forensic evidence pointing to an execution, rather than a long term crazy woman episode.
Sheila wasnt as you say crazy she had mental health issues if you knew anything about having a psychotic episode then you would understand that sheila could well have done what your saying she didnt do. However This does not prove Sheila done it there is no proof that either done it. Not enough to convict even if we all think it had to be one of them we still need proof. Your whole stance is basically no way sheila could do it therefor must be JB. And i can understand your simple way of rationalizing that but it is however unlikely still possible that in a psychotic episode she lost control she was someone who needed more help than she was getting. I however think it was unlikely she did it and more likely JB did itt but again the evidence is not clear enough.
There is the silencer evidence.
This should never have been allowed as evidence supposedly found at the farm but taken away and given to the police at a different location. Also police searched the place it was found and saw nothing.
There is Bamber's telephone call to the police. Which rounded the suspects down to two. One dead. Paper logs are forensic evidence of the call happening. Which is not disputed by anyone.
This again is not concrete evidence JB made the call there is also some dispute whether there was anothe r call from the father to the police as per another log. But and i dont believe this but just for arguments sake there was a third suspect could have done the deed then called JB who would have been disorientated haven just woken he says sheilas gone nuts ect ect then hangs up. So its not concrete that this piece of evidence rules out any other suspect.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not to give him easy access on the massacre night.
Just cause it was found does not mean he used it on that night and im sure it was much later it was found but doesn't prove anything as he may have used it previously.
There is the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside is more forensic evidence.
The use of the word could in that sentence says it all
There is Neville's smashed in face after a ferocious fight. Bamber not having a mark on him, suggesting he had body and face protection.
Him Not Having a mark on him could also prove he wasnt there
Not One piece of actual evidence so thanks for proving that.
Again i think it is more likely he did it rather than sheila but there is enough room for doubt
-
There's bags of doubt considering the man's been pleading his innocence since day one----for 30 years !
-
There's bags of doubt considering the man's been pleading his innocence since day one----for 30 years !
Prisons are full of those.
-
Prisons are full of those.
Name loads besides Jeremy who have been pleading for 30 years.
-
Name loads besides Jeremy who have been pleading for 30 years.
there are literally thousands Lookout - you didn't think Jeremy was the only one did you? ::)
-
there are literally thousands Lookout - you didn't think Jeremy was the only one did you? ::)
I asked how many after 30 years were still pleading their innocence.
-
there are literally thousands Lookout - you didn't think Jeremy was the only one did you? ::)
I don't think anyone is guilty that is in prison (according to them). ;D
-
I think we tend to veer away from the fact that jeremy was convicted on circumstantial evidence.
People are entitled to say they dont believe that evidence just as they are that they , ogherwise what would we be discussing.
i think wiggy has some very valid points
-
I asked how many after 30 years were still pleading their innocence.
Anyone who had a trial is fighting against the the charge, people who plea guilty are basically sentenced. Many of these people still claim innocence AFTER conviction. I can't believe you think Jeremy is the only one. I know there are thousands - most people on the board should know the same, you're asking for an impossible task to provide a number. Do some research and you'll find your assumption is wrong!
-
Anyone who had a trial is fighting against the the charge, people who plea guilty are basically sentenced. Many of these people still claim innocence AFTER conviction. I can't believe you think Jeremy is the only one. I know there are thousands - most people on the board should know the same, you're asking for an impossible task to provide a number. Do some research and you'll find your assumption is wrong!
Bloody Hell,I didn't say he was the only one at all--------------you intimated that,not me !
-
Bloody Hell,I didn't say he was the only one at all--------------you intimated that,not me !
He's just one of many chancing his arm.
-
actually most who are convicted then actually admit there guilt and they have to attend classes in prison to show remorse.
If they don't they don't qualify for early parole.
There are only about 30 cases in uk prisons that have been given full life sentences where it would make no difference changing your plea once convicted JB being one
However he originally didn't have a full life sentence think it was 20/25 years .
To maintain your innocent after you have been convicted is stupid even if you are innocent so there are not many that continue to plead there innocence after conviction.
There are somr of course but its not usual
-
actually most who are convicted then actually admit there guilt and they have to attend classes in prison to show remorse.
If they don't they don't qualify for early parole.
There are only about 30 cases in uk prisons that have been given full life sentences where it would make no difference changing your plea once convicted JB being one
However he originally didn't have a full life sentence think it was 20/25 years .
To maintain your innocent after you have been convicted is stupid even if you are innocent so there are not many that continue to plead there innocence after conviction.
There are somr of course but its not usual
There are more than a few who haven't admitted guilt and in Jeremy's case, it would do him no good to admit any responsibility because he would simply be admitting he's child killer - the worst of the worst in UK prisons and he would lose all the attention and just be a target!
-
as i said in a full life sentence there would be no point in admitting guilt to get early parole your correct.
But i bet you cant name names of all those who havent admitted guilt to reduce time spent inside.
You cant just say there are loads without any facts
It is a fact that most admit guilt not all as they also need to take classes to show remorse to get parole
there are not many that do not do this.
In fact many of the ones that have pleaded innocent have been acquitted Barry George as an example all circumstantial evidence no proof.
-
as i said in a full life sentence there would be no point in admitting guilt to get early parole your correct.
But i bet you cant name names of all those who havent admitted guilt to reduce time spent inside.
You cant just say there are loads without any facts
It is a fact that most admit guilt not all as they also need to take classes to show remorse to get parole
there are not many that do not do this.
In fact many of the ones that have pleaded innocent have been acquitted Barry George as an example all circumstantial evidence no proof.
Of course I can say it because it's true - how about you name names of those that have admitted guilt after trial? I bet like me, you don't have time (or the inclination) to sit down and waste that amount of time. Many have been acquitted? That's just BS! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't think anyone is guilty that is in prison (according to them). ;D
As has been proven since the advent of DNA testing more than a few were or are innocent.
-
As has been proven since the advent of DNA testing more than a few were or are innocent.
And I'm sure many aren't! I think you're missing the point - if prisoners were let out because they claim to be innocent, then prisons would be empty.
-
I didn't miss you erroneous point. In fact most people in prison do accept their guilt because there is no element of doubt in their case.
-
As has been proven since the advent of DNA testing more than a few were or are innocent.
And far more guilty!
-
And far more guilty!
I agree, but the system is bound to fail in a small amount of cases.
-
I agree, but the system is bound to fail in a small amount of cases.
You've only to google the amount of MOJ's that the CCRC have processed !
-
You've only to google the amount of MOJ's that the CCRC have processed !
Not ALL of the cases that the CCRC processes are MOJ!
-
I agree, but the system is bound to fail in a small amount of cases.
I would agree with that but would emphasise 'small'.
-
Not ALL of the cases that the CCRC processes are MOJ!
I didn't say ALL. ::)
-
I agree, but the system is bound to fail in a small amount of cases.
Of course. Nothing is perfect.
-
caroline you seem to be putting up the argument that most of the people found guilty are guilty why do think that is good enough. If even 1 person is put to prison and is innocent then the system has failed.
And i think without naming names there has certainly been more than 1 mojs over the years.
Yes a lot of people who go to jail are guilty but shouldn't they all be
-
caroline you seem to be putting up the argument that most of the people found guilty are guilty why do think that is good enough. If even 1 person is put to prison and is innocent then the system has failed.
And i think without naming names there has certainly been more than 1 mojs over the years.
Yes a lot of people who go to jail are guilty but shouldn't they all be
Most of the people found guilty ARE guilty and no system is perfect because humans make the decisions at the end of the day. If you want a perfect system you're being unrealistic.
-
no but we want a system that convicts on evidence ot circumstancial evidence alone.
a fair system where all documents are given to the defense .
Where all witnesses are prosecuted if they have misled and given previous false testimony or have have withheld info.
Where physical evidence is not removed from the crime scene and allowed in evidence.
where the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
no system is perfect that is why if there is reasonable doubt there can be no conviction. And in this case there are so many reasonable doubts.
-
no but we want a system that convicts on evidence ot circumstancial evidence alone.
a fair system where all documents are given to the defense .
Where all witnesses are prosecuted if they have misled and given previous false testimony or have have withheld info.
Where physical evidence is not removed from the crime scene and allowed in evidence.
where the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
no system is perfect that is why if there is reasonable doubt there can be no conviction. And in this case there are so many reasonable doubts.
From sitting behind your screen, possibly so. NOT however from the bench where the jury sat.
-
and jurys never get it wrong especially when not given all the evidence. i cannot believe people when they think that there is no room for doubt with the evidence presented . I just dont understand. And again i am not saying he is innocent just that there is doubt thats all.
-
and jurys never get it wrong especially when not given all the evidence. i cannot believe people when they think that there is no room for doubt with the evidence presented . I just dont understand. And again i am not saying he is innocent just that there is doubt thats all.
People obviously have a different opinion than you, not that hard to understand. I believe the case to be beyond reasonable doubt - as proven at the time and in the failure of every appeal since.
-
and jurys never get it wrong especially when not given all the evidence. i cannot believe people when they think that there is no room for doubt with the evidence presented . I just dont understand. And again i am not saying he is innocent just that there is doubt thats all.
Wiggy, as I've said before, if ever I find myself doubting -because let's be honest, it would be far more comforting to know that Sheila did it out of illness, than Jeremy did it out of greed- my mind goes to the ALLEGED phone call and Jeremy's reaction to it, and all doubt disappears.
-
and jurys never get it wrong especially when not given all the evidence. i cannot believe people when they think that there is no room for doubt with the evidence presented . I just dont understand. And again i am not saying he is innocent just that there is doubt thats all.
You have doubt, many of us don't. Two jury members had doubt - the rest didn't. I can honestly say I have no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty. Although I do agree that some of the evidence (silencer) is a bit ropey.
-
You have doubt, many of us don't. Two jury members had doubt - the rest didn't. I can honestly say I have no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty. Although I do agree that some of the evidence (silencer) is a bit ropey.
" The silencer is a bit ropey ". It was pivotal in this case and the main argument that had him convicted ?
Yet you say that you have" no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty ?".
Remove the silencer and what have you got ?
-
" The silencer is a bit ropey ". It was pivotal in this case and the main argument that had him convicted ?
Yet you say that you have" no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty ?".
Remove the silencer and what have you got ?
It's more a question of what we HAVEN'T got, Lookout, ie a phone call from Nevill.
-
It's more a question of what we HAVEN'T got, Lookout, ie a phone call from Nevill.
What we HAVEN'T got is any forensic evidence.
-
What we HAVEN'T got is any forensic evidence.
Lookout, I won't attempt to debate forensics. They're not my "thing" but I understand that even in the case of very little, circumstantial is enough and in this case, given that WHF was his second home, traces of him could have been found -and explained- all over the house. What value forensics then?
-
The silencer was forensic evidence of a kind, though nobody is jumping for joy at it, apart from the relatives and maybe Julie.
-
The silencer was forensic evidence of a kind, though nobody is jumping for joy at it, apart from the relatives and maybe Julie.
There definitely seems to be a question mark there, Steve. It certainly gave the relatives extra clout whilst taking some of the heat away from Julie.
-
What we HAVEN'T got is any forensic evidence.
http://www.theforensicteacher.com/Evidence.html
-
The silencer was forensic evidence of a kind, though nobody is jumping for joy at it, apart from the relatives and maybe Julie.
The silencer is fundamental to the prosecution. I don't understand how some people think the silencer is unreliable or manufactured and still believe Jeremy is guilty.
-
The silencer is fundamental to the prosecution. I don't understand how some people think the silencer is unreliable or manufactured and still believe Jeremy is guilty.
I think Jeremy is guilty because the story about the phone call is BS, he's been caught out in lies and Julie's testimony shows he's guilty. Apart from that, it is an impossibility to shoot yourself with a rifle at a 45 degree angle and the scene was clearly staged. What's not to understand?
-
Very interesting read caroline on circumstantial evidence and backs up what ive thought all along.
Its like telling someone a story and getting everyone to believe its true, wether it is or not it is, is a different matter. The prosecution should not be allowed to withold evidence when prosecuting on circumstantial, i believe that is unfair and very dangerous
it would be interesting to know what percentage of MOJs are based on circumstantial evidence.
Having said all that now i understand about the call logs i can see he really has very little to base an appeal on.
-
" The silencer is a bit ropey ". It was pivotal in this case and the main argument that had him convicted ?
Yet you say that you have" no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty ?".
Remove the silencer and what have you got ?
Jeremy killing the family minus the silencer? ;D ;D ;D
-
Very interesting read caroline on circumstantial evidence and backs up what ive thought all along.
Its like telling someone a story and getting everyone to believe its true, wether it is or not it is, is a different matter. The prosecution should not be allowed to withold evidence when prosecuting on circumstantial, i believe that is unfair and very dangerous
it would be interesting to know what percentage of MOJs are based on circumstantial evidence.
Having said all that now i understand about the call logs i can see he really has very little to base an appeal on.
Isn't that what some people do here? But without ANY basis?
-
Isn't that what some people do here? But without ANY basis?
Ain't that the truth............................which is a more than can be said for some of the utter FILTH that's been posted here and sworn to be the truth.
-
Ain't that the truth............................which is a more than can be said for some of the utter FILTH that's been posted here and sworn to be the truth.
(http://images.clipartpanda.com/smiley-face-clip-art-thumbs-up-clipart-two-thumbs-up-happy-smiley-emoticon-512x512-eec6.png)
-
what is truth what do we know about this case to be true .
we know that jm made a call to the police and was told to meet them at the farm.
We know that the when the forensic photos were taken the scene had been re staged as per the photos with the gun in different positions,
We know the silencer was not fount at the scene by the police
we know jm was bitter about being cheated on by JM
We know Sheila had serious mental health issues.
We know there were certain officers whom have admitted that they took a dislike to JB straight away
everything else is circumstantial The logs and statements are so unclear any recordings of the calls destroyed evidence withheld from the defense there is a state ment that has one of the pages clearly retyped on a different typewriter.
There are very few actual truths in the case is about creating a story to try and fit the circumstances. And however much sense it makes it certainly not based on fact or truth.
-
what is truth what do we know about this case to be true .
we know that jm made a call to the police and was told to meet them at the farm.
We know that the when the forensic photos were taken the scene had been re staged as per the photos with the gun in different positions,
We know the silencer was not fount at the scene by the police
we know jm was bitter about being cheated on by JM
We know Sheila had serious mental health issues.
We know there were certain officers whom have admitted that they took a dislike to JB straight away
everything else is circumstantial The logs and statements are so unclear any recordings of the calls destroyed evidence withheld from the defense there is a state ment that has one of the pages clearly retyped on a different typewriter.
There are very few actual truths in the case is about creating a story to try and fit the circumstances. And however much sense it makes it certainly not based on fact or truth.
We also know that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his girlfriend three times in the space of several hours. Why? Call Two gives him knowledge of the shootings irrespective of whether his father telephoned him or not. We know that at this stage Julie was very much part of his plans as he wanted her by his side. We know that Sheila had mobility issues with simple tasks such as pouring tea into a cup,yet the shots to Nevill were made with precision to the head. Look at the front of Sheila's nightie,which tells me she wasn't involved in any physical contact that morning.
-
what is truth what do we know about this case to be true .
we know that jm made a call to the police and was told to meet them at the farm. You mean JB?
We know that the when the forensic photos were taken the scene had been re staged as per the photos with the gun in different positions, No we don't
We know the silencer was not fount at the scene by the police Why would it be? They weren't looking for one!
we know jm was bitter about being cheated on by JM - I guess you mean JB again?
We know Sheila had serious mental health issues. For which she was being medicated
We know there were certain officers whom have admitted that they took a dislike to JB straight away Because they thought he was acting suspicious
everything else is circumstantial The logs and statements are so unclear any recordings of the calls destroyed evidence withheld from the defense there is a state ment that has one of the pages clearly retyped on a different typewriter.The logs are clear, people here and the OS are simply trying to pass off errors as something more sinister which is just silly.
There are very few actual truths in the case is about creating a story to try and fit the circumstances. And however much sense it makes it certainly not based on fact or truth. Only to those trying to make a conspiracy theory which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
-
As I think I have shown conclusively, medication is not a guarantee against relapse.
-
As I think I have shown conclusively, medication is not a guarantee against relapse.
OK. So we release every person who has been convicted whilst on medication because they MAY have relapsed. Never mind if they had not.
-
As I think I have shown conclusively, medication is not a guarantee against relapse.
It makes relapse less likely. Of course it's awfully coincidental that Sheila would relapse on the very night Jeremy left the rifle out - the rifle that he never used to shoot rabbits but left out anyway!
-
It makes relapse less likely. Of course it's awfully coincidental that Sheila would relapse on the very night Jeremy left the rifle out - the rifle that he never used to shoot rabbits but left out anyway!
If Jeremy hadn't left out the rifle out there was an arsenal of other weapons easily accessible on any night.
-
Sheila's mental health had deteriorated as has been said, which meant that her condition fluctuated between feelings of elation,as seen when she'd been spotted tripping through the fields with the twins,to feelings of anger and frustration ( thumping her fists on walls ) Is this normal ? No it isn't and the patient poses a threat against themselves and others.
-
If Jeremy hadn't left out the rifle out there was an arsenal of other weapons easily accessible on any night.
And yet it was ONLY on the night that Jeremy left out the rifle that Sheila coincidentally 'went crazy' ::)
-
Sheila's mental health had deteriorated as has been said, which meant that her condition fluctuated between feelings of elation,as seen when she'd been spotted tripping through the fields with the twins,to feelings of anger and frustration ( thumping her fists on walls ) Is this normal ? No it isn't and the patient poses a threat against themselves and others.
She was seen skipping along with the twins (allegedly) but no one mentioned her banging fists that weekend. In fact most people commented on her being quiet and withdrawn. It just suits a few to pretend her medication wasn't working when the descriptions of her behaviour point to the opposite.
-
Sheila's mental health had deteriorated as has been said, which meant that her condition fluctuated between feelings of elation,as seen when she'd been spotted tripping through the fields with the twins,to feelings of anger and frustration ( thumping her fists on walls ) Is this normal ? No it isn't and the patient poses a threat against themselves and others.
You seem to be suggesting that, over the last few days of her life, Sheila ran the entire gamut of emotions from one end of the spectrum to the other. I don't believe this to have been the case and much of what has been said of her behaviour during that period has been disproved.
-
The rifle that fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) was photographed at the bedroom window, (crime scene photograph No. 23), before police placed 'it' on Sheila's body, as per crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, etc - Detective Inspector Ron Cook, testified during the trial, claiming it was he who removed the anshuzt rifle from Sheila's body, and placed it against the bedroom window. But the truth of the matter, is that the anshuzt rifle was leaning against the bedroom window before police put it on the body. Photograph No. 23 which shows the anshuzt rifle leaning at the window, before police photographed 'it' on Sheila's body. Therefore the rifle shown resting against the window, could not have been placed at the bedroom window, by Detective Inspector Ron Cook. Either it had been resting against the bedroom window all along, or another officer had placed it back there after it had discharged the fatal shot (PV/19) which had killed Sheila. According to Cook, once he removed the anshuzt rifle from Sheila's body, he handed the rifle to Inspector Montgomery, who checked and made it safe, before he handed it back to Cook who inturn says he placed the rifle at the bedroom window. What this tells us, is that despite police having already shot and killed Sheila whilst introducing a loaded rifle to her body for gauging purposes, police did not learn from their mistake, and reintroduced a rifle back onto Sheila's body, after she already had two bullet wounds in her neck. The stark truth of the matter is that the crime scene photographs depict the scene with the anshuzt rifle upon Sheila's body, under her control, was staged by SOCO's in charged of the crime scene...
Sheila's illness has got nothing to do with why police fabricated the crime scene photographic records, in September 1985, to frame Bamber...
-
You seem to be suggesting that, over the last few days of her life, Sheila ran the entire gamut of emotions from one end of the spectrum to the other. I don't believe this to have been the case and much of what has been said of her behaviour during that period has been disproved.
It wasn't ;D
-
Sheila's mental health had deteriorated as has been said, which meant that her condition fluctuated between feelings of elation,as seen when she'd been spotted tripping through the fields with the twins,to feelings of anger and frustration ( thumping her fists on walls ) Is this normal ? No it isn't and the patient poses a threat against themselves and others.
Not sure who you are describing there, Lookout. But that's not a clear and honest view of how Sheila was described by those who were there at the time, far from it actually.
-
And yet it was ONLY on the night that Jeremy left out the rifle that Sheila coincidentally 'went crazy' ::)
Pure speculation. Please post the source where it is said that Jeremy had never left the rifle out before. Or that Sheila hadn't had a psychotic episode on one of those occasions.
-
Not sure who you are describing there, Lookout. But that's not a clear and honest view of how Sheila was described by those who were there at the time, far from it actually.
A catatonic phase is a prelude to the manic phase of a psychotic episode. CC, PB, Jeremy all described Sheila as withdrawn.
-
Pure speculation. Please post the source where it is said that Jeremy had never left the rifle out before. Or that Sheila hadn't had a psychotic episode on one of those occasions.
Please post one where he had? IF he had, he's hav used it to explain how it could have happened again - in the lack of such testimony or evidence, it is safe to say it didn't happen.
-
A catatonic phase is a prelude to the manic phase of a psychotic episode. CC, PB, Jeremy all described Sheila as withdrawn.
It seems to me that you are describing Bipolar disorder not schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is controlled quite successfully by medication - which Sheila had in her system. There is also a MASSIVE difference between 'withdrawn' and 'catatonic'!!
-
Pure speculation. Please post the source where it is said that Jeremy had never left the rifle out before. Or that Sheila hadn't had a psychotic episode on one of those occasions.
Asking for proof that Sheila hadn't previously had psychotic episode whilst with her parents -given that all are now dead- is asking for proof of a negative.
-
A catatonic phase is a prelude to the manic phase of a psychotic episode. CC, PB, Jeremy all described Sheila as withdrawn.
There's a vast space on the spectrum between lethargy and catatonia.
-
A catatonic phase is a prelude to the manic phase of a psychotic episode. CC, PB, Jeremy all described Sheila as withdrawn.
That is true and we know as fact that June was very concerned about Sheila. It is one of the few facts we have in this case because Pamela Boutflour spoke to June and told her about her concerns for Sheila hours before they all died.
A catatonic state is often a warning of a full blown episode and cannot be dismissed, however although we are told by Jeremy that Sheila was withdrawn and detached and we know June told Pamela something similar we have no proof that Sheila was in such a state....... was Sheila catatonic or 'depressed', did Jeremy exaggerate Sheila's state to reinforce her guilt, did he know far more about P.S. than he admitted?
JM claimed he spent about a year planning the murders (badly) did JB quietly read up about P.S. but pretend he didn't know anything about the illness?
Round and round we go, no wonder this case is confusing and the basis of it all has to be the question is JB capable of carrying out such an act in cold blood?
-
I have loved reading all the interesting theory's in this forum most are well thought out and some even plausible. The problem is there is no evidence to back any of them up.
this case as I've said before should be overturned not because of theory's but because there is no evidence that would show that without any doubt JB is guilty.
Case rests on 3 things as per trial and summing up of the Judge.
1. Do we believe Julie Mongford
2. The silencer being found and red paint and blood found
3. Did JB get a call from his father
(1) - Mugfords evidence is too scatty, and unreliable. She was a woman scorned, hell bent on causing Jeremy as much trouble as possible. The 31+ interviews she had with the police were clearly sessions during which DS Jones, and DC Barlow, schooled her on how to present her evidence. She was also motivated by cash incentives should Jeremy be convicted. She was treated like a VIP, put up in a hotel, all expenses paid for. If any of her evidence was true, she should have been prosecuted in the same way Myra Hindley, Rose West and Maxine Carr, were implicated, charged and convicted. Her account cannot be factually true, otherwise she would have been in the dock with Jeremy...
(2) - Silencer belonging to anshuzt rifle was not used in shooting of Sheila Caffell, if it had been used police would have known about it, before the relatives did...
(3) - Jeremy did receive a call from his father, there is evidence regarding this in his witness statements, and trial testimony. No evidence exists or was relied upon to contradict this fact (unless you accept Jeremy shot Sheila, and set the scene by him placing the anshuzt rifle on her body to create the impression that she had shot herself - in which case, how could the same rifle be photographed resting against the bedroom window (photo' 23) prior to 'it' being then photographed upon her body, as per crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, etc)...
Julie Mugfords testimony was tainted, the Bamber owned Silencer was not used in Sheila' shooting, and Ralph Bamber did make a call to Jeremy...
-
Hi mike, jm wasnt the only one making money out of jbs conviction.
i just listenec to the video of the money trail on th cteams website. Makes interesting listening.
there is no doubt in my mind at all that the family were aware that they had everything to lose if jb was not convicted.
The question i have to yet answer is, would they set him up for the money?
-
Hi mike, jm wasnt the only one making money out of jbs conviction.
i just listenec to the video of the money trail on th cteams website. Makes interesting listening.
there is no doubt in my mind at all that the family were aware that they had everything to lose if jb was not convicted.
The question i have to yet answer is, would they set him up for the money?
I can say, from experience, that in some families where there is property, money, land and business interests, despite the law saying otherwise, adopted people aren't always regarded as "family" and MAY have to work extra hard to prove themselves. I don't believe that Jeremy did that. I don't believe he was cut out to be a farmer. I don't believe he had any love of farming because it wasn't in his blood. His only interest seemed to be in raising as much money for it, as he could, as quickly as possible. This could have left those for whom the family business had been their life's work in an invidious position. In answer to you question, I'd feel more inclined to say that if they believed he was guilty, they'd have been likely to have tried to prevent the money from falling into HIS hands as opposed to getting it into theirs. I think their first concern MAY have been about protecting their own livelihoods.
-
Well tough s...... on them. He was june and nevilles son and they left thier money to him and shiela and quite rightly so in my opinion.
it is very obvious if you look at it from the money angle that they had as much motive as jb
-
Well tough s...... on them. He was june and nevilles son and they left thier money to him and shiela and quite rightly so in my opinion.
it is very obvious if you look at it from the money angle that they had as much motive as jb
The saying goes, that before we judge another person we should walk a mile in their shoes. I'm not saying it was right but I AM saying I can understand where they were coming from.
Re Jeremy, in order to inherit in the natural way he'd have been required to remain farming, something I'm convinced he wanted to get away from, which I guess put him between a rock and a hard place.
-
I get where they were coming from too jane. It must have been hard knowing that june and nevills son was going to own half of thier farms etc.anne eaton and the boutflours knew exactly what the stakes were.
would they have framed him for the money..... well as i said they had the same motive as jb and its a fact they weren't completely honest to the jury about benefiting were they.
-
I get where they were coming from too jane. It must have been hard knowing that june and nevills son was going to own half of thier farms etc.anne eaton and the boutflours knew exactly what the stakes were.
would they have framed him for the money..... well as i said they had the same motive as jb and its a fact they weren't completely honest to the jury about benefiting were they.
Notsure, you won't like the answer I'm about to give but it's the only one possible.
We've all watched courtroom scenes in which a question is asked and answered with a BUT which is quickly cut off with "No more questions." In a courtroom setting oner ONLY answers questions one is asked. One doesn't volunteer information. RWB was asked if he would benefit from Jeremy's conviction. He said he wouldn't. I agree it was ambiguous but it was the truth. The question was deliberately put that way, because had they asked would his family benefit from Jeremy's conviction, the answer would have been different.
-
No it wasnt the truth, his wife was going to inherit and as her husband would have jointly owned that inyeritance.
it wasnt just that though was it. The truth is they had as much motive as jb but the question is would they have set him up so they didnt lose what they had and werent beholden to him
-
No it wasnt the truth, his wife was going to inherit and as her husband would have jointly owned that inyeritance.
it wasnt just that though was it. The truth is they had as much motive as jb but the question is would they have set him up so they didnt lose what they had and werent beholden to him
Unless the inheritance was to have been in joint names -and I can see no valid reason for it- it would have belonged solely to Pam. How she chose to distribute it would have been up to her. However ambiguous his reply, it was truthful.
-
Yes it is ambigious and likely it would have been put within there other joint assetts.
Had it been revealed in court the jury would have completely understood that they were going to benefit which was the point of asking.
they should havd known
-
I get where they were coming from too jane. It must have been hard knowing that june and nevills son was going to own half of thier farms etc.anne eaton and the boutflours knew exactly what the stakes were.
would they have framed him for the money..... well as i said they had the same motive as jb and its a fact they weren't completely honest to the jury about benefiting were they.
Same motive? Motive for what?
-
Yes it is ambigious and likely it would have been put within there other joint assetts.
Had it been revealed in court the jury would have completely understood that they were going to benefit which was the point of asking.
they should havd known
I feel as if I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. Had counsel wanted the answer to the question "Will your family benefit from Jeremy being convicted", THAT would have been the question they asked. It was with good reason that they didn't ask that question, instead asking if HE would benefit from Jeremy's conviction.
-
(1) - Mugfords evidence is too scatty, and unreliable. She was a woman scorned, hell bent on causing Jeremy as much trouble as possible. The 31+ interviews she had with the police were clearly sessions during which DS Jones, and DC Barlow, schooled her on how to present her evidence. She was also motivated by cash incentives should Jeremy be convicted. She was treated like a VIP, put up in a hotel, all expenses paid for. If any of her evidence was true, she should have been prosecuted in the same way Myra Hindley, Rose West and Maxine Carr, were implicated, charged and convicted. Her account cannot be factually true, otherwise she would have been in the dock with Jeremy...
(2) - Silencer belonging to anshuzt rifle was not used in shooting of Sheila Caffell, if it had been used police would have known about it, before the relatives did...
(3) - Jeremy did receive a call from his father, there is evidence regarding this in his witness statements, and trial testimony. No evidence exists or was relied upon to contradict this fact (unless you accept Jeremy shot Sheila, and set the scene by him placing the anshuzt rifle on her body to create the impression that she had shot herself - in which case, how could the same rifle be photographed resting against the bedroom window (photo' 23) prior to 'it' being then photographed upon her body, as per crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, etc)...
Julie Mugfords testimony was tainted, the Bamber owned Silencer was not used in Sheila' shooting, and Ralph Bamber did make a call to Jeremy...
Jeremy never felt part of anything at the White House,shut out emotionally by June and unable to emulate his once hero Nevill,who himself failed to conceal the disappointment he felt in how his son had developed. With the death of his second sister Diana in 1968 he retreated to his own sequestered world of reminiscing on times which didn't include either child. June was a wife first and foremost and not a mother,which only reinforced the children's estrangement whenever they returned from boarding school to that inexpressive, loveless vacuum which was White House Farm. Jeremy began to understand the justification for this state of affairs and consoled himself with materialism;Sheila contrarily was preoccupied with cognitive development where money was a side issue.
The sad fact is,in my opinion,that Jeremy never telephoned Nevill in his whole life,nor vice versa.
-
The jury were duped by the fabricated crime scene photographs in their possession when they retired to consider their verdict. They had it drummed into their heads that all the photographs which showed the anshuzt rifle resting upon Sheila's body, was as the firearms team had found it upon entering the main bedroom at the farmhouse, and that Jeremy Bamber had set the death scene of his sister by positioning that rifle on her body after he had killed her, to give the impression that she had shot herself by use of that rifle. There were 8 consecutive photographs, which all showed Sheila's body with the anshuzt rifle resting upon it, with her right hand fingers close to the trigger mechanism, and the muzzle of the rifle pointing in the general area of her chin / throat (photo's, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32), yet crime scene photograph No. 23 shows the same rifle resting against the bedroom window, before police shifted it, onto Sheila Caffells body. The integrity of the crime scene, and in particular, the sequence with which certain photographs were taken, has been significantly undermined, and exposed as a clear cut fabrication in the prosecutions case:-
(1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmCART1vcCo
-
The jury were duped by the fabricated crime scene photographs in their possession when they retired to consider their verdict. They had it drummed into their heads that all the photographs which showed the anshuzt rifle resting upon Sheila's body, was as the firearms team had found it upon entering the main bedroom at the farmhouse, and that Jeremy Bamber had set the death scene of his sister by positioning that rifle on her body after he had killed her, to give the impression that she had shot herself by use of that rifle. There were 8 consecutive photographs, which all showed Sheila's body with the anshuzt rifle resting upon it, with her right hand fingers close to the trigger mechanism, and the muzzle of the rifle pointing in the general area of her chin / throat (photo's, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32), yet crime scene photograph No. 23 shows the same rifle resting against the bedroom window, before police shifted it, onto Sheila Caffells body. The integrity of the crime scene, and in particular, the sequence with which certain photographs were taken, has been significantly undermined, and exposed as a clear cut fabrication in the prosecutions case:-
(1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmCART1vcCo
Is it possible there have been one or two of those photos here?
-
Is it possible there have been one or two of those photos here?
Yes, they are already posted up on the forum, along with the photographic records, and testimony of Detective Inspector Ron Cook (SOCO), and Police Officer David Bird (SOCO)...
-
Yes, they are already posted up on the forum, along with the photographic records, and testimony of Detective Inspector Ron Cook (SOCO), and Police Officer David Bird (SOCO)...
And, if memory serves me correctly, some very poor, female Bamber lookalikes?
-
And, if memory serves me correctly, some very poor, female Bamber lookalikes?
No, the facts of the matter in this instance - anshuzt rifle was photographed on Sheila's body, (Crime Scene Photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) after the same rifle was photographed resting against the main bedroom window (23). Don't even try to manipulate the true facts of the case...
-
No, the facts of the matter in this instance - anshuzt rifle was photographed on Sheila's body, (Crime Scene Photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) after the same rifle was photographed resting against the main bedroom window (23). Don't even try to manipulate the true facts of the case...
"In THIS instance"!!!! You've obviously listened to more barristers than most of us. ^-^
-
"In THIS instance"!!!! You've obviously listened to more barristers than most of us. ^-^
Solicitors, Barristers, and QC's - yes. I have witnessed at first hand the quality of their approach, including the approach made by prosecutors, and the trial judges, themselves...
I have a good working knowledge of how all parties could, would, and did react...
-
Solicitors, Barristers, and QC's - yes. I have witnessed at first hand the quality of their approach, including the approach made by prosecutors, and the trial judges, themselves...
I have a good working knowledge of how all parties could, would, and did react...
You obviously listened and learned :))
-
You obviously listened and learned :))
Yes love, I have...
If I am honest, I must admit that I was impressed by the arguments of all parties...
If I have learned anything from being a witness to all these different arguments, it is that evidence is not always what it appears to be. The truth, or it's interpretation, is open to interpretation. The interpretation is subject (I think) to anyone's own interpretation based upon an individuals personal experience...
-
Yes love, I have...
If I am honest, I must admit that I was impressed by the arguments of all parties...
If I have learned anything from being a witness to all these different arguments, it is that evidence is not always what it appears to be. The truth, or it's interpretation, is open to interpretation. The interpretation is subject (I think) to anyone's own interpretation based upon an individuals personal experience...
And with that, I agree 100% :)
-
Same motive? Motive for what?
[/quote,
Money
-
And with that, I agree 100% :)
OK, Good. In the past I have benefited from the this approach, but been disadvantaged on other occasions. My overall interpretation of this process, is that the truth is not always achieved, obtained, or established...
-
OK, Good. In the past I have benefited from the this approach, but been disadvantaged on other occasions. My overall interpretation of this process, is that the truth is not always achieved, obtained, or established...
Although sometimes it is or mostly is.
-
I feel as if I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. Had counsel wanted the answer to the question "Will your family benefit from Jeremy being convicted", THAT would have been the question they asked. It was with good reason that they didn't ask that question, instead asking if HE would benefit from Jeremy's conviction.
Blimey jane dont bang your head against a brick wall on my account. If you dont want to reply to my post then dont.
you know as well as i do it was a sly thing to do, had everyone known about the eatons boutflours/ land deals money trail etc it could have been a completely different syory.
like you say it was with good reason the right questions werent asked.
-
Blimey jane dont bang your head against a brick wall on my account. If you dont want to reply to my post then dont.
you know as well as i do it was a sly thing to do, had everyone known about the eatons boutflours/ land deals money trail etc it could have been a completely different syory.
like you say it was with good reason the right questions werent asked.
Why would it be a different story? There is no implication that the relatives had anything to do with the murders. The phone call makes it either Jeremy or Sheila, Sheila couldn't have done it so that leaves Jeremy. They wouldn't be the first relatives to inherit by default.
-
Although sometimes it is or mostly is.
Yes, but in this instance, the facts are undeniably proven - Crime Scene Photograph No. 23, was taken before Crime Scene Photographs, No.'s 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, were taken. So, do you not agree that photo''s 25, 26, 27, 228, 29, 30,, 31 and 32, were taken after photograph 23 was taken?
If you deny this as being factual, please give your reasons, or your evidence for believing an alternative?
-
Yes, but in this instance, the facts are undeniably proven - Crime Scene Photograph No. 23, was taken before Crime Scene Photographs, No.'s 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, were taken. So, do you not agree that photo''s 25, 26, 27, 228, 29, 30,, 31 and 32, were taken after photograph 23 was taken?
If you deny this as being factual, please give your reasons, or your evidence for believing an alternative?
Yes, I do agree that photo''s 25, 26, 27, 228, 29, 30,, 31 and 32, were taken after photograph 23 was taken?
-
Blimey jane dont bang your head against a brick wall on my account. If you dont want to reply to my post then dont.
you know as well as i do it was a sly thing to do, had everyone known about the eatons boutflours/ land deals money trail etc it could have been a completely different syory.
like you say it was with good reason the right questions werent asked.
You may not have called it "sly" if you'd felt a great wrong had been done you and this person was trying to put it right.
-
No i may not have done jane, but that person who may have been trying to put things right might have been wrong.
look jane im not saying he isnt guilty im just trying to work out what is real proof and what isnt.
-
Yes, I do agree that photo''s 25, 26, 27, 228, 29, 30,, 31 and 32, were taken after photograph 23 was taken?
Ok, Love (figure of speech, regionally), so, we have agreement that police ''did' set the death scene of Jeremy Bambers sister...
This is a beginning...
It's acceptance has serious implications, since a reliance upon the images contained in these crime scene photographs, establishes, that Jeremy Bamber, could not, did not put 'that' rifle, upon his sisters body, to fool the police into accepting that his sister had killed herself. Do you agree, with this scenario?
-
So, as the facts seem to suggest, the anshuzt rifle was at the bedroom window, before it was photographed on Sheila's body?
-
OK, if rifle was photographed resting against bedroom window, before it was photographed on Sheila's body, what does this, inform the impartials?
-
OK, if rifle was photographed resting against bedroom window, before it was photographed on Sheila's body, what does this, inform the impartials?
Surely, this establishes beyond reasonable doubt, that police, not anybody else, placed the rifle upon the body?
-
Am I making up this, scenario?
-
Am I making up this, scenario?
As you're the one telling this particular story, you're only one who knows the answer to that.... so are you?
-
As you're the one telling this particular story, you're only one who knows the answer to that.... so are you?
no love, I am not lying...
-
no love, I am not lying...
Whether or not, it is a story, or the truth, what does, the fact that the rifle resting against the bedroom window, before it was photographed on Sheila's body, really mean>?
-
no love, I am not lying...
Is that "I'm not lying" bearing in mind that you weren't present when any of this happened, so for a man who has no faith in our legal system you're putting a remarkable amount of faith in those who were either part of it at the time OR knew someone who was, who passed the story to them,................................ OR "I'm not making up this scenario" which is rather different from lying?
-
Is that "I'm not lying" bearing in mind that you weren't present when any of this happened, so for a man who has no faith in our legal system you're putting a remarkable amount of faith in those who were either part of it at the time OR knew someone who was, who passed the story to them,................................ OR "I'm not making up this scenario" which is rather different from lying?
Read the facts in the transcripts from the trial, as spoken by Detective Inspector Ron Cook, and Police Constable, David Bird...
-
The rifle was on Sheila, PC Bird took a photo. (E)
When PC Bird then returned to the bedroom to take photo's the rifle had been removed. (M)
Nothing more sinister than that.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=738.0;attach=3241;image)
-
As further evidence of the rifle on Sheila being photographed and then removed, then photographed leaning against the wall.
The truth.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=185.0;attach=19113;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=185.0;attach=19114;image)
-
Am I making up this, scenario?
You are attempting to pull wool over folks eyes , yes.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how some people ignore the evidence. What these people need to do is get the facts right. Firstly, PC David Bird, and DI Ron Cook, are low life criminals in uniform. It doesn't matter how many witness statements they made, or didn't make. It doesn't matter what they said when both testified during the trial. These two criminals in uniform are clearly exposed as wrongdoers by the sequence with which crime scene photographs were taken. Let me address the 'now known' facts, the truth of which was deliberately altered during the trial, to prevent the court, the defence, the jury and the general public from finding out the 'truth' about who shot Bambers sister, and who had in fact positioned the rifle on Bambers sisters body to make it look like she had taken her own life. The crime scene photograph No.'s, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, all show the anshuzt rifle upon Sheila Caffells body. Crime scene photograph No. 23, on the other hand, shows the same rifle resting against the window frame of the main bedroom. Now, during the trial the criminals Cook and Bird, deceived the court into believing that the 8 photographs which show the rifle upon Sheila Caffells body, had been taken before crime scene photograph No. 23 which shows the same rifle resting against the window frame in the same bedroom. Cook gave sworn testimony stating that the photograph (23) showing the rifle at the bedroom window, was taken after the other 8 photographs which showed 'that' rifle upon Sheila Caffells body. Cook swore on his oath that two of these photographs showed movement of Sheila's hand, which he said he was responsible for moving, because he said he wanted PC Bird to photograph bloodied fingermarks beneath it. Cook then went on to say that he had removed the rifle, handed it to PI Montgomery to check to see if it was still loaded, being handed it back, and then Cook himself placing the anshuzt rifle at the bedroom window, where he said PC Bird had subsequently taken photograph 23...
He lied...
PC Bird gave a detailed explanation ( during his own testimony at the trial) about what he says he had taken this collection of 9 crime scene photographs in. He produced a short witness statement on the day he gave his testimony, purporting to show the various locations he had taken photographs in at the scene that morning. This witness statement was just a prop to support the lies both Cook and himself had invented around the sequence with which this collection of 9 photographs had been taken in. Cook and Bird stated the sequence that these 9 crime scene photographs had been taken in was as follows; 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, followed by 23...
They both reiterated the fact that the body with the rifle upon it had been photographed before the rifle was subsequently photographed at the bedroom window. Cook the criminal had he said, removed it from the victims body and placed it at the bedroom window - he lied. PC Bird, well in addition to lying about the sequence with which he claimed to have taken these 9 key crime scene photographs in, when he was asked about photograph 23, and the rifle shown to be resting against the bedroom window, how did 'that' rifle get there, and who had placed it there? He responded by saying, "I do not know"...
-
The true sequence in which these 9 key photographs were in fact taken, was as follows (confirmed by the COLP investigation, 1991 / 1992):-
23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32...
-
The anshuzt rifle (23) was resting against the bedroom window in the main bedroom, before it was photographed ( 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) on Sheila Caffells body. What this means ladies and gentlemen, is that it was the police themselves who staged Sheila Caffells death scene. The police fabricated Bambers sisters death scene and then photographed it to make it look like she had killed herself...
Now, please, don't insult my intelligence by making out you don't understand the full implications of this?
In 1988, when I was sentenced to a total of 52 years, the judge said the following about me, " THE PICTURE I HAVE OF YOU, IS OF A HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, CUNNING, RESOURCEFUL, AND AN ILLUSIVE CROOK" - He lied. But which parts do you think he lied about, none of it, all of it, the bit about me being highly intelligent, cunning, resourceful and illusive, or me being a crook?
-
The anshuzt rifle (23) was resting against the bedroom window in the main bedroom, before it was photographed ( 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32) on Sheila Caffells body. What this means ladies and gentlemen, is that it was the police themselves who staged Sheila Caffells death scene. The police fabricated Bambers sisters death scene and then photographed it to make it look like she had killed herself...
Now, please, don't insult my intelligence by making out you don't understand the full implications of this?
In 1988, when I was sentenced to a total of 52 years, the judge said the following about me, " THE PICTURE I HAVE OF YOU, IS OF A HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, CUNNING, RESOURCEFUL, AND AN ILLUSIVE CROOK" - He lied. But which parts do you think he lied about, none of it, all of it, the bit about me being highly intelligent, cunning, resourceful and illusive, or me being a crook?
Utter rubbish!
The sequential numbers of the photographs refer to the order they were entered as exhibits in the album. It does not refer to the order they were taken in. As you know very well.
What do you hope to achieve by making things up? It's a bit weird.
-
So, on the basis that the police (and not Jeremy Bamber) arranged Sheila Caffells death scene, and the indisputable fact that Scenes of Crime officers at the heart of the investigation, fabricated the photographic evidence used to help convict Jeremy Bamber as the killer, it raises other questions and issues. If whoever staged the death scene (shown in crime scene photographs) killed Sheila Caffell, then the killer could not possibly be Jeremy Bamber...
Here is part of the evidence bundle which proves that crime scene photograph No. 23 was taken before the other crime scene photographs. No.'s 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32:-
-
[quote author=mike tesko link=topic=7129.msg338071#msg338071 date=14485187
In 1988, when I was sentenced to a total of 52 years, the judge said the following about me, " THE PICTURE I HAVE OF YOU, IS OF A HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, CUNNING, RESOURCEFUL, AND AN ILLUSIVE CROOK" - He lied. But which parts do you think he lied about, none of it, all of it, the bit about me being highly intelligent, cunning, resourceful and illusive, or me being a crook?
[/quote]
Gracious Heavens! That's some challenge to be faced with first thing in the morning. Is it a rhetorical question?
I'd LOVE to know what it was alleged you'd done to win you 52 years when Jeremy only got (albeit, a minimum of) 25 years for 5 murders!!!!!!
You say the judge lied. Might he simply have been mistaken? In fairness to him, he does say "The picture I have of you............" which suggests he may have been reading something said by others. It's obvious that you were neither "resourceful and illusive" or you wouldn't have been standing in the dock. Could he have been wrong about you being "a crook"? I know nothing of your history but it occurs to me that 52 years would be an inordinately lengthy term of imprisonment for a first offence. Intelligence is found on every level from technical to academic. I don't believe it's possible to measure one against the other.
I think I've answered you as fairly as the question allowed for. My apologies if this wasn't the answer you were looking for.
-
Utter rubbish!
The sequential numbers of the photographs refer to the order they were entered as exhibits in the album. It does not refer to the order they were taken in. As you know very well.
What do you hope to achieve by making things up? It's a bit weird.
The evidence which establishes the order in which these 9 key photographs were taken is now available, something which was not available to the defence during the trial. Based on the newly available evidence, we will see in due course, who is talking utter rubbish (I know its not me). Whether you and the relatives like it or not, the fact of the matter is that the anshuzt rifle 'was' photographed resting against the bedroom window, before PC Bird photographed the same rifle on Sheila's body. How could this have happened if photographs 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, purport to show the anshuzt rifle on Bambers sisters body, untouched and unmoved (supposedly) since when firearms officers supposedly found the body there in the bedroom over two hours earlier? Are you trying to deny it must have been the police who staged Sheila's death scene? If you are you have got to be kidding. No-one else but the police could have put that rifle on her body so that PC Bird could photograph it there, with the intention of showing how she had killed herself. So, why aren't you and the relatives kicking off about this?
Do you think its legal and alright to fabricate and falsify a persons death scene, and blame an innocent person (Jeremy Bamber) for setting the death scene with a view to fooling police into accepting she had taken her own life?
-
Here are some of the key photographs in the police Conspiracy, photo's, 23, 28, 32 and 33:-
-
As further evidence of the rifle on Sheila being photographed and then removed, then photographed leaning against the wall.
The truth.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=185.0;attach=19113;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=185.0;attach=19114;image)
The numbers do not relate to the order that they were taken in. It's quite clear.
-
Rifle which is said to have shot and killed Sheila Caffell, is clearly resting against the bedroom window (23) before police photograph it on her body (28, 32 and 33)...
Please explain how Jeremy was able to stage his sisters body with the gun to fool police into accepting that she killed herself...
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7129.0;attach=42673;image)
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7129.0;attach=42673;image)
Look at the dates next to Master photo 86 and Master photo 89.
Oh look, 89 was before 86!!! Damn, another claim destroyed.
Tesko tall stories are priceless, but I'm sure we are all too aware of his skullduggery.
-
The numbers do not relate to the order that they were taken in. It's quite clear.
You are basing your arguments by relying on the lies Ron Cook told the court during the trial. The negatives which were in strips of 10, confirm the true sequence with which all the photographs were taken, as confirmed by the COLP investigation into the matter. For the record, they produced a sequential photographic record based on the exact order all the photographs were taken, and photograph N0. 23 was most certainly taken before photographs 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33. This establishes beyond doubt who staged Sheila Caffells death scene, it was the police themselves. So, now that that is sorted out, why did they stage the death scene of one of the five victims?
-
Look at the dates next to Master photo 86 and Master photo 89.
Oh look, 89 was before 86!!! Damn, another claim destroyed.
Tesko tall stories are priceless, but I'm sure we are all too aware of his skullduggery.
Unfortunately not, as you are trying to suggest, I am afraid, I am already over a decade in front of your powers of deduction. There is a third photographic album, known as 'THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM', consisting of 581 sequential photographs (for your information that was 358 additional photographs which Essex police deliberately kept from the defence - locked away inside ACC Peter Simpsons office safe). That matter aside for a moment, other than to say COLP produced an accurate sequence of all the photographs taken at the scene on the 7th August 1985, and 'hey presto', crime scene photograph No. 23, was taken before crime scene photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, so, there it is, all done and dusted - police really did stage Sheila Caffells death scene, and at trial, guess what the blighters did, they only went and blamed poor Jeremy for having done, what they themselves had done..
-
Unfortunately not, as you are trying to suggest, I am afraid, I am already over a decade in front of your powers of deduction. There is a third photographic album, known as 'THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM', consisting of 581 sequential photographs (for your information that was 358 additional photographs which Essex police deliberately kept from the defence - locked away inside ACC Peter Simpsons office safe). That matter aside for a moment, other than to say COLP produced an accurate sequence of all the photographs taken at the scene on the 7th August 1985, and 'hey presto', crime scene photograph No. 23, was taken before crime scene photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, so, there it is, all done and dusted - police really did stage Sheila Caffells death scene, and at trial, guess what the blighters did, they only went and blamed poor Jeremy for having done, what they themselves had done..
If the person, or the people who staged Sheila Caffells death scene, were responsible for her death, then, 'hey presto', the police killed her...
-
Look at the dates next to Master photo 86 and Master photo 89.
Oh look, 89 was before 86!!! Damn, another claim destroyed.
Tesko tall stories are priceless, but I'm sure we are all too aware of his skullduggery.
I notice how you missed out the all important 1st page, which shows the true sequence in which photographs 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, were taken when compared against the photographs in the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM'...
-
I notice how you missed out the all important 1st page, which shows the true sequence in which photographs 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, were taken when compared against the photographs in the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM'...
Ahh yes, page 1 is in the correct order, but the other pages aren't. ;D Silly me.
Well, of course were not including photographs 4, 6 & 8, which were taken after photograph 9.
The numbers do not appear in chronological order. In contrast to your motives, the list you posted actually proves the opposite of what you are deceitfully claiming.
It's actually quite funny. I certainly wouldn't describe you as highly intelligent and cunning like you said your presiding judge did. I'd simply plum for delusional and crass.
-
Ahh yes, page 1 is in the correct order, but the other pages aren't. ;D Silly me.
Well, of course were not including photographs 4, 6 & 8, which were taken after photograph 9.
The numbers do not appear in chronological order. In contrast to your motives, the list you posted actually proves the opposite of what you are deceitfully claiming.
It's actually quite funny. I certainly wouldn't describe you as highly intelligent and cunning like you said your presiding judge did. I'd simply plum for delusional and crass.
PC Bird (SOCO) created this schedule to try and conceal for the fact that 581 photographs had been taken, instead of the 223 linked to the so called, 'MASTER COPY ALBUM'. It was Essex polices way of hiding a further 358 photographs. You are not telling me anything I don't already know about PC Birds schedule. The chief principle which you deliberately choose to ignore when referring to the schedule, is that all the photographs taken on the 7th August 1985, fall in a continuous sequence, as do the photographs taken on any other specified date...
-
PC Bird (SOCO) created this schedule to try and conceal for the fact that 581 photographs had been taken, instead of the 223 linked to the so called, 'MASTER COPY ALBUM'. It was Essex polices way of hiding a further 358 photographs. You are not telling me anything I don't already know about PC Birds schedule. The chief principle which you deliberately choose to ignore when referring to the schedule, is that all the photographs taken on the 7th August 1985, fall in a continuous sequence, as do the photographs taken on any other specified date...
No they don't, and it wouldn't make any difference even if they did. The photographs are not numbered in chronological order, either by their date or indeed their time on any particular date.
Not only does the schedule show this to be the case, but we also have court transcriptions from Cook who confirms that this is the case.
Of course, everybody is lying, apart from Mr Teskowski. I would suggest that the very opposite would be a more accurate description.
Nice try sunshine. ::)
-
No they don't, and it wouldn't make any difference even if they did. The photographs are not numbered in chronological order, either by their date or indeed their time on any particular date.
Not only does the schedule show this to be the case, but we also have court transcriptions from Cook who confirms that this is the case.
Of course, everybody is lying, apart from Mr Teskowski. I would suggest that the very opposite would be a more accurate description.
Nice try sunshine. ::)
Yes they do:-
All the photographs listed in the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM, taken on the 7th August 1985, continue in sequence, as do photographs taken on the 8th August 1985, 8th September 1985, 10th September 1985, 11th September 1985, 12th September 1985, 14th September 1985, 17th September 1985, 20th September 1985, 23rd September 1985, 1st October 1985, and the 26th November 1985. All the photographs listed in the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM', taken on the 7th August 1985, are numbered in a sequence, that is interrupted by the method PC Bird adopted when he created the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM' designed to conceal the existence of a further 358 photographs Essex police did not want anyone to see. What PC Bird did, was select all the photographs he was going to put in the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM', by copying them that he chose from the 581 photographs (SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM) kept under lock and key in ACC Peter Simpsons office safe, and creating a false photographic record (MASTER COPY ALBUM), numbering them randomly in batches which he had chosen out of sequence. Hence why, the photographs listed as in the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM', although numbered consecutively 1 to 223, were not in date sequence. Originally, there would have been 581 photographs all in numbered sequence from 1 to 581, all in date sequence, in the 'SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM'...
What COLP did was source the origin of the 50 'COURT ALBUM' photographs as sequenced by reference to the consecutively listed, and dated 581, photographs in the original ' SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM'. Years later, Mr Sutherst gained access to the original photograph negatives, and taking into account the testimony of Cook and Bird during the trial, the schedules (copies of which I have posted up), and dated witness statements, it can now be emphatically proven that the anshuzt rifle was photographed resting against the main bedroom window in 'COURT ALBUM' photo' No. 23 / 'MASTER COPY ALBUM' photo' No. 59, prior to PC Bird taking the series of crime scene photographs showing the same rifle, on Sheila Caffells body, in 'COURT ALBUM' No. 26 / 'MASTER COPY' No. 64, 'COURT ALBUM' No. 27 / 'MASTER COPY' No. 68, 'COURT ALBUM' No. 28 / 'MASTER COPY' No. 68A, 'COURT ALBUM' No. 29 / 'MASTER COPY' No. 69, 'COURT ALBUM' No. 30 / 'MASTER COPY' No. 70, 'COURT ALBUM' No. 31 / 'MASTER COPY' No. 71, 'COURT ALBUM' No. 32 / 'MASTER COPY' No. 72, and 'COURT ALBUM' No. 33 / 'MASTER COPY' No. 73...
Here are all the photographs taken on the 7th August 1985:-
-
Date, when PC Bird completed the task of producing the photographic schedule, showing 'MASTER COPY ALBUM', photo' numbers, and 'COURT ALBUM' numbers. By producing this schedule Scenes of Crime were able to conceal 358 photographs which they did not want anyone to see...
-
Photographs 29 and 30:-
-
Have a look at these photographs 27, and 28, in comparison to the position of the rifle and bloodstain on nightdress (photo's 29 and 30), against two more crime scene photographs, taken afterwards, 32, and 33... Seems to me, like Ron Cook did not move Sheila's right hand so that PC Bird could photograph the bloodied fingermarks on Sheila's nightdress. It looks to me like the hand was moved to try to conceal the bloodied finger marks, after the rifle was brought from the bedroom window (23) and placed on the body...
Bingo?
-
Why would it be a different story? There is no implication that the relatives had anything to do with the murders. The phone call makes it either Jeremy or Sheila, Sheila couldn't have done it so that leaves Jeremy. They wouldn't be the first relatives to inherit by default.
i wasnt suggesting the family had anything to do with the murders caroline. I am suggesting that they knew what would happen regarding there land money etc if jb was found innocent.
You say shiela couldnt have done it but imo it isnt or wasnt impossible that she did it.
all a matter of how we interpret what we have available on here.
were any of the posters on this forum at the trial do you know?
-
The sequence with which photographic negatives were taken relating to crime scene photographs, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, resolves all the confusion - police staged Sheila Caffells death scene, Jeremy Bamber got blamed for doing what police had done. Bottom line, is if person or people who staged Sheila's death scene, killed her, then Jeremy has to be absolved completely from being involved in his sisters death...
-
Lie detector test results, confirm what I am saying...
-
Lie detector test results, confirm what I am saying...
There is no such things as a 'lie detector' - it is a polygraph and it measures 'stress'. Psychopaths don't feel stress in the same way normal people do and many are able to pass the test without a problem.
-
It seems to me that you are describing Bipolar disorder not schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is controlled quite successfully by medication - which Sheila had in her system. There is also a MASSIVE difference between 'withdrawn' and 'catatonic'!!
https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/psychosis/phasis.aspx
-
There is no such things as a 'lie detector' - it is a polygraph and it measures 'stress'. Psychopaths don't feel stress in the same way normal people do and many are able to pass the test without a problem.
But you and everybody else knew what I meant. It doesn't make any difference really what the test is called, he took the test and passed it with flying colours. When asked if he had killed his family, or been present inside the farmhouse when everyone was shot, he said, "no", he told the truth. Whether or not a psychopath may be able to pass a 'bugs bunny test' is debatable. But Jeremy Bamber as sure as hell did not put the rifle on his sisters body to give the impression that she had taken her own life, since the police did - as now confirmed by the latest photographic results. Whoever placed that rifle from the bedroom window onto Sheila Caffells body and took a series of photographs for use into misleading everybody about how and where her body had been found in the very first instance, killed her. I guess that rules out Jeremy Bamber then, whether or not he is a psychopath. Would Ron Cook and David Bird take a 'bugs bunny test' to establish the truth? I doubt it very much...
-
But you and everybody else knew what I meant. It doesn't make any difference really what the test is called, he took the test and passed it with flying colours. When asked if he had killed his family, or been present inside the farmhouse when everyone was shot, he said, "no", he told the truth. Whether or not a psychopath may be able to pass a 'bugs bunny test' is debatable. But Jeremy Bamber as sure as hell did not put the rifle on his sisters body to give the impression that she had taken her own life, since the police did - as now confirmed by the latest photographic results. Whoever placed that rifle from the bedroom window onto Sheila Caffells body and took a series of photographs for use into misleading everybody about how and where her body had been found in the very first instance, killed her. I guess that rules out Jeremy Bamber then, whether or not he is a psychopath. Would Ron Cook and David Bird take a 'bugs bunny test' to establish the truth? I doubt it very much...
Jeremy took the test because he's already been convicted and had nothing to lose. The stress of taking the test in such an instance would be even further reduced and Jeremy is arrogant enough to believe he would pass it anyway.. I don't know if Bird or Cook would take one - but just because they haven't (to our knowledge) doesn't mean they wouldn't.
-
Jeremy did not tell the police that he thought anybody had been shot, or as the case may be, that anyone had died inside the farmhouse,. Which makes it all the more remarkable, that police took the anshuzt rifle from its resting place against the bedroom window, placed it on Sheila's body once her body was put on the bedroom floor, and staged her death scene, to promote the idea that she had taken her own life. Once police had got props and the body in place, they took photographs. These photographs were never intended to be used in the prosecution of any civilian, but I strongly suspect they were taken just in case any police officer were to be criminally prosecuted over Sheila Caffells death. With her body insitu, and the rifle from the bedroom window fully in her possession, they took a large number of photographs to give the police maximum choice should the need ever arise in the future in defence of any firearm officer, and scenes of crime officer, who might stand accused of killing her. None of the 581 photographs taken in connection with this atrocity were relied upon in the Coroners court process. Only around 223 photographs from this collection of 581 were originally made available to Bambers legal team, with 50 of the latter being made into what became known as 'THE COURT ALBUM', for use in the criminal court system. Of these 50 hand picked prosecution photographs, the following ones all showed various views of Sheila Caffells body, in possession of the anshuzt rifle from its earlier position against the bedroom window, as staged by 'Scenes of Crime officers', after 10.13am, that morning. At around this time, the anshuzt rifle was photographed (23) resting against the bedroom window, in photographs which were taken by PC Bird afterwards (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33) the same anshuzt rifle was on her body, positioned in such a deliberate way as to leave no doubt in the mind of anyone who looked at this collection of 8 consecutively taken photographs, that Sheila Caffell had taken her own life. Why was it necessary for Scenes of Crime to stage Sheila Caffells death scene in this manner? The truth can be found in the police message logs and photographic records, and the false photographic schedules that PC Bird was ordered to compile, and the fact that in the beginning a total of 581 photographs had been taken, but 358 of these had to be withheld from Bamber and his legal team because to supply these would establish that police had shot and killed Sheila Caffell. Scenes of Crime staged Sheila Caffells death scene, intending deliberately to make it appear that she had killed herself, in keeping with messages passed from inside the farmhouse after firearm officers broke in - (7.37am) "The body of one dead male, and one dead female, found upon entry", (7.38am) "One dead male, one dead female", (7.42am) "can someone contact the police surgeon, and Coroners officer, regarding two bodies", (7.45am) can you come into the office, police are dealing with an incident at whf, involving a murder, and a suicide", (8.10am) "after a thorough search, a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total"...
A suicide before 7.45am...
Police had not by that stage got upstairs into the main bedroom, or only found two bodies, one of which was male, the other a female. The male persons death described as a murder, the females death described as a suicide...
Remarkable, that the first two bodies reportedly found upon entry in the kitchen, were Ralph Bambers body, and a female. Ralph let's say was murdered, which leaves the death of the female to have been the suicide. It therefore requires investigation into the identity of this female body, the second body to have been found in sequence. If we go by the positions of where the bodies of the five victims ended up once 'Scenes of Crime' staged Sheila Caffells death scene on the floor in the main bedroom, and cross reference these locations with the running commentary of the police message logs (aforementioned), it becomes problematic since according to where the bodies of June and Sheila ended up as a result of Scenes of Crime staging Sheila Caffells death scene in the main bedroom, the firearm officers could not possible have discovered Sheila's body with the anshuzt rifle in her possession, in second place in the pecking order, and neither could the same firearm officers, ever have described June Bambers death as a suicide, yet based upon the location of Junes body by the bedroom door, and Sheila's body hidden from view on the floor on the other side of the bed, then June Bambers body would have been the second body to be found, and Sheila's the third. But according to the police message (8.10am) "a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total". Based on how Scenes of crime staged Sheila's death scene in the bedroom, the three bodies found upstairs could only have been a reference to Sheila on the bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle in her possession, and her two children, Daniel and Nicholas. How could police have known about a suicide until the third body had been discovered? Reference to two bodies was known about almost immediately after the firearm officers entered the kitchen, and the control room certainly knew that one of these two bodies was a suicide before 7.45am, without disclosing any information as to how at such an early stage, the control room had known that one of the two bodies found by 7.37am, was a suicide, as compared to the discovery of bodies3, 4 and 5, after 8.10am?
Now, the bigger picture starts to emerge. It now becomes possible to see why Scenes of Crime officers staged Sheila Caffells death scene in the main bedroom. They staged her death scene to try to make it look like a suicide, but they 'fucked up' big time, because the body count downstairs and upstairs changed from 2 / 3 to 1 / 4 after Scenes of crime staged Sheila's death scene. The position of Sheila's supposed suicide altered in the pecking order of where her body was originally 'found', to where it 'ended up' eventually. Her supposed suicide in second position when her body was downstairs, but in third position in the pecking order after her death scene was 'created and photographed'. June Bambers body originally the third body to be found, upstairs with her two grandchildren, changed into second position in the pecking order, once 'Scenes of Crime Officers'staged Sheila's death scene in the same bedroom...
If the anshuzt rifle was resting at the bedroom window (23) before 'it' ended up being photographed (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33) in possession of Sheila Caffell on the bedroom floor, and police were happy to proceed on the basis that she 'had' killed herself, my question is this, " how could Sheila have shot herself with use of the rifle, with her body on the bedroom floor, and the rifle at the window when crime Scene photograph No. 23 was taken?
-
Jeremy took the test because he's already been convicted and had nothing to lose. The stress of taking the test in such an instance would be even further reduced and Jeremy is arrogant enough to believe he would pass it anyway.. I don't know if Bird or Cook would take one - but just because they haven't (to our knowledge) doesn't mean they wouldn't.
Ignoring the fact that 'Scenes of Crime Officers' staged Sheila Caffells death scene, after photograph 23 had been taken clears up once and for all whether Bamber killed his sister you can't argue with the sequence the key crime scene photographs 'were taken' (23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33). Bamber is in the clear, no matter how arrogant he is. He took ' the bugs bunny test' he passed it with flying colours, whether he somehow cheated it, or not. One thing is more certain, and that is that Scenes of Crime officer Ron Cook, and Police Constable David Bird, lied when both testifying during the 1986 Chelmsford Crown Court trial about the sequence with which key crime scene photographs were taken. But for their dishonesty, it would have become clear 29 years ago, that police and not Jeremy Bamber, had staged the death scene of Sheila Caffell in the main bedroom. Why they did will require a full blown investigation under the supervision of the Home Secretary...
-
No wonder PS Adams, and other firearm officers, complained to senior officers at a debriefing held at Witham police station on the evening of the tragedy, that upon being shown photographs and a crime scene video taken by Scenes of crime officers which showed the body of Sheila Caffel in her death scene, that the body, the gun and the bible, were in different positions to when they viewed her body before leaving the scene. PS Adams had even stated that when he saw the body before leaving the scene at around 9 am, he had no recollection of the rifle being on the body at that stage...
-
No wonder PS Adams, and other firearm officers, complained to senior officers at a debriefing held at Witham police station on the evening of the tragedy, that upon being shown photographs and a crime scene video taken by Scenes of crime officers which showed the body of Sheila Caffel in her death scene, that the body, the gun and the bible, were in different positions to when they viewed her body before leaving the scene. PS Adams had even stated that when he saw the body before leaving the scene at around 9 am, he had no recollection of the rifle being on the body at that stage...
The anshuzt rifle photographed (23) at the bedroom window, before Scenes of Crime officers staged Sheila Caffells death scene, (as per photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33), is consistent with what PS Adams has said, to the COLP investigators to the effect that there was no rifle on Sheila Caffells body at 9 O'clock. Linked to this is the issue raised previously that at the time the police surgeon, Dr Craig, pronounced Sheila dead at 8.44am, with what appeared to be a solitary bullet wound to her throat...
-
There exists in Jeremy Bambers prison file, a photograph of his sister laid on the bed, minus the rifle, prior to police moving her body from the bed to the bedroom floor. The rifle which inflicted the fatal shot underneath her chin which deposited itself in her brain, was at the time this particular photograph was taken, was resting against the main bedroom window...
-
I thought for a while we had gone off topic - but I guess we haven't ;D
-
I have spent decades investigating potential miscarriages of justice'. Those I have helped will know how methodical I am. Those who I have not been able to help, they will all agree that despite my best efforts on their part, that I was unable on their behalf to produce' the goose that laid the golden egg' to vindicate them. I am stating here that in Jeremy Bambers case, that I have found, ' the goose that laid the golden egg', establishing beyond doubt that it was not him who shot and killed his sister. It was not Jeremy Bamber who staged his sisters death scene. The 'Scenes of crime officers' did. Bamber will walk free because of what I have uncovered. Just like all the others I have lended my expertise to...
-
Because Jeremy Bamber did not shoot and kill his sister, and because he did not stage his sisters death scene, it does not matter in his case whether or not his sisters blood was present inside the silencer, it doesn't matter that there was red paint from the kitchen aga, or scratch marks found on the aga surround - because even if it were all true Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister, and so the blood and paint evidence proves nothing in his case, neither does it matter who found the silencer, or who hid it. None of it can implicate Jeremy Bamber as the killer. The only people with a motive to make out that Sheila had killed herself were the police...
-
The anshuzt rifle was the only gun at any of the upstairs windows. No other rifle was found, seen or photographed at any other upstairs window in the grey brick part of the farmhouse. WPC Jeapes was stood in line with the corner of White / Red sides, keeping a looksie of both sides of the grey bricked farmhouse. With the anshuzt resting to the side of the bedroom window as shown in crime scene photograph No. 23, it was the ideal angle to enable WPC Jeapes to see it from her vantage point. By a somewhat bizarre coincidence, this was the very same window where about three hours earlier, PC Myall, PS Bews, and Jeremy, had seen the silhouetted figure...
-
I have spent decades investigating potential miscarriages of justice'. Those I have helped will know how methodical I am. Those who I have not been able to help, they will all agree that despite my best efforts on their part, that I was unable on their behalf to produce' the goose that laid the golden egg' to vindicate them. I am stating here that in Jeremy Bambers case, that I have found, ' the goose that laid the golden egg', establishing beyond doubt that it was not him who shot and killed his sister. It was not Jeremy Bamber who staged his sisters death scene. The 'Scenes of crime officers' did. Bamber will walk free because of what I have uncovered. Just like all the others I have lended my expertise to...
What a load of old bollocks, just like those videos you uploaded a few days back. Is that really the best you can do in Bamber's defence???
-
Not to mention that June Bamber had moved across that same window as she came around the bed from one side to the other. The rifle was not spotted leaning against that bedroom window until after the arrival of WPC Jeapes at the scene from 7am, onward. One thing is certain, if the anshuzt rifle was the rifle she saw at the main bedroom window from her vantage point in the vicinity of White / Red corner, then Sheila's body could not possibly have already been laying on the bedroom floor with 'that' rifle on her body before the raid team even set foot into the farmhouse. The position of the anshuzt rifle at that stage, leaving it open for Sheila to have been the dead female downstairs, as mentioned in the police message logs, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am and 7.45am...
-
Police had to tamper with one of the badly fragmented bullets (PV/20) by replacing it with another bullet test fired via the anshuzt rifle, so that the police could present the case as a one gun crime...
-
Jeremy did not tell the police that he thought anybody had been shot, or as the case may be, that anyone had died inside the farmhouse,. Which makes it all the more remarkable, that police took the anshuzt rifle from its resting place against the bedroom window, placed it on Sheila's body once her body was put on the bedroom floor, and staged her death scene, to promote the idea that she had taken her own life. Once police had got props and the body in place, they took photographs. These photographs were never intended to be used in the prosecution of any civilian, but I strongly suspect they were taken just in case any police officer were to be criminally prosecuted over Sheila Caffells death. With her body insitu, and the rifle from the bedroom window fully in her possession, they took a large number of photographs to give the police maximum choice should the need ever arise in the future in defence of any firearm officer, and scenes of crime officer, who might stand accused of killing her. None of the 581 photographs taken in connection with this atrocity were relied upon in the Coroners court process. Only around 223 photographs from this collection of 581 were originally made available to Bambers legal team, with 50 of the latter being made into what became known as 'THE COURT ALBUM', for use in the criminal court system. Of these 50 hand picked prosecution photographs, the following ones all showed various views of Sheila Caffells body, in possession of the anshuzt rifle from its earlier position against the bedroom window, as staged by 'Scenes of Crime officers', after 10.13am, that morning. At around this time, the anshuzt rifle was photographed (23) resting against the bedroom window, in photographs which were taken by PC Bird afterwards (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33) the same anshuzt rifle was on her body, positioned in such a deliberate way as to leave no doubt in the mind of anyone who looked at this collection of 8 consecutively taken photographs, that Sheila Caffell had taken her own life. Why was it necessary for Scenes of Crime to stage Sheila Caffells death scene in this manner? The truth can be found in the police message logs and photographic records, and the false photographic schedules that PC Bird was ordered to compile, and the fact that in the beginning a total of 581 photographs had been taken, but 358 of these had to be withheld from Bamber and his legal team because to supply these would establish that police had shot and killed Sheila Caffell. Scenes of Crime staged Sheila Caffells death scene, intending deliberately to make it appear that she had killed herself, in keeping with messages passed from inside the farmhouse after firearm officers broke in - (7.37am) "The body of one dead male, and one dead female, found upon entry", (7.38am) "One dead male, one dead female", (7.42am) "can someone contact the police surgeon, and Coroners officer, regarding two bodies", (7.45am) can you come into the office, police are dealing with an incident at whf, involving a murder, and a suicide", (8.10am) "after a thorough search, a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total".......................................
Mike, if someone told you to wear a waterproof coat and take an umbrella, I guess, without them ever having used the word "RAIN", you'd understand that it was raining. It was implicit.....................AS it was with Jeremy standing outside with the police, regaling them with his father's ALLEGED call, telling them about -embellishing- the state of Sheila's mental health, and talking about her proficiency with firearms. The implication of what he was saying would have been more than enough, if they'd ever had open minds, to persuade them of what had occurred, the rest being history...................to suggest otherwise, is putting to use one of the "attributes" your trial judge awarded you, that of resourcefulness. You HAVEN'T lied. Jeremy DIDN'T say that anyone had been shot............................but he certainly didn't say they hadn't.
-
Mike, if someone told you to wear a waterproof coat and take an umbrella, I guess, without them ever having used the word "RAIN", you'd understand that it was raining. It was implicit.....................AS it was with Jeremy standing outside with the police, regaling them with his father's ALLEGED call, telling them about -embellishing- the state of Sheila's mental health, and talking about her proficiency with firearms. The implication of what he was saying would have been more than enough, if they'd ever had open minds, to persuade them of what had occurred, the rest being history...................to suggest otherwise, is putting to use one of the "attributes" your trial judge awarded you, that of resourcefulness. You HAVEN'T lied. Jeremy DIDN'T say that anyone had been shot............................but he certainly didn't say they hadn't.
Yes, but what is a person to do if they receive such a phone call in the middle of the night, and Police start asking them questions? Seems to me that Jeremy didn't provide the police with any information they weren't keen to find out about. He did not tell the police anything that has since been proven to have been a lie. Jeremy certainly never suggested to the police that Sheila had killed herself by use of the anshuzt rifle that was photographed leaning against the bedroom window (23) before it was photographed on her body (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33)...
-
Yes, but what is a person to do if they receive such a phone call in the middle of the night, and Police start asking them questions? Seems to me that Jeremy didn't provide the police with any information they weren't keen to find out about. He did not tell the police anything that has since been proven to have been a lie. Jeremy certainly never suggested to the police that Sheila had killed herself by use of the anshuzt rifle that was photographed leaning against the bedroom window (23) before it was photographed on her body (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33)...
Mike!!!!! WHAT a novel idea. You seem to be suggesting that, before we answer questions put to us by the police, we give consideration to, what we imagine to be, the answers they want to hear. Other than Sheila's proficiency with firearms -embellishment or error- he told them enough of the truth, something he, himself, believed to be important, for them to form the opinion his use of words suggested.
-
Mike!!!!! WHAT a novel idea. You seem to be suggesting that, before we answer questions put to us by the police, we give consideration to, what we imagine to be, the answers they want to hear. Other than Sheila's proficiency with firearms -embellishment or error- he told them enough of the truth, something he, himself, believed to be important, for them to form the opinion his use of words suggested.
As I say, I don't think he told them anything unusual that anybody else might have told the police in similar circumstances. In so far as he told them that Sheila knew how to handle and shoot the guns at the farm, I believe that Sheila did know how to handle, load, and fire them. It is irrelevant who taught her how to, but I believe June Bamber herself once touched upon this subject whilst speaking with her sister Pamela - she told her that Jeremy had been giving Sheila shooting lessons or something like that. Anyway, Ralph Bamber must have been satisfied that Sheila knew how to handle the weapons and ammunitions kept at the farm, and how to use them safely, otherwise he would never have kept so many of them around the farmhouse. If I am wrong, then what was Ralph Bamber doing keeping all these guns and loads of ammunition laying around inside the farmhouse, with a daugher who was mentally unwell, and two young grand children coming to stay? He must have felt confident that Sheila knew about the guns and the ammunition being kept in the farmhouse environment, in the knowledge that Sheila knew about the need for safety where this was concerned.
-
Nevertheless, it just seems inappropriate to me, for Ralph Bamber to have all these guns and ammunitions laying around the farmhouse with his daughter suffering with schizophrenia, having thoughts of killing her two children, previously....
-
Another thing which has always interested me, is the conversation Ralph Bamber had with the house cleaner, about him having to keep his eye on those two, with the shooting season coming up? Cleaner has gone on record as saying that although Ralph did not mention any names, that she somehow knew that Ralph was referring to Jeremy. Well, I disagree with that, I think it more likely to have been two of the relatives who owed Ralph huge sums of money in land and property development deals. What does seem obvious to me is that shortly before his death Ralph had a premonition that something bad was going to happen, or that something bad had already happened, which upset him. The house cleaner had spoken to Ralph on the phone on the evening before his death, and noted that he was a bit off it, as though he had been upset by something or other. Had he got upset about the way the debate involving Sheila and his wife had ended? They were apparently having a discussion concerning the need for Sheila to get some help with looking after her two sons. Jeremy says that when he had returned to the farmhouse at supper time, his parents were talking to Sheila about fostering the children, or getting Sheila some help with looking after them, but that Sheila was not participating in the conversation, just staying quiet. Later that same evening, when June and her sister Pamela were talking on the phone, and June gave the handset to Sheila, aunty Pamela noted how quiet Sheila was, and that when the phone was handed back to June, how Sheila had not said her customary, " good night aunty Pam". June told her sister that Sheila had gone upstairs to bed, adding that she wanted Pamela to have a look at Sheila on the following day, because June said Sheila was acting very strangely. Arrangements were made for June try o visit her sister on the following day with Sheila and the boys. What if Sheila had not gone to bed, and had overheard June talking about her to her sister? If she had did that incident 'light the touch paper' to the tragic events that followed? Whatever the case, there was clearly an unsettling atmosphere in the household on that last evening together. So much so that June Bamber did not go to her weekly Tuesday evening bible class...
-
As I say, I don't think he told them anything unusual that anybody else might have told the police in similar circumstances. In so far as he told them that Sheila knew how to handle and shoot the guns at the farm, I believe that Sheila did know how to handle, load, and fire them. It is irrelevant who taught her how to, but I believe June Bamber herself once touched upon this subject whilst speaking with her sister Pamela - she told her that Jeremy had been giving Sheila shooting lessons or something like that. Anyway, Ralph Bamber must have been satisfied that Sheila knew how to handle the weapons and ammunitions kept at the farm, and how to use them safely, otherwise he would never have kept so many of them around the farmhouse. If I am wrong, then what was Ralph Bamber doing keeping all these guns and loads of ammunition laying around inside the farmhouse, with a daugher who was mentally unwell, and two young grand children coming to stay? He must have felt confident that Sheila knew about the guns and the ammunition being kept in the farmhouse environment, in the knowledge that Sheila knew about the need for safety where this was concerned.
What a very strange way of thinking, Mike!!!! Firstly, everyone who has spoken about it seems to think that Nevill was meticulous about putting guns away. Why are you so certain that he was "satisfied that Sheila knew how to handle the weapons and ammunitions kept at the farm................."? I would say the exact opposite was true. That Sheila had NO interest in firearms and wouldn't have considered touching them. Using them wouldn't have entered her head and reloading would have been way beyond her capabilities. The chances are -as she had no interest in them- she didn't even know where the guns were kept. All of which would have made it perfectly safe, on the rare occasions when she visited the farm, SHOULD Nevill ever have been remiss enough to leave a gun out.
There was a claim made that Jeremy -at a family christening- had tried to show Sheila how to load a gun but she was quite disinterested. Sheila was not the biological daughter of farming stock and had never shown herself as being the hunt'n, shoot'n, and fish'n type. I don't believe she'd have had the faintest idea -or desire- to handle, load and fire a gun.
-
Another thing which has always interested me, is the conversation Ralph Bamber had with the house cleaner, about him having to keep his eye on those two, with the shooting season coming up? Cleaner has gone on record as saying that although Ralph did not mention any names, that she somehow knew that Ralph was referring to Jeremy. Well, I disagree with that, I think it more likely to have been two of the relatives who owed Ralph huge sums of money in land and property development deals. What does seem obvious to me is that shortly before his death Ralph had a premonition that something bad was going to happen, or that something bad had already happened, which upset him. The house cleaner had spoken to Ralph on the phone on the evening before his death, and noted that he was a bit off it, as though he had been upset by something or other. Had he got upset about the way the debate involving Sheila and his wife had ended? They were apparently having a discussion concerning the need for Sheila to get some help with looking after her two sons. Jeremy says that when he had returned to the farmhouse at supper time, his parents were talking to Sheila about fostering the children, or getting Sheila some help with looking after them, but that Sheila was not participating in the conversation, just staying quiet. Later that same evening, when June and her sister Pamela were talking on the phone, and June gave the handset to Sheila, aunty Pamela noted how quiet Sheila was, and that when the phone was handed back to June, how Sheila had not said her customary, " good night aunty Pam". June told her sister that Sheila had gone upstairs to bed, adding that she wanted Pamela to have a look at Sheila on the following day, because June said Sheila was acting very strangely. Arrangements were made for June try o visit her sister on the following day with Sheila and the boys. What if Sheila had not gone to bed, and had overheard June talking about her to her sister? If she had did that incident 'light the touch paper' to the tragic events that followed? Whatever the case, there was clearly an unsettling atmosphere in the household on that last evening together. So much so that June Bamber did not go to her weekly Tuesday evening bible class...
I believe you're referring to the farm secretary, not the house keeper. It could have been that Nevill was hacked off because he had to go and bring the last trailer back. I believe June told Pam that she was worried about Sheila who had arrived at the farm silent, since when she'd shown no interest in anything meaning June was having to cope with, not only her regular chores, but those added by Sheila and the boys. Hardly surprising if she ran out of time and decided not to attend the church meeting.
-
Julie tells us that it was Jeremy who initiated the conversation on adoption round the table,to pick on a weak spot and hope for a row that evening. What he couldn't have known were the exact care arrangements for the twins which pertained in London,where Colin took the lion's share of the responsibility for tending to his sons' needs. It's true that Sheila was at times distressed at the current state of arrangements,as she confided feelingly to Colin's mother, but Colin was the main caregiver and he would never have acceded to June's request. Did Nevill really understand his daughter's illness and did he chide her for her lackadaisical attitude towards her children since her arrival at the White House?
I think by the time of Aunt Pamela's telephone call she was just worn out and incapable of any further activity,which is why she didn't say goodnight,but wearily treaded the stairs to bed.
-
Julie tells us that it was Jeremy who initiated the conversation on adoption round the table,to pick on a weak spot and hope for a row that evening. What he couldn't have known were the exact care arrangements for the twins which pertained in London,where Colin took the lion's share of the responsibility for tending to his sons' needs. It's true that Sheila was at times distressed at the current state of arrangements,as she confided feelingly to Colin's mother, but Colin was the main caregiver and he would never have acceded to June's request. Did Nevill really understand his daughter's illness and did he chide her for her lackadaisical attitude towards her children since her arrival at the White House?
I think by the time of Aunt Pamela's telephone call she was just worn out and incapable of any further activity,which is why she didn't say goodnight,but wearily treaded the stairs to bed.
Steve, we're not certain what form any conversation took, but of one thing I'm confident. If there had only been a conversation about help with the children, I have no doubt that Sheila would have jumped at it. Girls from backgrounds similar to Sheila's never bring their children up without outside help, in the same way their mothers had outside help in bring them up. I'm not talking Norland nannies but local girls who loved looking after and playing with babies. I'm surprised the Bambers hadn't hired someone for the visit but perhaps they thought Sheila could cope for the few days she'd be there. I think she probably was worn out when she went up to bed. I think she was depressed and depression saps energy.
-
There's no evidence that Sheila actually went upstairs to bed. It does not appear that she woke up, or was awoken up in the middle of the night, either to carry out the shootings, or to be shot...
-
I think by the time of Aunt Pamela's telephone call she was just worn out and incapable of any further activity,which is why she didn't say goodnight,but wearily treaded the stairs to bed.
Maybe her night cap had been doctored to make sure she went to sleep. After all, Julie Mugford did give a statement to police asserting that Jeremy had persuaded her to acquire sleeping tablets for that very purpose.
-
There's no evidence that Sheila actually went upstairs to bed. It does not appear that she woke up, or was awoken up in the middle of the night, either to carry out the shootings, or to be shot...
Well she certainly went upstairs to be murdered, sleep or no sleep!
-
Well she certainly went upstairs to be murdered, sleep or no sleep!
There is no certainty, that is your opinion.
-
Well she certainly went upstairs to be murdered, sleep or no sleep!
Sheila went upstairs for the kill,not to sleep.
-
Sheila went upstairs for the kill,not to sleep.
OK then, she went upstairs to be killed then!
-
OK then, she went upstairs to be killed then!
For. :))
-
For. :))
OK, she went upstairs for to be killed :P
-
OK, she went upstairs for to be killed :P
Just to kill will suffice. :))
-
Well she certainly went upstairs to be murdered, sleep or no sleep!
There is no denying that she went upstairs at some stage, the question is when did she go upstairs, and for what purpose? If she shot the other four victims, she was certainly upstairs at the time she shot and killed three of them (June, Daniel and Nicholas), and at or near the top of the main stairs when she shot at and wounded Ralph Bamber as he fled downstairs to use the phone to call Jeremy and the police. She must have then followed Ralph downstairs to the kitchen where she killed him. We also know that when the firearm team entered the kitchen that two bodies were found, one the body of a male who can only have been a reference to Ralph Bamber, whilst the other was the body of a female. The female on that occasion could only have been a reference to Sheila, apparently she had committed suicide. Well that's where Sheila's body was until about 8.15am, but by 8.30am, her body was upstairs laid on the bed. The anshuzt rifle which was supposedly used to kill her still resting against the bedroom window.Her body eventually moved from the bed to the floor where she received the second shot, the fatal shot. We are told that the second shot which killed her (bullet PV/19) had been fired via the anshuzt rifle, which is puzzling because the anshuzt rifle which supposedly fired that fatal bullet was photographed leaning against the bedroom window (23) prior to 'it' being photographed on Sheila's body, with two bullet wounds in her throat now, instead of one (26, 27, 28, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33). Why did police think it necessary to bring the anshuzt rifle from its resting place against the bedroom window, and position it upon her body and then photograph Sheila's death scene, to promote the suggestion that she had killed herself, if she hadn't killed herself? It was the police who staged her death scene, not Jeremy or anybody else. Why did the police want everybody to think that Sheila had killed herself, if she hadn't? How could she have shot herself on the bedroom floor by use of a rifle leaning against the bedroom window on the other side of the bedroom? If Jeremy had been the killer, why would he have left the rifle leaning against the bedroom window and lay Sheila's body on the floor next to the bed, and expect police to believe his sister had killed herself? The fact is that no-one could possibly have killed Sheila whilst ever that rifle was resting against the bedroom window and Sheila's body was on the other side of the bedroom. The ballistic expert said that the muzzle of the gun barrel was two or three inches away from the surface of the skin when that all important second shot was inflicted, so the rifle had to have been brought from the bedroom window, onto the body by someone. That someone was the police, a fact proven by the sequence with which key photographs were taken at the scene. The correct interpretation as to how and when Sheila sustained that second shot, is that she was shot and killed whilst the anshuzt rifle was brought from the bedroom window to Sheila's body, for 'gauging purposes', and as her hands were being manipulated upon, against and around the trigger and its mechanism, the shot which killed her was discharged from the rifle, which was hurriedly put back against the bedroom window, and a forlorn attempt to keep Sheila alive was made by her body being rolled over into the recovery position upon her right side...
-
We know that Sheila's body had been rolled into the recovery position on her right hand side, before police brought the anshuzt rifle from the bedroom window (photo' 23) and placed it on top of her body by the time police had rolled her body onto its back, as per the photo's taken in sequence, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, afterwards. Yet nobody yet, has admitted to placing Sheila's body upon its right hand side in the recovery position, or to rolling her body back into the supine position prior to the rifle from the bedroom window being transported onto her body? But everyone must surely know that police were responsible for doing these things, so as to present the scene as though Sheila Caffell had in fact killed herself..
-
The fact that the police had in fact placed Sheila's body into the recovery position at some stage after her arrival inside the main bedroom after or around 8.30am, and kept silent about them having done so, and this being linked to the transportation of the rifle at the bedroom window (photo'23), onto her body afterwards, (photo's 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33), is a classic piece of evidence which demonstrates in the clearest case imaginable, that the police knew exactly how she had been shot and killed...
-
We know that Sheila's body had been rolled into the recovery position on her right hand side, before police brought the anshuzt rifle from the bedroom window (photo' 23) and placed it on top of her body by the time police had rolled her body onto its back, as per the photo's taken in sequence, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, afterwards. Yet nobody yet, has admitted to placing Sheila's body upon its right hand side in the recovery position, or to rolling her body back into the supine position prior to the rifle from the bedroom window being transported onto her body? But everyone must surely know that police were responsible for doing these things, so as to present the scene as though Sheila Caffell had in fact killed herself..
Nobody has admitted it because that never happened.
-
Study of the ballistic evidence surrounding the two shots inflicted to Sheila Caffells throat at different conflicting angles, suggests very strongly indeed, that at least one of those two shots had not been fired via use of the anshuzt rifle, despite the fact that the ballistic expert Malcolm Fletcher testified that this rifle had fired both rounds. He was allowed to suggest this, after the original badly fragmented PV/20 bullet had been replaced, in a process of substation, !Ade possible by the undertaking of an 'unreported test fire', of the anshuzt rifle, with control ammunition, on an unspecified date prior to or upon the 12th September 1985. This is provable because (1) - test fired rounds were used in comparison tests at the lab' in the knowledge of the ballistic expert, Fletcher, and DS 'Stan' Jones, on dates preceding the date of the 'Official test fire', of control bullets, on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, yet the official test fire of the rifle using control ammunition, did not take place, until the 20th September, 25th September, 1st and 2nd October 1985, and (2) the ballistic expert would not have any test fired rounds to make comparisons with before the 20th September 1985, but the lab' records clear show that such comparisons had been made on the 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September 1985. The fact that these comparison tests had been done on these dates prior to the 20th September 1985, can only mean that somebody fired the anshuzt rifle with new control bullets, at least one week before the date police and their ballistics expert Fletcher stated it had...
-
Nobody has admitted it because that never happened.
Of course it happened, according to Professor Herbert Leon MacDonald...
He is one of the worlds leading experts in blood distribution and the reconstruction of crime scenes. He is better equipped and has a vast experience in matters such as this, and this makes it all the more obvious that police shot Sheila once upstairs in the bedroom with a rifle that had been resting at the bedroom window. Police rolled Sheila's body onto its right hand side as soon as the rifle which had been brought to her body for gauging purposes discharged the bullet (PV/19) which killed her. It is so obvious that the police shot her during 'familiars' and this was why they put her body in the recovery position on her right hand side, then after realising she was beyond recovery, they slipped her body into the supine position....
-
Another clear indicator that police staged Sheila Caffells death scene, before PC Bird started photographing, which coincided with the rifle that fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) being brought back from the window and placed onto her body, is the fact that in every one of the firearm officers scripts describing how they had supposedly discovered Sheila's body laid on the bedroom floor, shot twice, with the mention of the rifle on her body at that stage, that anyone had removed the anshuzt rifle from Sheila'body, checked it, and made it safe...
The reason for that, is because when Sheila's body did eventually end up upstairs, there simply had been no rifle upon her body, until police brought the one leaning against the bedroom window to her body for gauging purposes...
-
Of course it happened, according to Professor Herbert Leon MacDonald...
He is one of the worlds leading experts in blood distribution and the reconstruction of crime scenes. He is better equipped and has a vast experience in matters such as this, and this makes it all the more obvious that police shot Sheila once upstairs in the bedroom with a rifle that had been resting at the bedroom window. Police rolled Sheila's body onto its right hand side as soon as the rifle which had been brought to her body for gauging purposes discharged the bullet (PV/19) which killed her. It is so obvious that the police shot her during 'familiars' and this was why they put her body in the recovery position on her right hand side, then after realising she was beyond recovery, they slipped her body into the supine position....
Professor Herbert Leon MacDonald claims that the body was moved the police logs/statememts confirm this yes. But the whole CPR and police killing shelia is nonsense
-
According to the trial testimony of Detective Inspector 'Ron ' Cook, the anshuzt rifle had remained untouched upon Sheila's body since when police had allegedly discovered it there prior to the police surgeon, Dr Craig pronouncing Sheila as being dead at 8.44am. Well, Cook himself did not arrive at the scene until 9.20am, or in other words just after the anshuzt rifle had been brought from the bedroom window to Sheila's body for gauging purposes. We know that the shot from the anshuzt rifle that killed her, was fired at precisely 9.13am, some seven minutes before Ron Cook got to the scene. But he is disasteriously wrong by claiming the rifle had been on Sheila's body by the time he got into the bedroom, because by 10.17am the rifle in question was clearly resting against the bedroom window (as per photo' 23), and was brought back to the body afterwards, as per photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Ron Cook, is a wretched liar, he was not the first person to remove the anshuzt rifle from Sheila's body, the rifle wasn't even on her body when Cook arrived at the scene (9.20am), it was leaning against the bedroom window, until around 10.17am...
Cook lied, so did PC Bird, so have all the others who knew about the true circumstances surrounding Sheila Caffells death...
-
Professor Herbert Leon MacDonald claims that the body was moved the police logs/statememts confirm this yes. But the whole CPR and police killing shelia is nonsense
Police know what they did, they staged Sheila's death scene to make it look like she had killed herself. Nobody made the police do what they did. To make matters worse, the police had the audacity to blame Jeremy for staging his sisters suicide, for the purpose of fooling the police into accepting that she had taken her own life, when all along these blighters had staged her death scene themselves - how corrupt is that?
-
The sequence with which photographs, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 were taken establishes beyond doubt that Detective Inspector Ron Cook, and Police Constable David Bird committed perjury during the trial about the position of the rifle at the bedroom window, in relation to that same rifle being on the body. The rifle was clearly at the bedroom window before out was on the body, but both these bent coppers swore blind that the rifle had been photographed on the body, before it was photographed at the bedroom window...
-
These bent coppers deliberately set out to mislead the court about how Sheila Caffells death scene had been photographed. According to Cook, the rifle had remained unmoved, untouched, since when it had been first discovered, and that he was the first officer to remove the rifle from her body after or about 10.17am. Can anybody believe such a wicked, evil, rotten bent copper? Cook did not arrive at the scene until 9.20am, and he and the other SOCO's did not assume control of the farmhouse until 10 O'clock...
-
Professor Herbert Leon MacDonald claims that the body was moved the police logs/statememts confirm this yes. But the whole CPR and police killing shelia is nonsense
I believe Sheila's body was moved by either JB or the police. I don't believe she lay exactly where was shot but neither do I believe the police shot her.
-
All anybody heard at the trial, and for the next 30 years in the media, is how it was Jeremy who had deliberately staged his sisters death scene on the bedroom floor by the edge of her parents bed with the family owned anshuzt rifle upon her body, so as to fool the poor police into accepting that Sheila had killed herself - when all along it had been the police themselves who had fabricated his sisters death scene...
But why?
-
Police know what they did, they staged Sheila's death scene to make it look like she had killed herself. Nobody made the police do what they did. To make matters worse, the police had the audacity to blame Jeremy for staging his sisters suicide, for the purpose of fooling the police into accepting that she had taken her own life, when all along these blighters had staged her death scene themselves - how corrupt is that?
Mike your doing Jeremy no favours with these stupid theory's.
1. Dr Fowler and Dr Vanezis confirm the shots to Sheia are contact wounds.
2. The police have no incentive to cover anthying up. If Shelia had gone crazy with the gun and killed her whole family then the armed police have every legal right to neutralise with deadly force. thus no need for cover up
3. Police believed it was Shelia until mugford came forward. The first chief on the case belived it was shelia until his accidental death.
-
I believe Sheila's body was moved by either JB or the police. I don't believe she lay exactly where was shot but neither do I believe the police shot her.
They did shoot her, that is why they had to tamper with the ballistic evidence, particularly the bullet which caused the first shot across the neck. That bullet was not fired via the anshuzt rifle at the scene. The bullet which replaced it was fired fired via the anshuzt, but weeks afterwards during what I have termed 'the unreported test fire of control ammunition'. The sequence with which photographs, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 were taken establishes with certainty that it was the police who had been responsible for moving Sheila's body, the rifle and the bible. Why did the police have to move the body, and bring the rifle that was resting against the bedroom window and position it upon Sheila's body in such a way so that for the purpose of the Coroners proceedings they could declare that Banners sister had killed herself (that's the first part of the mystery). Secondly, why were police so anxious to make it look like she had shot herself, if she hadn't? Thirdly, why then blame Jeremy for doing what they themselves had done?
-
All anybody heard at the trial, and for the next 30 years in the media, is how it was Jeremy who had deliberately staged his sisters death scene on the bedroom floor by the edge of her parents bed with the family owned anshuzt rifle upon her body, so as to fool the poor police into accepting that Sheila had killed herself - when all along it had been the police themselves who had fabricated his sisters death scene...
But why?
Why indeed Mike?
I am aware police are capable of framing people but why frame Jeremy Bamber? That's a question I can't find an answer for.
-
Mike your doing Jeremy no favours with these stupid theory's.
1. Dr Fowler and Dr Vanezis confirm the shots to Sheia are contact wounds.
2. The police have no incentive to cover anthying up. If Shelia had gone crazy with the gun and killed her whole family then the armed police have every legal right to neutralise with deadly force. thus no need for cover up
3. Police believed it was Shelia until mugford came forward. The first chief on the case belived it was shelia until his accidental death.
First of all, it is irrelevant whether or not both shots were contact, or close contact in nature. Since, that does not determine who shot her. Secondly, you have got the wrong end of the stick when it comes down to your interpretation of a cover up. Like so many of you, you are not thinking straight. The police are responsible for creating the idea that there has been and is a cover up. The mistake they made right at the beginning of the police investigation, was that 'they' staged Sheila Caffells death scene, and then took photographs. They set Sheila's death scene to make it look like she must have shot herself. It was the police who had done this, with absolutely no encouragement from Jeremy Bamber who was not even at the farmhouse by the time police set about fabricating the death scene. They took this approach for whatever reason, no doubt intending for the matter to be dealt with through the Coroners court system. Once they took this approach they were forever doomed and entrapped by their own actions. At this juncture, I suggest you pause a little and ask yourself a series of important questions. The first question you should ask yourself is whether or not the police did nothing wrong when they staged Sheila Caffells death scene, and then took photographs which they misused by suggesting that the ones which showed Sheila in possession of the rifle, were taken before another photograph which showed the same rifle resting against the bedroom window, when in actual fact the rifle was photographed resting against the bedroom window, before police moved it onto Sheila's body and took the other photographs - is it your suggestion that police acted lawfully and legally in this matter, and would you be happy if you yourself were ever at some point in the future subjected to similar tactics that might get you convicted?
-
Why indeed Mike?
I am aware police are capable of framing people but why frame Jeremy Bamber? That's a question I can't find an answer for.
Me Either and that's where it starts and ends really!
-
Why indeed Mike?
I am aware police are capable of framing people but why frame Jeremy Bamber? That's a question I can't find an answer for.
The police did not set out to frame Jeremy Bamber, that's where everybody is going wrong. The police staged Sheila's death scene, then took photographs and built up a false story suggesting the firearm officers had found her body, and the rifle, exactly as shown in the photographs which were taken after the rifle had been brought from the window and placed onto her body. To put it another way, the police originally set out to frame Sheila Caffell for shooting the others, and then herself. I am saying that because the anshuzt rifle was photographed leaning against the bedroom window before it was photographed upon Sheila Caffells body, that the photographs themselves were not reliable and in fact have been misused to fool a jury into thinking that the photographs they looked at and were shown represented how the prosecution claimed Jeremy Bamber had set the scene. But the truth of the matter is that those photographs represented how the police themselves had staged Sheila's death scene in order to frame her for killing the others, and taking her own life...
Now, what I am saying is, that what the police have done here, is introduce false photographic material upon the jury in a significantly misleading manner...
-
Me Either and that's where it starts and ends really!
So, you think that it is alright for a police officer to fabricate evidence and commit perjury?
If you were a victim of this kind of corruption you would think differently...
-
Nobody made the police do anything they did not want to do, or had done. Police were in control of the scene. Why couldn't they have photographed the bodies including Sheila's before they moved or touched anything? Why, did they have to move and touch bodies and things and then taken photographs, which they liked about once the nature of the investigation changed from the Coroners court system, into a case in the Criminal Justice system? The answer is that when the case was being prepared to go through the Coroners court system, it did not matter that police had staged amongst other things Sheila Caffells death scene, because there was no defendant at peril of being convicted as having played a role in the shootings. However, once the nature of the investigation changed into a Criminal matter with Jeremy Bamber the focus of changed investigation, police were stuck with a series of dodgy crime scene photographs, staged ones. The only way police could hope to get around this problem, was to hide a large number of photographs taken at the scene on the first day of the investigation, because most if not all of the ones which became hidden or withheld contained evidence that the police had inadvertently contaminated the crime scene, and then taken photographs in the aftermath of their own actions...
-
So, you think that it is alright for a police officer to fabricate evidence and commit perjury?
If you were a victim of this kind of corruption you would think differently...
No I don't think it's OK and you don't know anything about me - I have experience of police corruption, you don't have the monopoly on that! However, Bamber is guilty and I believe that 100%
-
The police did not set out to frame Jeremy Bamber, that's where everybody is going wrong. The police staged Sheila's death scene, then took photographs and built up a false story suggesting the firearm officers had found her body, and the rifle, exactly as shown in the photographs which were taken after the rifle had been brought from the window and placed onto her body. To put it another way, the police originally set out to frame Sheila Caffell for shooting the others, and then herself. I am saying that because the anshuzt rifle was photographed leaning against the bedroom window before it was photographed upon Sheila Caffells body, that the photographs themselves were not reliable and in fact have been misused to fool a jury into thinking that the photographs they looked at and were shown represented how the prosecution claimed Jeremy Bamber had set the scene. But the truth of the matter is that those photographs represented how the police themselves had staged Sheila's death scene in order to frame her for killing the others, and taking her own life...
Now, what I am saying is, that what the police have done here, is introduce false photographic material upon the jury in a significantly misleading manner...
Absolute tosh. The police had no reason to stage anything, that was all accomplished by Jeremy Bamber in a half-baked attempt to frame his 'deranged' sister.
You theories hold no water Mike, your claim that a policeman shot Sheila is utter nonsense so you concoct the police staged the rifle story in an attempt to give it some credence. I'm afraid none of it works and as Caroline pointed out, Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
-
Why indeed Mike?
I am aware police are capable of framing people but why frame Jeremy Bamber? That's a question I can't find an answer for.
Beacause there is no answer, it is all Mike's pure invention.
-
First of all, it is irrelevant whether or not both shots were contact, or close contact in nature. Since, that does not determine who shot her. Secondly, you have got the wrong end of the stick when it comes down to your interpretation of a cover up. Like so many of you, you are not thinking straight. The police are responsible for creating the idea that there has been and is a cover up. The mistake they made right at the beginning of the police investigation, was that 'they' staged Sheila Caffells death scene, and then took photographs. They set Sheila's death scene to make it look like she must have shot herself. It was the police who had done this, with absolutely no encouragement from Jeremy Bamber who was not even at the farmhouse by the time police set about fabricating the death scene. They took this approach for whatever reason, no doubt intending for the matter to be dealt with through the Coroners court system. Once they took this approach they were forever doomed and entrapped by their own actions. At this juncture, I suggest you pause a little and ask yourself a series of important questions. The first question you should ask yourself is whether or not the police did nothing wrong when they staged Sheila Caffells death scene, and then took photographs which they misused by suggesting that the ones which showed Sheila in possession of the rifle, were taken before another photograph which showed the same rifle resting against the bedroom window, when in actual fact the rifle was photographed resting against the bedroom window, before police moved it onto Sheila's body and took the other photographs - is it your suggestion that police acted lawfully and legally in this matter, and would you be happy if you yourself were ever at some point in the future subjected to similar tactics that might get you convicted?
Yes it is relevant, the contact wounds prove it was either Shelia or Jeremy. This throws your police conspiracy theory out the window. hence why ignore it.
Had the police killed Shelia they would have no need to cover it up. Had Shelia killed the family then the police killed her during the raid. All police would have to say is they had to neutralise Shelia as she posed a threat to them. Crazy women shoots children and parents - police shoot her before she shoots them. Armed officers have license to kill they have no need to create a huge conspiracy.
-
Yes it is relevant, the contact wounds prove it was either Shelia or Jeremy. This throws your police conspiracy theory out the window. hence why ignore it.
Had the police killed Shelia they would have no need to cover it up. Had Shelia killed the family then the police killed her during the raid. All police would have to say is they had to neutralise Shelia as she posed a threat to them. Crazy women shoots children and parents - police shoot her before she shoots them. Armed officers have license to kill they have no need to create a huge conspiracy.
Not to mention the fact that had the police fired a shot or shots then it/they would have been heard by everyone in the stillness of the night.
I'm afraid Mike has been watching too many Bodie and Doyle replays. :)
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/28/1385637603237/Martin-Shaw-and-Lewis-Col-008.jpg)
-
Not to mention the fact that had the police fired a shot or shots then it/they would have been heard by everyone in the stillness of the night.
I'm afraid Mike has been watching too many Bodie and Doyle replays. :)
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/28/1385637603237/Martin-Shaw-and-Lewis-Col-008.jpg)
That show was long before my time, He has probably watched too much of these guys also :))
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130105223113/simpsons/images/9/9a/Chief_Wiggum_Story.jpg)
-
Police know what they did, they staged Sheila's death scene to make it look like she had killed herself. Nobody made the police do what they did. To make matters worse, the police had the audacity to blame Jeremy for staging his sisters suicide, for the purpose of fooling the police into accepting that she had taken her own life, when all along these blighters had staged her death scene themselves - how corrupt is that?
To be honest, Mike, with every post, you're actually compounding Jeremy's guilt. I doubt there's a person here who ISN'T aware of police corruption -I'm sure you don't have the monopoly there- and if you'd offered something reasonable and acceptable, there was a time when many of us would have grabbed it with both hands. As it stands now, factoring in everything you've said in the past -and are now adding to- you can go on claiming the police killed Sheila until the cows return, but the more you claim it. the less believable it becomes.
-
No I don't think it's OK and you don't know anything about me - I have experience of police corruption, you don't have the monopoly on that! However, Bamber is guilty and I believe that 100%
Jeremy Bamber did not kill anybody, and that is a fact...
-
Absolute tosh. The police had no reason to stage anything, that was all accomplished by Jeremy Bamber in a half-baked attempt to frame his 'deranged' sister.
You theories hold no water Mike, your claim that a policeman shot Sheila is utter nonsense so you concoct the police staged the rifle story in an attempt to give it some credence. I'm afraid none of it works and as Caroline pointed out, Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
Jeremy Bamber did not kill anybody, and you have already admitted police brought the rifle from the window and placed it on Sheila's body, and then took photographs which they used to fool the jury into believing that the photographs were a true record of how Sheila's body was found unmoved or untouched by any person, which we now know to have been a complete fabrication, as proven and established by the sequence with which key photographs were taken by SOCO. How anybody can suggest that Jeremy staged his sisters body to fool police into accepting she had shot herself beggars belief, in view of the fact that it can now be shown that police moved the body and the rifle so they could photograph her supposed death scene. The reason why miscarriages of justice happen is because of people like you. You are ignorant to the truth. Of course the police had a reason to cover what they had done up - they shot an unarmed deranged young woman downstairs in the kitchen which they called it 'a suicide', and later on, after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had already pronounced her dead, they placed a loaded rifle which they brought to her body from the bedroom window, which discharged a live round depositing bullet PV/19 into her brain. There was nothing remotely legal about what happened in the main bedroom when they shot Sheila whilst carrying out a 'gauging exercise' using a loaded gun. The police shot and killed Sheila Caffell in the main bedroom, and the circumstances of how they killed her, were swept under the carpet, helped by them staging her death scene and then photographing her body with the gun upon it to give an impression that she had shot herself. The photographs they took after they had arranged the rifle back on her body were misused during the trial to support the contention that these particular photographs showed views of her death scene unmoved and untouched until Cook stepped forward and took the gun from her body. The police had every reason to cover up what they had done, and they did. How anybody can justify the police shooting and killing Sheila Caffell in these circumstances by claiming they would have been entitled to shoot her has got to be nuts. You cannot place a loaded weapon on the body of a victim whether or not you thought she was dead, or as it turned out deeply unconscious, and then start arranging her fingers upon and around the trigger mechanism, which causes the gun to go off, and then say, "oh, it's alright, we were entitled to kill her anyway". No, they weren't entitled to kill her anyway, she was unarmed, mistakenly thought to be dead, but only deeply unconscious. They had her under control, there was not justification for any police officer to claim after the gun went off, that "oh well, we were entitled to kill her anyway". There was no reason thereafter to stage her actual death scene to make it look like she had shot herself (when she hadn't). Even worse, for the police to then go on and take photographs which a year later they misused in a defiant act of deception. People like you who support this kind of dishonesty are a disgrace. The only time people like you will ever appreciate this type of injustice is if it happens and you are the victim on the receiving end of it...
-
They did shoot her, that is why they had to tamper with the ballistic evidence, particularly the bullet which caused the first shot across the neck. That bullet was not fired via the anshuzt rifle at the scene. The bullet which replaced it was fired fired via the anshuzt, but weeks afterwards during what I have termed 'the unreported test fire of control ammunition'. The sequence with which photographs, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 were taken establishes with certainty that it was the police who had been responsible for moving Sheila's body, the rifle and the bible. Why did the police have to move the body, and bring the rifle that was resting against the bedroom window and position it upon Sheila's body in such a way so that for the purpose of the Coroners proceedings they could declare that Banners sister had killed herself (that's the first part of the mystery). Secondly, why were police so anxious to make it look like she had shot herself, if she hadn't? Thirdly, why then blame Jeremy for doing what they themselves had done?
If, if, IF they'd shot her, they have been perfectly within their rights. She was armed. Jeremy had told them that his father had -allegedly- told him Sheila had gone mad and had a gun. They didn't have to cover ANYTHING up. It would have been within the line of duty. They would have been defending themselves. They had their culprit. They didn't need to blame Jeremy. They could have silenced the relatives by proving Nevill phoned the police -IF Nevill had phoned the police.
It seems to me that a big and unnecessary deal is being made of the fact of them removing the weapon to take photographs and then putting it back.
-
Yes it is relevant, the contact wounds prove it was either Shelia or Jeremy. Garbage, how anybody can believe that shit, beggars belief. How do you work that out then? Educate the educated...This throws your police conspiracy theory out the window. No, it doesn't, it just shows how ignorant you are...hence why ignore it. just because you or anybody chooses to ignore anything, is irrelevant, other than it helps to establish your ignorance of the truth...
Had the police killed Shelia they would have no need to cover it up. unless what they did, and how they went about it, was not legal... Had Shelia killed the family then the police killed her during the raid. You make it sound mechanical, when the truth of the matter is that the circumstances of her death were protracted, with her being initially shot downstairs in the kitchen during a struggle, and later upstairs in the main bedroom when the only participation she played was to be laid unconscious. If she had actually died as a result of being shot downstairs in the struggle with PS Woodcock, then I would have to agree that her death in those circumstances could be justified on the part of the police officer who's gun fired that first shot. But to bring a loaded rifle from the bedroom window to her body on the bedroom floor and squeeze her fingers on the trigger was not acceptable, and neither is it legal to claim police were justified in doing that or this... All police would have to say is they had to neutralise Shelia as she posed a threat to them. not when they brought that loaded rifle from the bedroom window to her body, and they used her fingers to activate the trigger mechanism - how do you explain what is legal by them doing that? There was nothing legal about any of this, by any standards. Her death was clearly caused unnecessarily, by the police. They shot an unarmed person, who they believed they had under control on the bedroom floor, already yet mistakenly believed dead... Crazy women shoots children and parents - police shoot her before she shoots them. Armed officers have license to kill they have no need to create a huge conspiracy. Absolute rubbish, since police shot Sheila after the firearms part of the operation had already ended...
-
If, if, IF they'd shot her, they have been perfectly within their rights. No, they wouldn't, particularly in the circumstances of how that loaded rifle was brought to her body and discharged at a time when the firearms operation had already finished...She was armed. No, she was not armed when police killed her in the bedroom, police put the rifle to her body, as described...Jeremy had told them that his father had -allegedly- told him Sheila had gone mad and had a gun. None of this has any bearing on why police brought the loaded rifle from the bedroom window, the firearm part of the operation had already concluded by the time police used the loaded rifle from the bedroom window that shot and killed her...They didn't have to cover ANYTHING up. Yes, they did...It would have been within the line of duty. I am afraid not, there should have been a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding how Sheila Caffell came to be shot and killed by use of the loaded rifle from the bedroom window after the firearm operation had already been wound down...They would have been defending themselves. No, how could you even argue the police were defending themselves when they brought the rifle from the bedroom window and placed 'it' on her body? They had their culprit. Yes, believed already dead, now on the bedroom floor, moved there from the bed. Police can have no justification for bringing a loaded rifle from the bedroom window and using her fingers to activate the trigger during a 'gauging exercise"..They didn't need to blame Jeremy. They didn't originally, they blamed Sheila for shooting herself. They framed Sheila for killing herself, but she hadn't shot herself, the police are responsible for firing that all important second fatal shot...They could have silenced the relatives by proving Nevill phoned the police Silenced the relatives, how? -IF Nevill had phoned the police. which he did...
It seems to me that a big and unnecessary deal is being made of the fact of them removing the weapon you have shot yourself in the foot by acknowledging that police had moved the rifle from the bedroom window and brought it to her body, and then took the key photographs which have been used dishonestly to help fool the jury into convicting Bamber... to take photographs and then putting it back. You appear to be saying you see nothing improper about police fabricating Sheila's death scene, then photographing it, and misusing these photographs during the all important trial, to convince the jury that the photographs which show the rifle on Sheila Caffells body, was in some way evidence of Bambers culpability...
-
If, if, IF they'd shot her, they have been perfectly within their rights. No, they wouldn't, particularly in the circumstances of how that loaded rifle was brought to her body and discharged at a time when the firearms operation had already finished...She was armed. No, she was not armed when police killed her in the bedroom, police put the rifle to her body, as described...Jeremy had told them that his father had -allegedly- told him Sheila had gone mad and had a gun. None of this has any bearing on why police brought the loaded rifle from the bedroom window, the firearm part of the operation had already concluded by the time police used the loaded rifle from the bedroom window that shot and killed her...They didn't have to cover ANYTHING up. Yes, they did...It would have been within the line of duty. I am afraid not, there should have been a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding how Sheila Caffell came to be shot and killed by use of the loaded rifle from the bedroom window after the firearm operation had already been wound down...They would have been defending themselves. No, how could you even argue the police were defending themselves when they brought the rifle from the bedroom window and placed 'it' on her body? They had their culprit. Yes, believed already dead, now on the bedroom floor, moved there from the bed. Police can have no justification for bringing a loaded rifle from the bedroom window and using her fingers to activate the trigger during a 'gauging exercise"..They didn't need to blame Jeremy. They didn't originally, they blamed Sheila for shooting herself. They framed Sheila for killing herself, but she hadn't shot herself, the police are responsible for firing that all important second fatal shot...They could have silenced the relatives by proving Nevill phoned the police Silenced the relatives, how? -IF Nevill had phoned the police. which he did...
It seems to me that a big and unnecessary deal is being made of the fact of them removing the weapon you have shot yourself in the foot by acknowledging that police had moved the rifle from the bedroom window and brought it to her body, and then took the key photographs which have been used dishonestly to help fool the jury into convicting Bamber... to take photographs and then putting it back. You appear to be saying you see nothing improper about police fabricating Sheila's death scene, then photographing it, and misusing these photographs during the all important trial, to convince the jury that the photographs which show the rifle on Sheila Caffells body, was in some way evidence of Bambers culpability...
You're playing with words here -I guess you've listened to a lot of lawyers. Well, I've listened to a lot of professors, all giving believable, but differing views- and I still say that IF they'd done anything ILLEGAL, there'd have been found a perfectly LEGAL reason for them so doing. As for the second shot. It wasn't the only fatal shot. The first shot would have proved fatal, just not instantly and as Vanezis said she'd have needed to hold her head up to walk. and more recently has said, that in his opinion, she didn't move after the first shot, I guess she flew upstairs. I can only believe that IF she'd been shot downstairs, the most she'd have been able to achieve would have been a very slow crawl.
I haven't shot myself in the foot at all. The police said they moved the gun to take pictures of the blood stain on her nightdress. I wasn't aware that they'd ever tried to cover this up. If, by the movement of a rifle, you're accusing the police of "fabricating Sheila's death scene" I don't think -never mind my foot- you'll have a leg to stand on. It remains to be seen if all those present would be willing to stand up in court and admit to their ALLEGED wrong doing.
-
This is no outlandish theory----------after watching a programme last night on forensic science,it's now possible to track down a killer by a " hair ".
After a crime has been committed,certain chemicals in the body are given off including ingestion of gsr which is found in particles in the air and anything else that can trace the last movement/place that the criminal visited.
We've known for years that the testing of hair gives us clues about our health and also the type of medication we take ( if any ) and of course drugs.
Some 300 years ago and obviously without the technology that we have today,a scientist carried out an experiment on a young man who it was said,died of natural causes but his relatives weren't happy with that outcome and so the scientist did a test using a chemical and a bone china vessel which he said that if a drop of this chemical was to be put onto the china bowl,heated over a bunsen-burner then if a black spot appeared, the cause of death had been poisoning by arsenic.
The wife had been sprinkling arsenic powder over her husbands food and when found guilty she was hanged.Her name was Lafarge.
The programme went further in finding out who'd fired bullets from a gun and set about examining the cases of the bullets which had been fired in a certain way along with particular markings on them.
-
This is no outlandish theory----------after watching a programme last night on forensic science,it's now possible to track down a killer by a " hair ".
After a crime has been committed,certain chemicals in the body are given off including ingestion of gsr which is found in particles in the air and anything else that can trace the last movement/place that the criminal visited.
We've known for years that the testing of hair gives us clues about our health and also the type of medication we take ( if any ) and of course drugs.
Some 300 years ago and obviously without the technology that we have today,a scientist carried out an experiment on a young man who it was said,died of natural causes but his relatives weren't happy with that outcome and so the scientist did a test using a chemical and a bone china vessel which he said that if a drop of this chemical was to be put onto the china bowl,heated over a bunsen-burner then if a black spot appeared, the cause of death had been poisoning by arsenic.
The wife had been sprinkling arsenic powder over her husbands food and when found guilty she was hanged.Her name was Lafarge.
The programme went further in finding out who'd fired bullets from a gun and set about examining the cases of the bullets which had been fired in a certain way along with particular markings on them.
They lost the one they had. However, as it was colourless, it would probably only have told them who had BEEN shot......................not that they'd have needed a hair to tell them. They could see for themselves.
The Lafarge case has been used numerous times. I think it's become a standard.
-
They lost the one they had. However, as it was colourless, it would probably only have told them who had BEEN shot......................not that they'd have needed a hair to tell them. They could see for themselves.
The Lafarge case has been used numerous times. I think it's become a standard.
I don't go with the grey hair, I cannot believe that such a find would have been treated so casually.
I'm afraid I can see Stan Jones saying we need proof the moderator was used. How do we prove that? .... we need a bloody moderator and a grey hair on it would be handy, now where would he hide it????? I can't take it seriously :-\
-
I don't go with the grey hair, I cannot believe that such a find would have been treated so casually.
I'm afraid I can see Stan Jones saying we need proof the moderator was used. How do we prove that? .... we need a bloody moderator and a grey hair on it would be handy, now where would he hide it????? I can't take it seriously :-\
Guess we can add it to the ever growing list of other things which can't be taken seriously, can't we? ^-^
-
You're playing with words here -I your playing with dodgy fabricated evidence. It's quite obvious who staged Sheila Caffells death scene shown in police photographs, why it was the police themselves who moved her body and set the rifle upon her, and misused the images captured in photographs to bamboozle the jury into believing that the position of Sheila's body had remained undisturbed until Ron Cook took it upon himself to remove the rifle from Sheila's body for the first time. Worse still, Cook even testified that he handed the rifle he had taken from the body, to Police Inspector, Ivor Montgomery, who checked to see if the gun was still loaded with any bullets, and make safe, before Cook then placed the rifle at the bedroom window? What a set of lying morons this motley crew of bent coppers were. They are the scum of the earth making up such lies. You can believe what you want, it still doesn't make it right how many followers these bent bobbies have, who turn a blind eye to everything illegal that they do and have done. At the end of the day whenever a bent copper fabricates evidence or lies, it is still a fabrication and a lie, bent coppers, and their die hard supporters are not all immune from being active criminals... guess you've listened to a lot of lawyers. Well, I've listened to a lot of professors, all giving believable, but differing views- and I still say that IF they'd done anything ILLEGAL, it would have been illegal.. there'd have been found a perfectly LEGAL reason for them so doing. there's no such thing as a legal reason for doing something illegal, unless your a criminal... As for the second shot. It wasn't the only fatal shot. yes it was, she did not die from the first shot inflicted downstairs in the kitchen...The first shot would have proved fatal, get your facts right, she did not die from the first shot, and nobody but you is suggesting she did...just not instantly she didn't die at all because of the first shot, how do you work that out then?and as Vanezis said she'd have needed to hold her head up to walk. Professor Knight testified saying something completely different...and more recently has said, that in his opinion, she didn't move after the first shot, Professor Knight stated she could have walked around for up to half and hour after the first shot was inflicted. The fact of the matter is that she collapsed unconscious immediate after the first shot, falling into unconsciousness, which caused the police to report her death as a suicide. She only needed to have moved for a couple of minutes once she regained consciousness downstairs, and made her way upstairs before collapsing on the bed... I guess she flew upstairs. get your facts right, read the police message logs, a dead male, and a dead female found upon entry to the kitchen at 7.37am, a murder, and a suicide, before police had finished searching the downstairs rooms of the farmhouse, a further three bodies found upstairs by 8.10am, you can't keep relying upon the excuse that the police made a mistake about this and that, as though the keystone cops were more capable of carrying out a better investigation. How many mistakes do you people keep saying these bent coppers did, before the penny will eventually drop, and it might dawn on you that you need to substitute the word 'mistake' for the word 'falsified'...I can only believe that IF she'd been shot downstairs, the most she'd have been able to achieve would have been a very slow crawl. not according to the trial testimony of Professor Knight...
I haven't shot myself in the foot at all. maybe not yet, but be careful where you point the muzzle of the gun barrel, you might make a mistake and shoot yourself in the head... The police said they moved the gun to take pictures of the blood stain on her nightdress. you need to get the facts right, since when Detective Inspector Ron Cook spoke about moving anything to enable PC Bird to take photographs, he did not say he moved the gun at all, he said he moved her hand... I wasn't aware that they'd ever tried to cover this up. Cook added during his testimony that nobody had touched or moved the rifle since it was first discovered on her body. He also told the court that the gun had not been checked or made safe, until he had removed the rifle himself from Sheila's body and had given the rifle to Police Inspector Montgomery, to check, make safe. Cook said Montgomery handed him the rifle back after he checked it, and Cook said he then placed the rifle at the window, where PC Bird took photograph 23 showing the rifle leaning against the bedroom window. Cook lied, because photograph 23 which shows the rifle at the window, was taken before the same rifle was moved onto Sheila's body, and photographed.If, by the movement of a rifle, you're accusing the police of "fabricating Sheila's death scene" what other explanation can you offer? I don't think -never mind my foot- you'll have a leg to stand on. you obviously do not have a clue what constitutes the term 'fabricating the evidence'...It remains to be seen if all those present would be willing to stand up in court and admit to their ALLEGED wrong doing. there is nothing alleged about it, its all factual...
-
Re the pictures. During the 80's my ex -a brilliant photographer- took a series of 10 to make a complete panorama. He achieved exactly that when all 10 were laid together, but if they became mixed up with the other pictures on the roll it was impossible to tell the sequence in which they were taken.
You have taken someone else's word for what transpired, but are they able to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt? It remains to be seen if they're willing to put their money where their mouth is, but for the moment, because your dislike, disdain and distrust of the police is so apparent, I'd feel more inclined to believe what you say(you've been told)if you had more of an open mind regarding them.
-
Wait and see, then eat your words..
-
Wait and see, then eat your words..
I guess one of us will be doing just that, but at least you'll have a get out clause. You can keep claiming police corruption.
-
Re the pictures. During the 80's my ex -a brilliant photographer- took a series of 10 to make a complete panorama. He achieved exactly that when all 10 were laid together, but if they became mixed up with the other pictures on the roll it was impossible to tell the sequence in which they were taken. Mr Sutherrst would easily have been able to resolve such a mix up...
You have taken someone else's word for what transpired, Photographic negatives establish the sequence in which the rifle was photographed at the bedroom window before police moved the same rifle onto Sheila's body, and then took a series of photographs showing the rifle on her body, which they deliberately introduced as clear proof that Jeremy Bamber had killed his sister, that 'he' put the rifle on his sisters body, not that the police themselves had put the rifle there, which in fact is what did happen but are they able to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt? yes, police put the rifle onto Sheila's body then took photographs showing the rifle there, which they misused during the trial stage, by claiming the images showed exactly how police had found her body with the rifle upon it, unmoved by anyone, until Ron Cook says he removed it from her body. The photographic evidence was misused to help secure these convictions. The police were guilty of placing the rifle on Sheila's body, and only then photographing the scene they themselves had set up... It remains to be seen if they're willing to put their money where their mouth is, but for the moment, because your dislike, disdain and distrust of the police is so apparent, I'd feel more inclined to believe what you say(you've been told)if you had more of an open mind regarding them. the photographic negatives and the sequence with which the photographs were taken, confirming the rifle was photographed at the bedroom window, before police moved 'it' onto Sheila's body, and took the key photographs...
-
How remarkable, with the benefit of hindsight, that none of the firearm officers who attended the trial were called to confirm that the crime scene photographs taken by PC Bird in the main bedroom after 10.17am, confirmed the true position they had left Sheila Caffells body in when most of them left the scene at around 9 O'clock that morning. We now know why, none of them would have been able to say that which Detective Inspector Ron Cook, and Police Constable David Bird both claimed, because by 9 O'clock that morning when the vast majority of the firearm officers left the scene, there had been no rifle at all on Sheila's body, and her body was resting on, the far side of the bed, not on the floor. The most significant feature of all being that at 9 O'clock that morning Sheila had only been shot once, and the rifle which WPC Jeapes saw leaning near the main bedroom window on the grey brick part of the farmhouse, was still resting there until precisely 9.13am, when during a training exercise known as 'familiars', the rifle was brought from the bedroom window after Sheila's body had been taken from the bed and placed on the bedroom floor, and 'it' was positioned upon her body as part of a 'gauging exercise'. The rest is history. Gun went off, killing Sheila who had been mistakenly pronounced dead by the police surgeon, Dr Craig, previously (8.44am)...
-
There is no acceptable excuse for the police to have brought that loaded rifle from the bedroom window to use it in a 'gauging exercise', after offering it to Sheila's body, without someone having checked to see if it was still loaded, or made safe beforehand. 'Negligence', springs to mind...
-
That negligent contribution which resulted in the death of Sheila Caffell, has never been officially investigated (yet). Nobody has been disciplined or prosecuted. This was the motive behind why police fabricated a photographic record which they named, ' THE MASTER COPY ALBUM', to try to throw people off the scent. In one fell swoop police were able to hide 358 photographs they did not want anyone out of their circle of conspirators to see...
-
The reason the police have been able to get away with covering up the true circumstances surrounding Sheila Caffells death in the main bedroom, was because some of the most senior Essex police Detectives were present at the scene when police shot and killed Sheila during a training exercise, which involved use of victims bodies as props, before any photographs were taken...
-
I guess one of us will be doing just that, but at least you'll have a get out clause. You can keep claiming police corruption.
That's because in this particular case, there has been a great deal of it practiced...
It won't be me, for sure...
-
I have very recently received some information about Jeremy's phone call to the police, which should help to settle any dispute about the actual timing when he contacted the police at 03.36am. I am reliably informed that according to a Chelmsford Crown Court Exhibit label, the phone log bearing the time 03.36am, is described as 'The Original Phone Message'...
-
I have very recently received some information about Jeremy's phone call to the police, which should help to settle any dispute about the actual timing when he contacted the police at 03.36am. I am reliably informed that according to a Chelmsford Crown Court Exhibit label, the phone log bearing the time 03.36am, is described as 'The Original Phone Message'...
The other phone log timed 03.26am, was never exhibited...
THE ORIGINAL PHONE MESSAGE
-
I have very recently received some information about Jeremy's phone call to the police, which should help to settle any dispute about the actual timing when he contacted the police at 03.36am. I am reliably informed that according to a Chelmsford Crown Court Exhibit label, the phone log bearing the time 03.36am, is described as 'The Original Phone Message'...
Mike, it never ceases to amaze me how these titbits of information creep fortuitously from the wood work. I have another for you. Queen Elizabeth 1 was only known as Queen Elizabeth. There was no other until Queen Elizabeth 11 who was NOT a copy of Elizabeth 1, but a person in her own right. Unlike the case of 'The Original Phone Message' where it seems that several copies of the original were made. 'Original Message' in this instant doesn't indicate an entirely other second.
-
Mike, it never ceases to amaze me how these titbits of information creep fortuitously from the wood work. I have another for you. Queen Elizabeth 1 was only known as Queen Elizabeth. There was no other until Queen Elizabeth 11 who was NOT a copy of Elizabeth 1, but a person in her own right. Unlike the case of 'The Original Phone Message' where it seems that several copies of the original were made. 'Original Message' in this instant doesn't indicate an entirely other second.
The document I have received this morning, clearly states, that the phone log message timed at 03.36am is 'THE ORIGINAL PHONE MESSAGE'. So, there it is, in its original format and content. Jeremy called police (PC West) on his second attempt at 03.36am. The other log introduced and which surfaced in 2002, was not physically disclosed during the trial in October 1986. What did happen, was that in one of PC Wests witness statement, he referred to the time of Jeremy's call as having happened at 03.26am. This clearly was either one of two things, (1) it was a typing error on the part of the civilian typist who typed out the witness statement, (2) if PC West dictated the witness statement in question, he was mistaken about the time and got confused because he had contacted the communications office twice in quick succession that morning, once prior to contacting the communications room after his call from Jeremy. How remarkable, that Malcolm Bonnet should produce his own version of PC Wests call to him which he timed as 03.26am, yet he produces (a) no log of the other matter to which PC West contacted him about in the instance before Jeremy's call, and (b) neither does PC West provide details of that other call including the time he made it, so that a cross reference could be carried out to get to the truth in this matter?
-
All the items which Ann Eaton handed over to the police on the 11th September 1985, were collectively sent to the lab' at Huntingdon, together...
DRB / 3 (?) AE /
DRB / 2 (?) AE /
DRB / 1
-
Police physically had possession of a silencer bearing the exhibit mark of DRB/1, at the same time they received "it" and the other two items from Ann Eaton, on the 11th September 1985...
-
Sure does look like Ann Eaton handed over the silencer, marked DRB/1, to police on the 11th September 1985...
DRB / 3 (?) AE /
DRB / 2 (?) AE /
DRB / 1
-
Other silencer (DB/1) was sent to lab' on the 30th August 1985. It had allegedly already been checked for blood, on the 13th August 1985 (SBJ/1 - SJ/1), and 12th September 1985, yet this one was handed eventually to DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, on the 13th September 1985, and eventually sent to the lab' to be checked, on the 20th September 1985, too late for the flake to have been found inside it (DRB/1)...
-
I have not yet come across any witness statement in DS Eastwoods name, in connection with any events of the investigation - seems to me like he could be the key to unravelling all the skullduggery surounding the silencer issue...
-
I must try and find information regarding DS Eastwoods involvement with the silencer (DRB/1) as per the 13th September 1985, Action Report...
-
All these dates and reference numbers being quoted.
Reminds me of when I was at school and did my sociology essays. I would just mention as many sociologists as possible and throw in a few quotes. Then hope the markers didn't notice I didn't know the answer to the question.
-
All these dates and reference numbers being quoted.
Reminds me of when I was at school and did my sociology essays. I would just mention as many sociologists as possible and throw in a few quotes. Then hope the markers didn't notice I didn't know the answer to the question.
Old habits die hard eh Adam? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
When DS Davidson was interviewed by COLP, he told them that he had no involvement whatsoever with the silencer, and did not know and had not seen one until now (1991), but he lied:-
-
DS Davidson is also documented as having fingerprinted a silencer on the 9th August 1985...
-
Why has DS Davidson continued to deny having involvement with a silencer, despite it being clearly documented in police records that he did on two separate occasions - 9th December 1985, 13th September 1985...
-
Other silencer (DB/1) was sent to lab' on the 30th August 1985. It had allegedly already been checked for blood, on the 13th August 1985 (SBJ/1 - SJ/1), and 12th September 1985, yet this one was handed eventually to DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, on the 13th September 1985, and eventually sent to the lab' to be checked, on the 20th September 1985, too late for the flake to have been found inside it (DRB/1)...
What is rather interesting is that the first study of the moderator did not lead to an arrest. Only after mugford came forward was Bamber then arrested, Then the second examination of the moderator made it a smoking gun. don't add up.
-
...
-
Mike. You didn't mention you have posted some new Youtube videos.
-
" Cuts on Jeremy's hand/s "---------unfounded and previously reported by AP. Infra-red not needed.
-
Oh god. You obviously haven't read enough threads.
Julie approached the police and completed her WS before they knew anything about hers and SB's minor cheque book fraud. She also told them about Bamber's caravan break in without any pressure from them.
The 25k NOTW offer was made a year after her approach to the police. Because the NOTW got inside information that Bamber was guilty and wouldn't be able to provide an interview. They needed a back up exclusive.
Try not to be so patronising to posters .
The fact is that it is illegal to approach a major witness in a crime and offer money before or during a trial - and no one ever said it caused her evidence in the first place - work out for your self why it is against the law.
Julies evidence does not actually say Jeremy did it - it involved a hitman a theory that was completely dismissed ( although funnily enough the police did seem to accept a hitman could have made the call from WHF ( wonder why? ::)
Julie herself after the trial said Jeremy had NEVER told her he had done the murders - don't you find that odd? She also said in 2002 that she stood by her evidence and believed he was guilty but new forensics might shed new light on the case - hmmm ?
Reference the crimes she committed - don't you think the police ask all potential witnesses if there is anything in their background that might "tar" their reputation as a witness? That's when she probably told them about her history . Then she was given immunity in return for being the prime witness.
-
Try not to be so patronising to posters .
The fact is that it is illegal to approach a major witness in a crime and offer money before or during a trial - and no one ever said it caused her evidence in the first place - work out for your self why it is against the law.
Julies evidence does not actually say Jeremy did it - it involved a hitman a theory that was completely dismissed ( although funnily enough the police did seem to accept a hitman could have made the call from WHF ( wonder why? ::)
Julie herself after the trial said Jeremy had NEVER told her he had done the murders - don't you find that odd? She also said in 2002 that she stood by her evidence and believed he was guilty but new forensics might shed new light on the case - hmmm ?
Reference the crimes she committed - don't you think the police ask all potential witnesses if there is anything in their background that might "tar" their reputation as a witness? That's when she probably told them about her history . Then she was given immunity in return for being the prime witness.
Actually Jan, I find that Julie never actually said Jeremy did it one of the believable parts of her testimony. HOW could she say she knew he was guilty? She wasn't there. She could only say what he'd told her. I don't believe she told them word for word how much she knew, but it's very possible she picked up on his advice of telling as much of the truth as possible.
-
Actually Jan, I find that Julie never actually said Jeremy did it one of the believable parts of her testimony. HOW could she say she knew he was guilty? She wasn't there. She could only say what he'd told her. I don't believe she told them word for word how much she knew, but it's very possible she picked up on his advice of telling as much of the truth as possible.
If she was going to frame Bamber and say he had told her things, then surely saying that he'd told her he was guilty is what she would go with - IMO her story does sound true and was fed to her by Bamber with enough 'mistakes' that if she ever told her story to others some of it wouldn't ring true.
Try not to be so patronising to posters .
The fact is that it is illegal to approach a major witness in a crime and offer money before or during a trial - and no one ever said it caused her evidence in the first place - work out for your self why it is against the law.
Julies evidence does not actually say Jeremy did it - it involved a hitman a theory that was completely dismissed ( although funnily enough the police did seem to accept a hitman could have made the call from WHF ( wonder why? ::)
Julie herself after the trial said Jeremy had NEVER told her he had done the murders - don't you find that odd? She also said in 2002 that she stood by her evidence and believed he was guilty but new forensics might shed new light on the case - hmmm ?
Reference the crimes she committed - don't you think the police ask all potential witnesses if there is anything in their background that might "tar" their reputation as a witness? That's when she probably told them about her history . Then she was given immunity in return for being the prime witness.
That's a slight twist on what you posted the other day, Jan. Don't become like Lookout and the OS and twist what people have said to fit in with the point you're making. :-\
-
[quote author=Jan link=topic=7129.msg338970#msg338970 date=1449251988..................................... She also said in 2002 that she stood by her evidence and believed he was guilty but new forensics might shed new light on the case - hmm.................................
[/quote]
No, Jan. That isn't exactly what she said. I posted the exact sequence which gives a rather different slant.
-
If she was going to frame Bamber and say he had told her things, then surely saying that he'd told her he was guilty is what she would go with - IMO her story does sound true and was fed to her by Bamber with enough 'mistakes' that if she ever told her story to others some of it wouldn't ring true.
That's a slight twist on what you posted the other day, Jan. Don't become like Lookout and the OS and twist what people have said to fit in with the point you're making. :-\
I totally believe that to be the case!
-
Try not to be so patronising to posters .
The fact is that it is illegal to approach a major witness in a crime and offer money before or during a trial - and no one ever said it caused her evidence in the first place - work out for your self why it is against the law.
Julies evidence does not actually say Jeremy did it - it involved a hitman a theory that was completely dismissed ( although funnily enough the police did seem to accept a hitman could have made the call from WHF ( wonder why? ::)
Julie herself after the trial said Jeremy had NEVER told her he had done the murders - don't you find that odd? She also said in 2002 that she stood by her evidence and believed he was guilty but new forensics might shed new light on the case - hmmm ?
Reference the crimes she committed - don't you think the police ask all potential witnesses if there is anything in their background that might "tar" their reputation as a witness? That's when she probably told them about her history . Then she was given immunity in return for being the prime witness.
That's a little different from
One other thing in CAL book Julie is quoted as saying she still thought Jeremey was guilty but that forensic evidence might prove otherwise.
It really does depend on the slant you put on that comment because I read it as that she 'believes' he's guilty but that future forensic evidence might be able to PROVE it.
-
That's a little different from
It really does depend on the slant you put on that comment because I read it as that she 'believes' he's guilty but that future forensic evidence might be able to PROVE it.
There is no doubt for me that Julie believes him guilty. You don't give police statements, testify against someone at trial and then talk about them in your press....and not be sure. I just see this as the same thing as people having "doubts" over Colin believing in Jeremy's guilt.
When it comes to Bambers guilt I doubt there is ANYONE on this earth more sure of Bambers guilt than Julie, other than Bamber himself of course.
-
There is no doubt for me that Julie believes him guilty. You don't give police statements, testify against someone at trial and then talk about them in your press....and not be sure. I just see this as the same thing as people having "doubts" over Colin believing in Jeremy's guilt.
When it comes to Bambers guilt I doubt there is ANYONE on this earth more sure of Bambers guilt than Julie, other than Bamber himself of course.
I honestly think he has passed it off as justifiable homicide.
-
What is rather interesting is that the first study of the moderator did not lead to an arrest. Only after mugford came forward was Bamber then arrested, Then the second examination of the moderator made it a smoking gun. don't add up.
I agree the moderator evidence doesn't add up, I believe it was fabricated.
-
The moderator HAD been handled and possibly tried by Sheila who may have thought it would make a difference to the sound of the rifle. On trying to fit it,she'd have found herself dithering and cross-threading,so because there was blood on both ends of it means that she handled it while the mixture of June and Neville's blood on it would prove that it had been in contact with them but not necessarily fired while the moderator was fixed.
-
There is no doubt for me that Julie believes him guilty. You don't give police statements, testify against someone at trial and then talk about them in your press....and not be sure. I just see this as the same thing as people having "doubts" over Colin believing in Jeremy's guilt.
When it comes to Bambers guilt I doubt there is ANYONE on this earth more sure of Bambers guilt than Julie, other than Bamber himself of course.
This is all true,but why she had to hitch up her skirt and extend a beaming smile is just yet another shocking aspect of the case.
-
This is all true,but why she had to hitch up her skirt and extend a beaming smile is just yet another shocking aspect of the case.
Steve I thought Julie's behaviour was in very bad taste considering she was selling her story following the deaths of 5 innocent people two of them 6 year old boys I would have thought it would have been normal behaviour to feel very very sad over the whole incident.
-
Mugford was groomed on what to say and how to say it by Stan Jones and his gang - 31 separate times they interviewed her, and they charged her with no criminal offence. Even the Yorkshire ripper didn't get spoken too that number of times..,
-
This is all true,but why she had to hitch up her skirt and extend a beaming smile is just yet another shocking aspect of the case.
She seemed to not know what was acceptable behaviour in that situation. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? :-\
-
Julies evidence does not actually say Jeremy did it - it involved a hitman a theory that was completely dismissed ( although funnily enough the police did seem to accept a hitman could have made the call from WHF ( wonder why? ::)
Essex police knew that (1) there was a call made from the farmhouse to Jeremy's cottage at Goldhanger, and that (2) there was a call to the police from the farmhouse, and further, (3) that there was a call from Jeremy's cottage to Witham police station, and (4) a call from Jeremy's cottage to PC West...
Additionally, they know that at 03.29am, that a panic alarm which had been fitted at the farmhouse because of threats made against his and his families lives, by two unsavoury characters, one named Bell - had been activated...
-
In September 1985, when Jeremy was in custody on suspicion of being involved in the murders, they went to his cottage and removed his answer phone and six audio recording tapes, which they examined to see whether the tapes had recorded any information about that call. They reasoned that if Jeremy had hired a hitman then the hitman could have contacted Jeremy at his cottage to confirm the killings had been successfully executed. Alternatively, they looked at what Julie Mugford had told them, might simply have been a smoke screen, and that Jeremy had had some direct involvement in the killing of one or more of the victims, and that he had made the call himself from the farmhouse to his cottage, and that the answer machine might produce evidence supporting this, I.e. that if Jeremy had made a call to himself from the scene to his cottage, that the answer phone might have kicked in. But, no such evidence was found to support such a theory...
-
Essex police knew that (1) there was a call made from the farmhouse to Jeremy's cottage at Goldhanger, and that (2) there was a call to the police from the farmhouse, and further, (3) that there was a call from Jeremy's cottage to Witham police station, and (4) a call from Jeremy's cottage to PC West...
Additionally, they know that at 03.29am, that a panic alarm which had been fitted at the farmhouse because of threats made against his and his families lives, by two unsavoury characters, one named Bell - had been activated...
Whilst it has been claimed, ad nauseam, there remains no proof re phone calls -and negatives can't be proved- of any of the above. The "panic alarm" has been done to death. It's -sorry, THEIR, as they have to be installed in every room in the house- existence denied by family, friends of family, and magistrates who attest to having to be responsible for their own security.
-
In September 1985, when Jeremy was in custody on suspicion of being involved in the murders, they went to his cottage and removed his answer phone and six audio recording tapes, which they examined to see whether the tapes had recorded any information about that call. They reasoned that if Jeremy had hired a hitman then the hitman could have contacted Jeremy at his cottage to confirm the killings had been successfully executed. Alternatively, they looked at what Julie Mugford had told them, might simply have been a smoke screen, and that Jeremy had had some direct involvement in the killing of one or more of the victims, and that he had made the call himself from the farmhouse to his cottage, and that the answer machine might produce evidence supporting this, I.e. that if Jeremy had made a call to himself from the scene to his cottage, that the answer phone might have kicked in. But, no such evidence was found to support such a theory...
But of course, the absence of a recorded call from WHF to Goldhanger proves only that A) no call was made or B) the answer machine was turned off. It doesn't prove Jeremy didn't kill his family.
-
The answer machine was switched off ::)
-
Apart from when someone is out, the most obvious time to have an answering machine on is when when going to bed.
There is a strong chance of not hearing a phone when asleep. Or not waking and getting to the phone in time. So what better time to have the answering machine on ?
It is likely that the answering machine would be permanently on. For obvious reasons. People don't turn their fridge off when it's empty.
The problem Bamber has with the answering machine being on, is that it badly incriminates him. He said himself he was upstairs 'sleeping like a log'. So would not have got to the phone before Neville had left a message.
-
But of course, the absence of a recorded call from WHF to Goldhanger proves only that A) no call was made or B) the answer machine was turned off. It doesn't prove Jeremy didn't kill his family.
If there was a call, he made it.
-
If Neville managed to phone Jeremy,why didn't Sheila quickly ring the police ?
-
If Neville managed to phone Jeremy,why didn't Sheila quickly ring the police ?
Oooh lookout!!!! You said "IF Nevill managed to............"
-
Oooh lookout!!!! You said "IF Nevill managed to............"
Oh my,did I indeed ? Meaning,because others thought he was too injured to do so,I was being facetious or sarcastic-----------take your pick.
-
If Neville managed to phone Jeremy,why didn't Sheila quickly ring the police ?
Sheila ring the police ? Maybe that will be the next thing on the front page of The Mirror.
-
If Neville managed to phone Jeremy,why didn't Sheila quickly ring the police ?
Eh? Those questions belong to two different scenario - if Nevill had called the Jeremy, Sheila is the killer and wouldn't be calling the police would she? If he didn't call Jeremy then Nevill didn't manage to call anyone - which makes your question redundant.
-
Oooh lookout!!!! You said "IF Nevill managed to............"
If Jeremy said that his father rang him----------then he DID. I'm an optimist as well.
-
If Jeremy said that his father rang him----------then he DID. I'm an optimist as well.
If Jeremy said his father rang him.............he's a liar. I'm a pragmatist :))
-
If Jeremy said his father rang him.............he's a liar. I'm a pragmatist :))
If Jeremy said his father rang him.............he's a liar. I'm a realist ;)
-
If Jeremy said his father rang him.............he's a liar. I'm a realist ;)
Sadly for Jeremy,EP removed his phone so we don't know if the messages had been recorded or not as EP aren't likely to admit one way or the other. :(
-
Sadly for Jeremy,EP removed his phone so we don't know if the messages had been recorded or not as EP aren't likely to admit one way or the other. :(
OH! Now Nevill left a message? ;D ;D ;D ;D. You do realise if there was a message and EP are sitting on it, that means he was framed and you don't believe he was framed - or do you? ???
-
OH! Now Nevill left a message? ;D ;D ;D ;D. You do realise if there was a message and EP are sitting on it, that means he was framed and you don't believe he was framed - or do you? ???
Not framed,just the sheer incompetence of EP.Afterall,their leading man was only a blooming sergeant so what can you expect ?
-
Apart from when someone is out, the most obvious time to have an answering machine on is when when going to bed.
There is a strong chance of not hearing a phone when asleep. Or not waking and getting to the phone in time. So what better time to have the answering machine on ?
It is likely that the answering machine would be permanently on. For obvious reasons. People don't turn their fridge off when it's empty.
The problem Bamber has with the answering machine being on, is that it badly incriminates him. He said himself he was upstairs 'sleeping like a log'. So would not have got to the phone before Neville had left a message.
I know plenty of people who turned their answer machines off at night if they could be heard from the bedroom. The old fashioned answer machine would answer the phone, then you would hear the message you had recorded and then if someone wanted to leave a message you would hear that as well. Much more disturbing than the phone ringing imo.
-
But of course, the absence of a recorded call from WHF to Goldhanger proves only that A) no call was made or B) the answer machine was turned off. It doesn't prove Jeremy didn't kill his family.
It doesn't prove that he killed anyone at all, and that's the point...
-
If there was a call, he made it.
Polygraph test results prove he wasn't lying when he said he did not kill his family, and that he wasn't at the farmhouse when they were shot...
The prosecution could not prove that Ralph Bamber had not made that call to Jeremy, if they could have they would have mentioned it during the trial 29 years ago...
-
If there was a call, he made it.
That's just speculation...
-
Polygraph test results prove he wasn't lying when he said he did not kill his family, and that he wasn't at the farmhouse when they were shot...
The prosecution could not prove that Ralph Bamber had not made that call to Jeremy, if they could have they would have mentioned it during the trial 29 years ago...
NO. Polygraph tests simply say his stress levels didn't rise when he was asked the questions. Perhaps Jeremy knew that because certain things couldn't be proved they wouldn't convict him but it doesn't make him innocent.
-
NO. Polygraph tests simply say his stress levels didn't rise when he was asked the questions. Perhaps Jeremy knew that because certain things couldn't be proved they wouldn't convict him but it doesn't make him innocent.
the expert who conducted the tests was left in no doubt that Jeremy Bamber was telling the truth, and that he had answered all the questions promptly and honestly. The Home Office now use polygraph tests to help monitor sex offenders out on parole license, so the authorities recognise the usefulness of the test. Bamber had no idea nor was he forwarned about the nature of any of the questions that were put to him. He answered all questions spontaneously. If he had failed the test, all the guilters would have been shouting from the roof tops that this proved Bambers guilt...
-
Polygraph test results prove he wasn't lying when he said he did not kill his family, and that he wasn't at the farmhouse when they were shot...
The prosecution could not prove that Ralph Bamber had not made that call to Jeremy, if they could have they would have mentioned it during the trial 29 years ago...
No they don't, they simply prove he wasn't stressed when he took the test. Why would he be? He's already been convicted and had nothing to loose by taking the test.
Jeremy and the defence can't prove he received the call, if he could they would have mentioned it at trial 29 years ago. However, his account is about as believable as Katie Price becoming the next Prime Minister
-
the expert who conducted the tests was left in no doubt that Jeremy Bamber was telling the truth, and that he had answered all the questions promptly and honestly. The Home Office now use polygraph tests to help monitor sex offenders out on parole license, so the authorities recognise the usefulness of the test. Bamber had no idea nor was he forwarned about the nature of any of the questions that were put to him. He answered all questions spontaneously. If he had failed the test, all the guilters would have been shouting from the roof tops that this proved Bambers guilt...
As it isn't a measure of truth or lies, the expert can't claim such. The ONLY thing he can claim is that Jeremy passed his test.
I think Jeremy could probably guess the type of questions he'd be asked! And yes, the test is useful in detecting 'stress'. You are more likely to be stressed at the thought of retuning to prison as a sex offender - especially if you have re-offended. Taking the test AFTER conviction when you have nothing to lose - the stress is much reduced.
-
As it isn't a measure of truth or lies, the expert can't claim such. The ONLY thing he can claim is that Jeremy passed his test.
Incorrect, he is an 'ExpertWitness', and as such his or her evidence would be admissible, in the same way the blood expert, John Hayward, and the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletchers evidence was admissible during the trial. Such evidence as he could give might only be challenged by a similar expert, who interpreted his or her findings differently...
-
Incorrect, he is an 'ExpertWitness', and as such his or her evidence would be admissible, in the same way the blood expert, John Hayward, and the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletchers evidence was admissible during the trial. Such evidence as he could give might only be challenged by a similar expert, who interpreted his or her findings...
Witness where? Jeremy took the test after his conviction and this guy hasn't been a witness. However, it's a FACT that the test measures STRESS levels and is incorrectly referred to as a 'Lie Detector Test' so I am not incorrect in stating that HE is incorrect if he is claiming it PROVES Jeremy isn't lying.
-
As far as I am aware, no alternative expert has claimed that the results of Jeremy Bambers polygraph test was interpreted incorrectly. If anyone knows any differently, I would be pleased to stand corrected...
-
Incorrect, he is an 'ExpertWitness', and as such his or her evidence would be admissible, in the same way the blood expert, John Hayward, and the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletchers evidence was admissible during the trial. Such evidence as he could give might only be challenged by a similar expert, who interpreted his or her findings differently...
And was this particular expert witness called to give evidence?
-
Witness where? Jeremy took the test after his conviction and this guy hasn't been a witness. However, it's a FACT that the test measures STRESS levels and is incorrectly referred to as a 'Lie Detector Test' so I am not incorrect in stating that HE is incorrect if he is claiming it PROVES Jeremy isn't lying.
Yes, you are incorrect...
It is irrelevant that he took the polygraph test after he was convicted, and the person who asked the questions and who recorded Jeremy's answers was and is an expert in his own right. He is what they call 'an expert witness', who can testify in criminal proceedings of his findings which arose out of the testing of Jeremy Bamber. His findings are admissible, and as a matter of law, must be accepted, unless a different expert who specialises in that field of expertise provides a conflicting interpretation from the same set of questions, answers and recording captured on various equipment. There is nothing to stop someone who is due to stand trial, from taking a polygraph test before the trial begins, and the results being tendered in as part of the defendants case. In much the same way that the results of a breatholiser or a drugs test can be tended and relied upon...
-
As it isn't a measure of truth or lies, the expert can't claim such. I disagree, since based upon the results of such a test, the expert can offer his opinion on the results obtained during the tests. Since, he be an "expert", his opinion carries a great deal of weight, in comparison to just an ordinary persons opinion, and the reason it does is because he is "An Expert Witness",..The ONLY thing he can claim is that Jeremy passed his test. If Jeremy had 'lied", he would not have passed the test...
I think Jeremy could probably guess the type of questions he'd be asked! And yes, the test is useful in detecting 'stress'. You are more likely to be stressed at the thought of retuning to prison as a sex offender - especially if you have re-offended. Taking the test AFTER conviction when you have nothing to lose - the stress is much reduced. that is pure speculation, there is no empirical evidence to remotely support such a scenario. Since, if you take the test, you either pass, or fail, you are either telling the truth, or you are lying. There can never be a situation whereby if you were telling the truth, you could be a liar, or if you passed the test, you could not possibly be telling the truth......
-
Yes, you are incorrect...
It is irrelevant that he took the polygraph test after he was convicted, and the person who asked the questions and who recorded Jeremy's answers was and is an expert in his own right. He is what they call 'an expert witness', who can testify in criminal proceedings of his findings which arose out of the testing of Jeremy Bamber. His findings are admissible, and as a matter of law, must be accepted, unless a different expert who specialises in that field of expertise provides a conflicting interpretation from the same set of questions, answers and recording captured on various equipment. There is nothing to stop someone who is due to stand trial, from taking a polygraph test before the trial begins, and the results being tendered in as part of the defendants case. In much the same way that the results of a breatholiser or a drugs test can be tended and relied upon...
All the expert witness can say is that someone's stress levels did or didn't rise when certain questions were asked. They cannot say -beyond a shadow of doubt- whether or not they were lying. A stress detector is VERY different from an alcohol or drug detector, both of which can be physically detected in the body, making tests reliable. We all react differently to stress factors, ie, I'd tell the absolute truth but, more than likely, fail a stress test because of the pressure I'd feel myself to be under.
-
And was this particular expert witness called to give evidence?
Not yet, no...
Jeremy had been campaigning for decades trying to persuade the Home Office, to allow him to have a polygraph test, but they refused him one...
-
Not yet, no...
Jeremy had been campaigning for decades trying to persuade the Home Office, to allow him to have a polygraph test, but they refused him one...
It seems they may only be used on sex offenders, and as a possible move towards their parole.
-
No they don't, they simply prove he wasn't stressed when he took the test. Why would he be? He's already been convicted and had nothing to loose by taking the test.
Jeremy and the defence can't prove he received the call, if he could they would have mentioned it at trial 29 years ago. However, his account is about as believable as Katie Price becoming the next Prime Minister
Don't make assumptions Caroline, you never can tell! :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
Neither could the prosecution prove that a call wasn't made as all they did was rely on the bungling police who'd made a hash of it anyway because of answering calls to TWO Mr Bambers-----------very confusing for them indeed. ::)
-
All the expert witness can say is that someone's stress levels did or didn't rise when certain questions were asked. They cannot say -beyond a shadow of doubt- whether or not they were lying. A stress detector is VERY different from an alcohol or drug detector, both of which can be physically detected in the body, making tests reliable. We all react differently to stress factors, ie, I'd tell the absolute truth but, more than likely, fail a stress test because of the pressure I'd feel myself to be under.
They can give their opinion as "an expert witness" that the person they tested passed the test and that leads them to conclude that the person has given honest answers. As such, their opinion is admissible, and carries more weight than the opinion of an ordinary person...
-
Neither could the prosecution prove that a call wasn't made as all they did was rely on the bungling police who'd made a hash of it anyway because of answering calls to TWO Mr Bambers-----------very confusing for them indeed. ::)
It seems to me that those who think Jeremy is innocent are clinging onto a phone call from Nevill to the police as if their lives depend on it because it's all they got. It actually works rather well because it's irrelevant whether they CAN'T produce it because there never was one and negatives can't be proved OR, according to the innocents, they have it snaffled away somewhere and WON'T produce it, the results are exactly the same, the evidence AIN'T there, which means that "innocent" can go on about police corruption to their hearts' content.
-
I wonder how many members of the public would pass the test ? I also wonder how many would volunteer for the test if asked certain questions about their lives ?
-
They can give their opinion as "an expert witness" that the person they tested passed the test and that leads them to conclude that the person has given honest answers. As such, their opinion is admissible, and carries more weight than the opinion of an ordinary person...
But only -and rarely then- in the case of sex offenders. Latest results for their efficacy give 70 to 90 per cent accuracy.
-
I wonder how many members of the public would pass the test ? I also wonder how many would volunteer for the test if asked certain questions about their lives ?
Depends on the circumstances, Lookout. I wouldn't be prepared to sit on a stage in front of an audience, but done privately it might be similar to a counselling session.
-
It seems to me that those who think Jeremy is innocent are clinging onto a phone call from Nevill to the police as if their lives depend on it because it's all they got. It actually works rather well because it's irrelevant whether they CAN'T produce it because there never was one and negatives can't be proved OR, according to the innocents, they have it snaffled away somewhere and WON'T produce it, the results are exactly the same, the evidence AIN'T there, which means that "innocent" can go on about police corruption to their hearts' content.
We're not clinging on to anything. Can I ask why you're disputing what I suggest when you know full well he's guilty and has been in prison for over 30 years ? When there are clearly discrepancies in the investigation.Or don't you believe that there are and that the case was handled with the highest professional investigation that EP could muster.?
-
We're not clinging on to anything. Can I ask why you're disputing what I suggest when you know full well he's guilty and has been in prison for over 30 years ? When there are clearly discrepancies in the investigation.Or don't you believe that there are and that the case was handled with the highest professional investigation that EP could muster.?
Lookout, I have every confidence in saying that I don't believe there will ever be a circumstance devoid of discrepancies so I'm not going to say there were none.
The case MAY have been handled with the highest of professional investigating EP could muster but that doesn't mean it was handled well, NEITHER does it mean that Jeremy is innocent. I experience you as seeking to apply discrepancies where there are none. You insist that certain things happened - Sheila's prints on three different guns - with absolutely NOTHING to back up what you say. I think we're all far enough down the line here to know that nothing save that which is documented is worth considering. The rest is rumour.
-
Depends on the circumstances, Lookout. I wouldn't be prepared to sit on a stage in front of an audience, but done privately it might be similar to a counselling session.
Jeremy was in a threatening environment.Not exactly in the comfort of calming surrounds.
-
Lookout, I have every confidence in saying that I don't believe there will ever be a circumstance devoid of discrepancies so I'm not going to say there were none.
The case MAY have been handled with the highest of professional investigating EP could muster but that doesn't mean it was handled well, NEITHER does it mean that Jeremy is innocent. I experience you as seeking to apply discrepancies where there are none. You insist that certain things happened - Sheila's prints on three different guns - with absolutely NOTHING to back up what you say. I think we're all far enough down the line here to know that nothing save that which is documented is worth considering. The rest is rumour.
But it WAS handled well according to you and others.He was found guilty wasn't he and put in prison for the rest of his natural ? Isn't this the way you hoped/wanted it to go ? So how can you admit that it wasn't handled well ? This was a mans life hanging in the balance ! It would have had to have been handled well if we'd still have had the death penalty and even without it it's no less serious not to have got things right.
You wouldn't object to a re-run then ?
-
But it WAS handled well according to you and others.He was found guilty wasn't he and put in prison for the rest of his natural ? Isn't this the way you hoped/wanted it to go ? So how can you admit that it wasn't handled well ? This was a mans life hanging in the balance ! It would have had to have been handled well if we'd still have had the death penalty and even without it it's no less serious not to have got things right.
You wouldn't object to a re-run then ?
I'm not certain how you think the two things equate -actually, at the time, I wasn't certain that he was guilty- it certainly doesn't follow that, just because they eventually got it right, what preceded it was right. Far from it. Had it been right -the discrepancies fewer- we wouldn't be having this debate. You can continue to throw discrepancies into the mix, but NONE of them mean Jeremy is innocent.
-
Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer passed a polygraph test. They are not infallible, especially when taken by sociopaths.
-
Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer passed a polygraph test. They are not infallible, especially when taken by sociopaths.
Steve, psycho/sociopaths are devoid of a certain self regulation that you and I know as a conscience. They have no qualms about lying so their bodies don't register the physiological changes we experience when we act deviously or untruthfully.
-
today I think any accused person would have fought tooth and nail to have the moderator evidence excluded because it was removed from the crime scene and handled in a totally non forensic way.
Love your way of thinking.
-
Witness where? Jeremy took the test after his conviction and this guy hasn't been a witness. However, it's a FACT that the test measures STRESS levels and is incorrectly referred to as a 'Lie Detector Test' so I am not incorrect in stating that HE is incorrect if he is claiming it PROVES Jeremy isn't lying.
caroline i think you are trying to simplify the test by saying it just measures stress. Im no expert in this but i am pretty sure if we googled it it wouldnt say it measures just stress.
-
caroline i think you are trying to simplify the test by saying it just measures stress. Im no expert in this but i am pretty sure if we googled it it wouldnt say it measures just stress.
You're perfectly free to do your own research but the procedure never WAS a "lie detector" but a device for measuring stress levels. It measures things like blood pressure, sweat, and changes in the skin.
-
You're perfectly free to do your own research but the procedure never WAS a "lie detector" but a device for measuring stress levels. It measures things like blood pressure, sweat, and changes in the skin.
While your at it Notsure, read all about the fake lawyer Giovanni di Stefano who helped arrange it?
-
I can just imagine a " dumb " Jeremy carting a box of bullets upstairs after he'd scooped up what he'd wanted from the kitchen phone table,leaving an untidy mess of them.
Because Jeremy would have loaded the maximum quite easily,the spring action ? of re-loading a full quota of bullets would have been difficult for Sheila so two or three at a time seemed to have been the answer hence the " spares " in the bedroom.( Maybe that's how her nail came off initially ?)
Were any loose bullets found in his pocket btw ? :o :))
-
While your at it Notsure, read all about the fake lawyer Giovanni di Stefano who helped arrange it?
Giovanni had a law degree which he obtained in Italy, so how does that make him a fake?
-
Giovanni had a law degree which he obtained in Italy, so how does that make him a fake?
I wonder from where he may have purchased it and how much it cost.
-
Giovanni had a law degree which he obtained in Italy, so how does that make him a fake?
I suppose he was set up like Bamber then. During the trial, Southwark Crown court heard the 57-year-old had fooled clients out of millions of pounds by presenting himself as a lawyer, despite having no legal qualifications and not being registered to work as an advocate in the UK or Italy.
-
Giovanni had a law degree which he obtained in Italy, so how does that make him a fake?
So far as lawyers go,because they are clever they tend to ( mis )use their knowledge and I don't doubt that there are a few of them in prison as we speak. I knew of 3 who'd abused their position,one of them was working for me in conveyancing and finalising a property ( I very nearly hit him ) The other one who lived like a Lord was coming up to retirement when it made headlines that he'd been so greedy it was unbelievable,and the third was imprisoned for embezzlement. All three were popular and reputable lawyers--------------WERE ! So why make an example of de Stefano ? Ah,I know why---------because he happened to have been hired by JB !!
-
I wonder from where he may have purchased it and how much it cost.
He studied to get that qualification in Italy. His son, Michael is doing a similar law degree in the UK. Let's get the facts right, if he has got a law degree as stated why shouldn't he be allowed to represent defendants in any of the European state criminal justice systems?
-
He studied to get that qualification in Italy. His son, Michael is doing a similar law degree in the UK. Let's get the facts right, if he has got a law degree as stated why shouldn't he be allowed to represent defendants in any of the European state criminal justice systems?
because he got 14 years for being a fake that's why
-
He studied to get that qualification in Italy. His son, Michael is doing a similar law degree in the UK. Let's get the facts right, if he has got a law degree as stated why shouldn't he be allowed to represent defendants in any of the European state criminal justice systems?
There's a roaring trade in selling fake qualifications. Let's just hope the son is taking a legitimate route.
-
Those hiring lawyers,do you ask to see credentials ? Why not ?
Because I will from now on if ever I needed one because of my personal mistrust of them.
-
Those hiring lawyers,do you ask to see credentials ? Why not ?
Because I will from now on if ever I needed one because of my personal mistrust of them.
I use a firm which has been used by my family for generations. The one time I didn't -on the recommendation of an estate agent- I very nearly came unstuck and could have lost money AND the house I was buying. Thankfully the "tried and trusted" were able to come to the rescue.
-
I use a firm which has been used by my family for generations. The one time I didn't -on the recommendation of an estate agent- I very nearly came unstuck and could have lost money AND the house I was buying. Thankfully the "tried and trusted" were able to come to the rescue.
My family had used the same firm for years too,but when the owner died,the company merged and it wasn't the same as the usual home visits ended. How sad it was to lose the most trusting men who had OUR interests at heart to revert to the jumped-up whiz-kids who now have THEIR interests at heart.
Our old bank manager was also of the same era and once he was gone,the banks were turned on their heads. Unless anyone has lived through that era,they don't know what I'm on about.
-
Makes you wonder why Bamber has got through so many Lawyers? Either they seen through him, or was a fake or he got rid of them because they couldn't do anymore for him? But out of all his lawyers this man takes the biscuit, Giovanni Di Stefano (born 1 July 1955) is an Italian businessman and convicted fraudster based in the United Kingdom. He has been involved in legal cases for high-profile notorious defendants worldwide; he has no legal qualifications and is not registered to work as an advocate in the UK or Italy.[1] He has been referred to as "The Devil's Advocate" for his advocacy on behalf of such claimed clients as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Miloševi?.[2][3] He was also a business associate of the Serbian paramilitary leader and indicted war criminal Arkan.[3][4]
He has been convicted four times in Ireland and the United Kingdom of fraud and related criminal offences, serving a total of eight and a half years for convictions between 1975 and the late 1980s. He was described by a judge as "one of life's great swindlers".[5] His most recent conviction, in March 2013, saw him being sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment after being found guilty or pleading guilty to 27 charges including deception, fraud and money laundering between 2001 and 2011 related to "tricking people into thinking he was a bona fide legal professional".[5][6]. This is the guy that arranged the lie detector test for Bamber.
-
Yes,there are a lot of " lifes swindlers " doing time. Doctors,lawyers,suspended sentences for professors, etc etc. Our home-grown swindlers.!
I wonder how many foreign doctors/nursing staff have got their certificates for practicing medicine in OUR hospitals ?
-
I can just imagine a " dumb " Jeremy carting a box of bullets upstairs after he'd scooped up what he'd wanted from the kitchen phone table,leaving an untidy mess of them.
Because Jeremy would have loaded the maximum quite easily,the spring action ? of re-loading a full quota of bullets would have been difficult for Sheila so two or three at a time seemed to have been the answer hence the " spares " in the bedroom.( Maybe that's how her nail came off initially ?)
Were any loose bullets found in his pocket btw ? :o :))
Can anyone throw a light on whether rifles or indeed any gun has got a spring-loaded mechanism when bullets are loaded ? Or some sort of breaking strain ?
-
Steve, psycho/sociopaths are devoid of a certain self regulation that you and I know as a conscience. They have no qualms about lying so their bodies don't register the physiological changes we experience when we act deviously or untruthfully.
(1) - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-lie-test-proves-468144
JEREMY Bamber passed a lie detector test yesterday - backing his 22 year fight to prove he did not murder five members of his family.
And the expert who conducted it said: "I am absolutely convinced he is innocent."
Terry Mullins added: "He did not show any sign of a reaction, not a flicker which would have shown up guilt."
Now Bamber's lawyers will send the results to the Home Secretary and ask for a third appeal.
Bamber was "overwhelmed" when told the results in a phone call to Full Sutton jail in York, where he is serving life. He told the Mirror: "I didn't do it. I couldn't have done. I wouldn't have done it."
He has always denied killing his adoptive parents Neville and June Bamber, his sister Sheila Caffell - nicknamed Bambi -and her six-year-old twins Nicholas and Daniel in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in 1985.
He stood to inherit almost £500,000 from his parents. But he claims Sheila, who had a history of mental illness, killed them before turning the rifle on herself.
Police thought so too - until they found a silencer in a cupboard with her blood on and decided she could not have used it in the murders, shot herself and then put it back in the cupboard.
Bamber, 45, who has been asking for the test since 1991, was finally given permission by the Home Office. It is believed to be the first time it has been allowed behind bars.
He was wired up to a £10,000 polygraph machine, said to be the most sophisticated available with 95 to 98 per cent accuracy. It measures reactions that can indicate guilt, including heartbeat, blood pressure, sweat and even electromagnetic impulses.
During the 100 minute test Mr Mullins, one of only seven polygraph experts in the UK, asked three key questions: DID you shoot your family on August 7, 1985? DID you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? WERE you in the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? Bamber gave a categoric "No" to each one.
Mr Mullins said: "You only have to fail one question and you fail the whole test. But he passed every time.
"We are testing the nervous system, the fight or flight mechanism, and you cannot hide those reactions. But there was no suggestion he was lying in any answers."
He added: "I am absolutely clear that he did not do this. I am convinced he is innocent from his readings on these tests."
Bamber's lawyer Giovanni di Stefano, who has campaigned vigorously for him, said last night: "I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove his innocence.
"Although lie detector tests are not admissible in the UK justice system, I believe that such a sophisticated piece of equipment does have real value in determining guilt or innocence."
Bamber's appeals in 1987 and 2002 failed. Three weeks ago the Criminal Cases Review Commission refused to refer the case back to the Appeal Court.
But Mr di Stefano said: "I will be demanding immediate action. The Home Secretary should release Mr Bamber on licence until a retrial.
"He has spent 22 years behind bars for heinous crimes which he didn't commit."
[email protected]
-
It seems they may only be used on sex offenders, and as a possible move towards their parole.
(1) - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449643/Mass-killer-Bamber-passes-lie-detector.html
Mass killer Bamber 'passes lie detector'
Last updated at 11:10 20 April 2007
Mass killer Jeremy Bamber's legal team claims he has 'conclusively' passed a lie detector test and proved his innocence. A lawyer for the 45-year-old, who was jailed for life for the murder of five members of his family, said he completed the test at Full Sutton prison, near York, yesterday. Giovanni di Stefano said the convicted murderer was asked a series of questions, including whether he carried out the killings.
Mr di Stefano said the results confirmed that Bamber was 'telling the truth' and he is now calling for him to be released. He said: "He has passed conclusively the lie detector test. I will now be asking the Secretary of State to refer the case to the Parole Board with a view to them releasing him." He added he would also make a further application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for an appeal. He lost appeals in 1987 and 2002 following his conviction in 1986.
Bamber has always denied shooting dead his adoptive parents Neville and June, sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's home, in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in 1985. A Prison Service spokeswoman would not comment on the lie detector claims. On his website, Bamber announced: "Jeremy passed a polygraph test in prison today."
On this site Bamber listed 12 questions he had been asked during the lie detector test. He said they were:
1. Did you shoot your family on 7 August 1985? -No.
2. Did you shoot five members of your family with a Anschutz rifle? - No.
3. Were you present inside the house when they were shot with a Anschutz rifle - No.
4. Did you shoot your father Neville? - No.
5. Did you shoot your mother June? - No.
6. Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? - No.
7. Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? - No.
8. Did you hide a rifle silencer in a cupboard after shooting your family? - No.
9. Did you climb out of a window of your parent's (sic) home after shooting them? - No.
10. Did you shoot your family in your father's home? - No.
11. Did Pc Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shooting? - Yes.
12. Did you pay a professional hitman to shoot your family? - No.
The test was carried out by Terry Mullins, one of Britains leading lie detector experts.
Testing takes about two hours and during that time the subject's physiological conditions are monitored such as breathing, blood pressure and pulse rate.
-
(1) - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-lie-test-proves-468144
JEREMY Bamber passed a lie detector test yesterday - backing his 22 year fight to prove he did not murder five members of his family.
And the expert who conducted it said: "I am absolutely convinced he is innocent."
Terry Mullins added: "He did not show any sign of a reaction, not a flicker which would have shown up guilt."
Now Bamber's lawyers will send the results to the Home Secretary and ask for a third appeal.
Bamber was "overwhelmed" when told the results in a phone call to Full Sutton jail in York, where he is serving life. He told the Mirror: "I didn't do it. I couldn't have done. I wouldn't have done it."
He has always denied killing his adoptive parents Neville and June Bamber, his sister Sheila Caffell - nicknamed Bambi -and her six-year-old twins Nicholas and Daniel in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in 1985.
He stood to inherit almost £500,000 from his parents. But he claims Sheila, who had a history of mental illness, killed them before turning the rifle on herself.
Police thought so too - until they found a silencer in a cupboard with her blood on and decided she could not have used it in the murders, shot herself and then put it back in the cupboard.
Bamber, 45, who has been asking for the test since 1991, was finally given permission by the Home Office. It is believed to be the first time it has been allowed behind bars.
He was wired up to a £10,000 polygraph machine, said to be the most sophisticated available with 95 to 98 per cent accuracy. It measures reactions that can indicate guilt, including heartbeat, blood pressure, sweat and even electromagnetic impulses.
During the 100 minute test Mr Mullins, one of only seven polygraph experts in the UK, asked three key questions: DID you shoot your family on August 7, 1985? DID you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? WERE you in the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? Bamber gave a categoric "No" to each one.
Mr Mullins said: "You only have to fail one question and you fail the whole test. But he passed every time.
"We are testing the nervous system, the fight or flight mechanism, and you cannot hide those reactions. But there was no suggestion he was lying in any answers."
He added: "I am absolutely clear that he did not do this. I am convinced he is innocent from his readings on these tests."
Bamber's lawyer Giovanni di Stefano, who has campaigned vigorously for him, said last night: "I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove his innocence.
"Although lie detector tests are not admissible in the UK justice system, I believe that such a sophisticated piece of equipment does have real value in determining guilt or innocence."
Bamber's appeals in 1987 and 2002 failed. Three weeks ago the Criminal Cases Review Commission refused to refer the case back to the Appeal Court.
But Mr di Stefano said: "I will be demanding immediate action. The Home Secretary should release Mr Bamber on licence until a retrial.
"He has spent 22 years behind bars for heinous crimes which he didn't commit."
[email protected]
how to pass a lie detector test, get a fake lawyer and Say only what you need to. “Yes” or “No” answers should be all you need for most of the test. Easy peasy, have a look what Bamber had to answer.
-
how to pass a lie detector test, get a fake lawyer and Say only what you need to. “Yes” or “No” answers should be all you need for most of the test. Easy peasy, have a look what Bamber had to answer.
If you had to take a lie detector test, on the basis that what your saying is true, you would certainly fail to pass the test. The Polygraph tester is an EXPERT in his own right. Something your not qualified to give an opinion on, other than to either agree, or disagree, with his findings. More to the point, no other EXPERT WITNESS in this field of expertise, has claimed his findings are not accurate based upon the questions asked, and the answers given, and the recordings retained from the devices. All these are available for any other qualified expert to examine and challenge if Mr Mullins findings are not accurate...
Step forward - 'No - one'...
-
how to pass a lie detector test, get a fake lawyer and Say only what you need to. “Yes” or “No” answers should be all you need for most of the test. Easy peasy, have a look what Bamber had to answer.
As you say, Justice. Easy peasy. I'd fail even though telling the absolute truth. My heart rate and bp would soar from just being put in that situation.
-
Did JB have a " fake lawyer " present during the test ?
-
If you had to take a lie detector test, on the basis that what your saying is true, you would certainly fail to pass the test. The Polygraph tester is an EXPERT in his own right. Something your not qualified to give an opinion on, other than to either agree, or disagree, with his findings. More to the point, no other EXPERT WITNESS in this field of expertise, has claimed his findings are not accurate based upon the questions asked, and the answers given, and the recordings retained from the devices. All these are available for any other qualified expert to examine and challenge if Mr Mullins findings are not accurate...
Step forward - 'No - one'...
The efficacy of the SO CALLED lie detector test has been done to death. There is NOTHING more any EXPERT WITNESS can say than a subject satisfactorily answered certain questions. This isn't a science with 100% reliability.
-
As you say, Justice. Easy peasy. I'd fail even though telling the absolute truth. My heart rate and bp would soar from just being put in that situation.
Yes, but Jeremy Bamber passed his test, he did not fail it. Like everything else in Bambers favour to help establish his innocence, the guilters will accept nothing. It beggars belief that we have had two SOCO's testifying and lying during the trial about the order key crime scene photographs were taken proving police put the rifle from the bedroom window onto Sheila's body, and then took photographs showing the rifle on her body, claiming the photographs depict how Bamber had left the scene unmoved, untouched...
-
Yes, but Jeremy Bamber passed his test, he did not fail it. Like everything else in Bambers favour to help establish his innocence, the guilters will accept nothing. It beggars belief that we have had two SOCO's testifying and lying during the trial about the order key crime scene photographs were taken proving police put the rifle from the bedroom window onto Sheila's body, and then took photographs showing the rifle on her body, claiming the photographs depict how Bamber had left the scene unmoved, untouched...
It doesn't mean he was telling the truth, though. All it means is that he satisfactorily answered the questions he was asked. He had no reason to be concerned about the questions. Psychopaths lack conscience so he'd have had no qualms about lying because his body wouldn't react to it.
-
It doesn't mean he was telling the truth, though. All it means is that he satisfactorily answered the questions he was asked. He had no reason to be concerned about the questions. Psychopaths lack conscience so he'd have had no qualms about lying because his body wouldn't react to it.
Some psychopaths DO react to lie detectors. They're so set and keen to give the right answers that stress./anxiety and sweat show themselves. This is a FACT.
-
Some psychopaths DO react to lie detectors. They're so set and keen to give the right answers that stress./anxiety and sweat show themselves. This is a FACT.
I have some difficulty in believing such are psychopaths. Another of their traits is total belief in themselves.
-
I have some difficulty in believing such are psychopaths. Another of their traits is total belief in themselves.
I've got total belief in myself------------but I'm no psychopath.
My own personal belief is that NONE of us knows who's a psycho and who isn't and unless an MRI is performed,neither does a psychiatrist.
-
God help anyone who doesn't believe in themselves ! What about those with terminal illnesses ? They HAVE to believe in themselves that they're going to get better--------------don't they ?
-
I've got total belief in myself------------but I'm no psychopath.
My own personal belief is that NONE of us knows who's a psycho and who isn't and unless an MRI is performed,neither does a psychiatrist.
One trait out of numerous others hasn't yet been known to create a psychopath. Those of us who have been involved with one can certainly recognize it.
-
One trait out of numerous others hasn't yet been known to create a psychopath. Those of us who have been involved with one can certainly recognize it.
Because I HAVE been personally involved with a psycho or two, I think I'm in a position to recognise one when I see one and without having been in close contact at all with JB I'd firmly state that he ISN'T one.
Psychopaths are strivers and don't care whose toes they tread on in getting to where they aim for. I don't see this trait in Jeremy at all otherwise he certainly wouldn't be where he is. Psychos are clever in an evil way and are always one ahead of you and crave attention and to be recognised.Or they think they're God--------untouchable.
-
Because I HAVE been personally involved with a psycho or two, I think I'm in a position to recognise one when I see one and without having been in close contact at all with JB I'd firmly state that he ISN'T one.
Your in a position to regognize one when you see one. Yet firmly state Jeremy is not one even thou you have never seen him. Talk about contradictions.
-
Because I HAVE been personally involved with a psycho or two, I think I'm in a position to recognise one when I see one and without having been in close contact at all with JB I'd firmly state that he ISN'T one.
Psychopaths are strivers and don't care whose toes they tread on in getting to where they aim for. I don't see this trait in Jeremy at all otherwise he certainly wouldn't be where he is. Psychos are clever in an evil way and are always one ahead of you and crave attention and to be recognised.Or they think they're God--------untouchable.
"Clever in an evil way" may have been your experience of a psychopath but it certainly doesn't describe them all and definitely not the person I was involved with. I'd be inclined to call it total arrogance on your part to wildly exclaim that Jeremy isn't one BUT for the fact he will be whatever he feels you need him to be. He sure as hell isn't going to reveal a side of him which would cause you to doubt him and he has the luxury of time in which to consider what he puts in writing. No psychopath is going to allow anyone to see them strive because it would, in all likelihood, reveal their MO, which is will be rather different from their charming and urbane surface.
-
Because I HAVE been personally involved with a psycho or two, I think I'm in a position to recognise one when I see one and without having been in close contact at all with JB I'd firmly state that he ISN'T one.
Psychopaths are strivers and don't care whose toes they tread on in getting to where they aim for. I don't see this trait in Jeremy at all otherwise he certainly wouldn't be where he is. Psychos are clever in an evil way and are always one ahead of you and crave attention and to be recognised.Or they think they're God--------untouchable.
You have just described Jeremy Bamber down to a tee!
-
You have just described Jeremy Bamber down to a tee!
No------a consultant who I worked with,sorry.
-
The efficacy of the SO CALLED lie detector test has been done to death. There is NOTHING more any EXPERT WITNESS can say than a subject satisfactorily answered certain questions. This isn't a science with 100% reliability.
Wrong, it is a science, and as the test is carried out by an expert, his 'Expert Opinion', is admissible in evidence...
-
Your in a position to regognize one when you see one. Yet firmly state Jeremy is not one even thou you have never seen him. Talk about contradictions.
I KNEW some bright spark would see my post as a contradiction,but having mulled through reams of literature on the life of JB is how I reached my conclusion that he wasn't a psychopath.
-
Wrong, it is a science, and as the test is carried out by an expert, his 'Expert Opinion', is admissible in evidence...
Yes, in sex offences, but as a reliable science, it remains highly questionable.
-
It doesn't work with sex offenders.
-
It doesn't work with sex offenders.
I'm sure the prosecuting authorities will be gratified to learn that Lookout. However, for now, my research tells me that this is the area in which they think they got the best results. Doesn't say much for the others, does it? However, as I said previously, it's reliability remains questionable
-
I'm sure the prosecuting authorities will be gratified to learn that Lookout. However, for now, my research tells me that this is the area in which they think they got the best results. Doesn't say much for the others, does it? However, as I said previously, it's reliability remains questionable
It wasn't so long ago that some cretin had gone through the test with a negative result,released and then re-offended. It won't be the last time it happens,so going on your theory about a psychopath passing the test------------it also says that paedophiles too are psychopaths.
-
It wasn't so long ago that some cretin had gone through the test with a negative result,released and then re-offended. It won't be the last time it happens,so going on your theory about a psychopath passing the test------------it also says that paedophiles too are psychopaths.
I can't think of any reason -given their lack of empathy for their victims- why they shouldn't be.
-
I can't think of any reason -given their lack of empathy for their victims- why they shouldn't be.
Well there you are.
But on the other hand,why should/must Jeremy show empathy for something he DIDN'T do ?
-
Yes, in sex offences, but as a reliable science, it remains highly questionable.
If someone is an expert in any particular field or specialist subject, their opinion is admissible as evidence, whereas an ordinary persons opinion on a specialist topic is not. An 'Expert Witness', as is Mr Mullins, can give evidence stàting his opinion, and if unchallenged, his opinion would have to be treated as factual...
To be specific, his would be considered ' factual opinion'...
-
If someone is an expert in any particular field or specialist subject, their opinion is admissible as evidence, whereas an ordinary persons opinion on a specialist topic is not. An 'Expert Witness', as is Mr Mullins, can give evidence stàting his opinion, and if unchallenged, his opinion would have to be treated as factual...
Thank you for that, Mike but I'm fully cognisant of what an "Expert Witness" is. It was part of my partner's work in his own field of expertise. He was, on occasions, challenged, but never lost the case he was representing. However, his field was a much more reliable science with no ambiguity.
-
Thank you for that, Mike but I'm fully cognisant of what an "Expert Witness" is. It was part of my partner's work in his own field of expertise. He was, on occasions, challenged, but never lost the case he was representing. However, his field was a much more reliable science with no ambiguity.
So is interpretation of polygraph test results...
-
So is interpretation of polygraph test results...
No, it's totally ambiguous which is why it isn't universally used.
-
Well there you are.
But on the other hand,why should/must Jeremy show empathy for something he DIDN'T do ?
Because for others, empathy comes naturally. It isn't about choosing whether or not to show it.
-
There was only one " yes " in answer to the 12 questions that Jeremy was asked. The question being :
Did PC Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shootings ? Yes,answered Jeremy.
-
He was honest on No. 12 at least. Just a pity he had no conscience when it came to killing five members of his family.
-
The reason that he doesn't " appear to have a conscience " to some is that he didn't do anything to give him a conscience.
-
No, it's totally ambiguous which is why it isn't universally used.
No, its not ambiguous, the questions are there for all like minded experts to see, so are the answers, and the various readings from all the equipment...
-
Wrong, it is a science, and as the test is carried out by an expert, his 'Expert Opinion', is admissible in evidence...
It is so scientific that in 2003, Gary Ridgway admitted he was the Green River Killer, having murdered 49 women in the Seattle area. Ridgway had passed a lie detector test in 1987, while another man - who turned out to be innocent - failed. Ridgway is a psychopath - he passed!
Further reading here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22467640
-
Some psychopaths DO react to lie detectors. They're so set and keen to give the right answers that stress./anxiety and sweat show themselves. This is a FACT.
Not sure where you're getting your info from Lookout but this is just incorrect!
-
The reason that he doesn't " appear to have a conscience " to some is that he didn't do anything to give him a conscience.
So you're admitting he has no conscience? GOOD!
-
How many times are we told Jeremy and others such as Adam Lanza,Marty Tankleff,David Bain and others "wouldn't hurt a fly". It's never the loudmouths down the pub I fear;always those who clandestinely harbour a grudge.
-
Not sure where you're getting your info from Lookout but this is just incorrect!
In-depth study of lie-detectors.
-
In-depth study of lie-detectors.
Try reading the link Caroline just posted.
-
The reason that he doesn't " appear to have a conscience " to some is that he didn't do anything to give him a conscience.
Yet documentation shows he refused to allow police access to his medical records pre-trial and did not want to be assessed, while a psychiatrist engaged by his defence declared that he displayed several classic psychopathic symptoms,” says Lee.
Chief among these was his genuine belief in his own innocence. “The psychiatrist believed that Jeremy did kill his family but had suppressed the memory until it was no longer real,” she adds.
With a Fake lawyer more corrupt than FIFA and a suppressed memory and years after the event as I said easy peasy. 11 no and one yes,
-
Yet documentation shows he refused to allow police access to his medical records pre-trial and did not want to be assessed, while a psychiatrist engaged by his defence declared that he displayed several classic psychopathic symptoms,” says Lee.
Chief among these was his genuine belief in his own innocence. “The psychiatrist believed that Jeremy did kill his family but had suppressed the memory until it was no longer real,” she adds.
With a Fake lawyer more corrupt than FIFA and a suppressed memory and years after the event as I said easy peasy. 11 no and one yes,
It's why he had to mimic Colin at the funeral,as he had no idea what grief was since Brambles was run over. Watching David Bain outside the court upon his release I felt the same disconcerting sensation that he had after all slain five..
-
Yet documentation shows he refused to allow police access to his medical records pre-trial and did not want to be assessed, while a psychiatrist engaged by his defence declared that he displayed several classic psychopathic symptoms,” says Lee.
Chief among these was his genuine belief in his own innocence. “The psychiatrist believed that Jeremy did kill his family but had suppressed the memory until it was no longer real,” she adds.
With a Fake lawyer more corrupt than FIFA and a suppressed memory and years after the event as I said easy peasy. 11 no and one yes,
So where are Jeremy's medical records that show this ?
-
It's why he had to mimic Colin at the funeral,as he had no idea what grief was since Brambles was run over. Watching David Bain outside the court upon his release I felt the same disconcerting sensation that he had after all slain five..
That's true Steve, You have to remember that one of the key traits in psychopaths is that they lack empathy,”
-
Psychiatrists believe all kinds of things.Pity Sheila hadn't been treated properly.
I've worked with psychiatrists and their views differ so much it leaves you baffled. It proves it with these so-called professionals who say that the Ripper is better. ::) Yet today,there's another psychiatrist who says he's a danger so keep him at Broadmoor ? Who's right ? Which one/s would you trust ?
-
So where are Jeremy's medical records that show this ?
ask Carol Ann Lee she wrote it in her book?
-
It's why he had to mimic Colin at the funeral,as he had no idea what grief was since Brambles was run over.
There is no proof he mimicked Colin.
Watching David Bain outside the court upon his release I felt the same disconcerting sensation that he had after all slain five..
http://www.justice.govt.nz/media/in-focus/topic-library/David-Bain-reports/justice-binnie (http://www.justice.govt.nz/media/in-focus/topic-library/David-Bain-reports/justice-binnie)
-
That's true Steve, You have to remember that one of the key traits in psychopaths is that they lack empathy,”
Which takes us back to the alleged call from his father. He didn't act -despite throwing in that his father had sounded panicked and terrified(?)- like it would be expected on receiving such a distressing call because he was incapable of having the related emotions.
-
Psychiatrists believe all kinds of things.Pity Sheila hadn't been treated properly.
I've worked with psychiatrists and their views differ so much it leaves you baffled. It proves it with these so-called professionals who say that the Ripper is better. ::) Yet today,there's another psychiatrist who says he's a danger so keep him at Broadmoor ? Who's right ? Which one/s would you trust ?
There are those of us who believe Jeremy is guilty but we have differing ideas about how he should be treated. One poster thinks he's done long enough even if he's guilty. We all think differently. It would make no difference if we were all psychiatrists.
-
There is no proof he mimicked Colin.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/media/in-focus/topic-library/David-Bain-reports/justice-binnie (http://www.justice.govt.nz/media/in-focus/topic-library/David-Bain-reports/justice-binnie)
Binnie has been discredited. The best video on the Bain case has been removed,assumedly for legal reasons,but there is something terribly disquieting about his mien in this clip: https://youtu.be/DgBk_0Bs3uM
-
Binnie has been discredited.
Only because they don't want to pay compo
-
There are those of us who believe Jeremy is guilty but we have differing ideas about how he should be treated. One poster thinks he's done long enough even if he's guilty. We all think differently. It would make no difference if we were all psychiatrists.
I'm not talking about us.I'm talking about psychiatrists whose job it is is to assess whether or not a patient is either suffering from psychopathy or not ? and who is or isn't a danger to his fellow inmates or the general public. This is their flipping job,not ours.
-
Psychiatrists believe all kinds of things.Pity Sheila hadn't been treated properly.
I've worked with psychiatrists and their views differ so much it leaves you baffled. It proves it with these so-called professionals who say that the Ripper is better. ::) Yet today,there's another psychiatrist who says he's a danger so keep him at Broadmoor ? Who's right ? Which one/s would you trust ?
I thought he got moved to Broadmoor because he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 1984 There is treatment for this condition? Maybe the treatment has worked plus it will save us a lot of money.
-
I'm not talking about us.I'm talking about psychiatrists whose job it is is to assess whether or not a patient is either suffering from psychopathy or not ? and who is or isn't a danger to his fellow inmates or the general public. This is their flipping job,not ours.
Find me two doctors/psychiatrists who do agree. You get the forgiving type who believes in giving second chances so will overlook some behaviours, then there's the type who thinks differently. We don't live in a perfect world, Lookout and whilst much of what you say is about your frustration that Jeremy isn't free, MOST of us, out of a sense of justice having been done and a desire to feel safe in our own homes, want the convicted to remain where they are unless there is irrefutable proof of their innocence.
-
I thought he got moved to Broadmoor because he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 1984 There is treatment for this condition? Maybe the treatment has worked plus it will save us a lot of money.
Maggie has said the condition diminishes with age., however we're not talking about his release, only a return to prison.
-
Maggie has said the condition diminishes with age., however we're not talking about his release, only a return to prison.
that's true Jane, plus It costs taxpayers more than £300,000 a year to detain him in Broadmoor, at least five times the cost of a prison cell and he loses a lot of privileges as well.
-
I'm not talking about us.I'm talking about psychiatrists whose job it is is to assess whether or not a patient is either suffering from psychopathy or not ? and who is or isn't a danger to his fellow inmates or the general public. This is their flipping job,not ours.
Prisoners aren't assessed for psychopathy unless it is requested. People are locked up because they are a danger to the public but unless someone asks for protection inside prison, they are all lumped in together. Jeremy was given CAT A status and as such, he is considered a great risk to the public.
-
I don't think he'll be moved after this latest debacle over his sanity.
-
I thought he got moved to Broadmoor because he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 1984 There is treatment for this condition? Maybe the treatment has worked plus it will save us a lot of money.
Yes he was Justice. I don't think he should ever get out - he murdered something like 12 people? However, he is thought to be responsible for attacking quite a few more. I know he must be pretty old by now but you can't be too careful.
-
In-depth study of lie-detectors.
Then you need to check your source material because it's wrong.
-
Then you need to check your source material because it's wrong.
I've been saying you can't trust psychiatrists.
-
I thought he got moved to Broadmoor because he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 1984 There is treatment for this condition? Maybe the treatment has worked plus it will save us a lot of money.
No treatment, justice just medication but many schizophrenics ;burn out' as they age. I imagine Peter Sutcliffe comes under this heading
-
No treatment, justice just medication but many schizophrenics ;burn out' as they age. I imagine Peter Sutcliffe comes under this heading
Thanks for that Maggie and Caroline.
-
None of us have any proof at all that he is a physopath.
Surely if he has been incarcerated for 30 years the authorities would know if he is or isnt so im going with thier view that he isnt.
-
I'm sure the prison officers would have seen something untowards if there'd have been a hint of insanity.
-
None of us have any proof at all that he is a physopath.
Surely if he has been incarcerated for 30 years the authorities would know if he is or isnt so im going with thier view that he isnt.
Why would they care? It isn't going to make an iota of difference to them, one way or another!! He's a CatA prisoner and providing he doesn't prove a danger to other "residents" or staff, the status quo is maintained.
-
Could be worth watching:- "Meet The Psychopaths" Tuesday 9pm Channel 5.
-
None of us have any proof at all that he is a physopath.
Surely if he has been incarcerated for 30 years the authorities would know if he is or isnt so im going with thier view that he isnt.
Why would they know? Don't you think if guilty, someone who could kill his family in such a manner simply to inherit and feel no remorse - HAS to be a psychopath?
-
Why would they know? Don't you think if guilty, someone who could kill his family in such a manner simply to inherit and feel no remorse - HAS to be a psychopath?
Not necessarily, Psychopaths can be innocent and non Psychopaths can commit horrendous crimes.
-
Not necessarily, Psychopaths can be innocent and non Psychopaths can commit horrendous crimes.
I know, but to kill your own family and feel no remorse or guilt and to be using them now to try and gain public support - you have t be a psychopath!!
-
I know, but to kill your own family and feel no remorse or guilt and to be using them now to try and gain public support - you have t be a psychopath!!
One person once noted that for Jeremy to have murdered five members of his family then wait outside for hours with the police acting worried is a level of deviancy so high it cannot have gone unnoticed earlier in his life.
Apparently Jeremy has had three PCL-R tests and all said he was not a psychopath. But who knows :-\
-
He studied to get that qualification in Italy. His son, Michael is doing a similar law degree in the UK. Let's get the facts right, if he has got a law degree as stated why shouldn't he be allowed to represent defendants in any of the European state criminal justice systems?
You need more than a law degree to be qualified to represent clients.
Law degree - 3 years
Legal Practice course - 1year
Training contract - 2 years
= qualified solicitor
Or
Law degree - 3 years
BPTC - 1 year
Pupillage - minimum 1 year
= barrister
-
You need more than a law degree to be qualified to represent clients.
Law degree - 3 years
Legal Practice course - 1year
Training contract - 2 years
= qualified solicitor
Or
Law degree - 3 years
BPTC - 1 year
Pupillage - minimum 1 year
= barrister
[/quotHang on a minute, legal aid entitlement rulres changes everything, since if you don't qualify for whatever reason, the defendant is left undefended, or as the case may be,vsuch a defendant may be represented by someone so elequent, or favourable, as opposed to someone capable of arguing on the defendants behailf. So, here we are...
-
You need more than a law degree to be qualified to represent clients.
Law degree - 3 years
Legal Practice course - 1year
Training contract - 2 years
= qualified solicitor
Or
Law degree - 3 years
BPTC - 1 year
Pupillage - minimum 1 year
= barrister
[/quotHang on a minute, legal aid entitlement rulres changes everything, since if you don't qualify for whatever reason, the defendant is left undefended, or as the case may be,vsuch a defendant may be represented by someone so elequent, or favourable, as opposed to someone capable of arguing on the defendants behailf. So, here we are...
Currently, legal aid is harder to obtain, making it more likely that defendants either represent themselves, or get someone to speak on their behalf...
-
You need more than a law degree to be qualified to represent clients.
Law degree - 3 years
Legal Practice course - 1year
Training contract - 2 years
= qualified solicitor
Or
Law degree - 3 years
BPTC - 1 year
Pupillage - minimum 1 year
= barrister
[/quotHang on a minute, legal aid entitlement rulres changes everything, since if you don't qualify for whatever reason, the defendant is left undefended, or as the case may be,vsuch a defendant may be represented by someone so elequent, or favourable, as opposed to someone capable of arguing on the defendants behailf. So, here we are...
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.
-
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.
Interesting, that answers the questions, thanks petey
-
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.
Thanks Petey. With that kind of unflinching self assurance, might we have found ourselves a psychopathic personality?
Oh dear! Just re read the above. Don't like the way it reads. I was referring to Di Stefano.
-
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.
Good post petey did not realise that they had to train for a further 2/3years Thanks for the information.
-
Currently, legal aid is harder to obtain, making it more likely that defendants either represent themselves, or get someone to speak on their behalf...
Again your missing the point, He was no more a qualified lawyer than he was a “surgeon qualified to perform surgery or pilot qualified to fly an aeroplane", he has no legal qualifications and is not registered to work as an advocate in the UK or Italy. Where is your proof he is not a fake like you said in earlier posts. If you read about him he took hard earned cash of clients, not legal aid their life savings and they never got it back. He was well known for taking un winnable cases on.
NO QUALIFICATIONS
-
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.
Good post Petey
-
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.
Di Stefano admitted in court he has no qualifications. and just said he was "self taught"
-
One person once noted that for Jeremy to have murdered five members of his family then wait outside for hours with the police acting worried is a level of deviancy so high it cannot have gone unnoticed earlier in his life.
Apparently Jeremy has had three PCL-R tests and all said he was not a psychopath. But who knows :-\
It hadn't gone unnoticed - Jeremy was no angle (edited - ha, ha!! He was no ANGEL either ;D ;D ;D ;D) and his misdemeanour's are well documented and those are only the ones we know about.
The PCL-R is only as good as the tester.
-
Jeremy Bamber did not kill anybody, and you have already admitted police brought the rifle from the window and placed it on Sheila's body, and then took photographs which they used to fool the jury into believing that the photographs were a true record of how Sheila's body was found unmoved or untouched by any person, which we now know to have been a complete fabrication, as proven and established by the sequence with which key photographs were taken by SOCO. How anybody can suggest that Jeremy staged his sisters body to fool police into accepting she had shot herself beggars belief, in view of the fact that it can now be shown that police moved the body and the rifle so they could photograph her supposed death scene. The reason why miscarriages of justice happen is because of people like you. You are ignorant to the truth. Of course the police had a reason to cover what they had done up - they shot an unarmed deranged young woman downstairs in the kitchen which they called it 'a suicide', and later on, after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had already pronounced her dead, they placed a loaded rifle which they brought to her body from the bedroom window, which discharged a live round depositing bullet PV/19 into her brain. There was nothing remotely legal about what happened in the main bedroom when they shot Sheila whilst carrying out a 'gauging exercise' using a loaded gun. The police shot and killed Sheila Caffell in the main bedroom, and the circumstances of how they killed her, were swept under the carpet, helped by them staging her death scene and then photographing her body with the gun upon it to give an impression that she had shot herself. The photographs they took after they had arranged the rifle back on her body were misused during the trial to support the contention that these particular photographs showed views of her death scene unmoved and untouched until Cook stepped forward and took the gun from her body. The police had every reason to cover up what they had done, and they did. How anybody can justify the police shooting and killing Sheila Caffell in these circumstances by claiming they would have been entitled to shoot her has got to be nuts. You cannot place a loaded weapon on the body of a victim whether or not you thought she was dead, or as it turned out deeply unconscious, and then start arranging her fingers upon and around the trigger mechanism, which causes the gun to go off, and then say, "oh, it's alright, we were entitled to kill her anyway". No, they weren't entitled to kill her anyway, she was unarmed, mistakenly thought to be dead, but only deeply unconscious. They had her under control, there was not justification for any police officer to claim after the gun went off, that "oh well, we were entitled to kill her anyway". There was no reason thereafter to stage her actual death scene to make it look like she had shot herself (when she hadn't). Even worse, for the police to then go on and take photographs which a year later they misused in a defiant act of deception. People like you who support this kind of dishonesty are a disgrace. The only time people like you will ever appreciate this type of injustice is if it happens and you are the victim on the receiving end of it...
Abdolute unmitigated hogwash. The police never discharged any weapons on the morning of the White House Farm murders. The rifle leaning against the windowsill has no significance other than the police set it there while they examined the crime scene, a very normal procedure in any investigation. As Jane has already pointed out, your attempts at making 3 plus 3 equal 8 are actually making your arguments look silly.
The police officers who attended the scene had nothing to hide, no ulterior motive, no devious plan to blame the entire thing on Jeremy Bamber because we know that when they left the scene they initially wrongly decided it was four murders and a suicide. Jeremy came out of it smelling of roses, at least until it all came crashing down upon him as a consequence of his own arrogance.
Next?
-
Abdolute unmitigated hogwash. The police never discharged any weapons on the morning of the White House Farm murders. The rifle leaning against the windowsill has no significance other than the police set it there while they examined the crime scene, a very normal procedure in any investigation. As Jane has already pointed out, your attempts at making 3 plus 3 equal 8 are actually making your arguments look silly.
The police officers who attended the scene had nothing to hide, no ulterior motive, no devious plan to blame the entire thing on Jeremy Bamber because we know that when they left the scene they initially wrongly decided it was four murders and a suicide. Jeremy came out of it smelling of roses, at least until it all came crashing down upon him as a consequence of his own arrogance.
Next?
There has also been some "unmitigated hogwash" surrounding the bible/the alleged suicide note written by Sheila/what was done with it/where it ended up. I thought this piece from CAL would help to clear up the mystery.
"Inspirational quotes were one of June's passions. In 2006, when her blue Bible was returned to her family, they found it crammed with little notes and passages she'd underlined...........................It was this Bible that had been found next to Sheila on the morning of her death.......................The note on stiff card that had slipped between Sheila's shoulders and the stained pages of the book bore June's handwriting in her own words......................."
-
Abdolute unmitigated hogwash. you have nothing constructive to say about this matter. You really are an idiot. The police never discharged any weapons on the morning of the White House Farm murders.how do you know? Who the fuck are you? The facts are that they did fire bullets, that is why they had to change one of the original bullets. You can try to deny it all you want to, but it will never alter the fact that they replaced one of the two bullets used to shoot Sheila with, a bullet which was broken into 15 pieces, and swapped it for a whole one. You don't have to pretend your daft in the head, you really are... The rifle leaning against the windowsill has no significance Yes it does, peanut brainother than the police set it there while they examined the crime scene, what a fucking idiotic birdbrain you are turning out to be. Can you read? Do you know what it means when a senior police officer testifies on oath, and he was given the option to say that the rifle had been moved from the body, before any photographs were taken, and that some copper or other reset it on Sheila's body. But what did Detective Inspector Ron Cook say in response? He testifified that in this instance, no-one had removed the rifle, and that nobody did, until he did. Do you understand basic English and know a little bit about sentence construction? Cook stated that no-one had moved the rifle from Sheila's body, until after PC Bird took photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33. And guess what Cook testified about doing, and why he had done what 'he' did? He claims that with the gun untouched and unmoved on Sheila's body, until photographs 29 and 30, were taken by PC Bird, so that PC Bird, could photograph the bloodied fingermarks on the front lower part of her nightdress. Do you understand what evidence is, on that mickey mouse red forum? Cook, was asked by counsel for the prosecution, "who put the rifle at the bedroom window as shown in Photograph No. 23? Do you know what Cook said whilst giving evidence under oath? He said he had put it there, after he had removed it from Sheila's body, and prior to placing 'that' Rifle there, how he had handed the rifle to Police Inspector Montgomery, to check and make safe. Now, how much clearer does it have to be spelt out in for the morons on the red forum? It's as clear as day, I do not deny that at some point after police shot and killed her, that somebody had indeed replaced the rifle at the same bedroom window, but Ron Cook says not. It is his case that he was the first to remove 'that' rifle from Sheila's body, and it was himself who had placed the rifle at the window, and that PC Bird came along and took photograph 23. But he has lied, he has committed perjury. Do you lot on the red forum know what it means when a witness commits perjury?
a very normal procedure in any investigation. Except that in this case it didn't happen like that according the Detective Inspector Cooks evidence... As Jane has already pointed out, your attempts at making 3 plus 3 equal 8 are actually making your arguments look silly. But not half as silly as your making yourself look...
The police officers who attended the scene had nothing to hide, that's right,, which explains why they deliberately and fraudulently staged Sheila's death scene by bringing the rifle from the window and put it on her body and then took photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, and claimed dishonestly that these photographs had been taken before photograph 23, which clearly shows the rifle at the window prior to it being photographed on Sheila's body...no ulterior motive, says you...no devious plan to blame the entire thing on Jeremy Bamber no, because when they did what they did, they did it to put the responsibility upon Sheila...because we know that when they left the scene they initially wrongly decided it was four murders and a suicide. yes, it was five murders, Sheila killed the other four, and the police killed Sheila... Jeremy came out of it smelling of roses, no, he didn't, he lost his family... at least until it all came crashing down upon him as a consequence of his own arrogance. no, it all came crashing down on him, because the police used the fabricated crime scene photographs, which showed the rifle upon Sheila's body as shown in photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, that were taken after the rifle had already been photographed at the bedroom window (23)...
Next?
-
There has also been some "unmitigated hogwash" the only hogwash is on your part...surrounding the bible/the alleged suicide note written by wrong again, Sheila's suicide note, was recovered from her bedside table (DRH/42), at least get some of the facts rightSheila/what was done with it/where it ended up. I thought this piece from CAL would help to clear up the mystery.There is no mystery, your just trying to create one...
"Inspirational quotes were one of June's passions. In 2006, when her blue Bible was returned to her family, they found it crammed with little notes and passages she'd underlined.none of these were found on Sheila's bedside table, and certainly, no such notes in June Bambers handwriting ended up as part of exhibit DRH/42.............................It was this Bible that had been found next to Sheila on the morning of her death.......................The note on stiff card that had slipped between Sheila's shoulders and the stained pages of the book bore June's handwriting in her own words.......well done..................."
-
So, now that we are all clear, we've got people on this forum who are arguing that it doesn't matter, that police brought the rifle from the window in photograph 23, and put it on Sheila's body, as shown in photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, claiming that the captured images which show the rifle on her body were fabricated, and introduced on the footing that the killer had left Sheila's body with the gun upon it, and that Detective Inspector Ron Cook had handled the gun very carefully wearing no gloves (how eloquent), and the next bits the best, Detective Inspector Ron Cook, claims that it was he who had also moved the position of Sheila's right hand, so that PC Bird (ah, poetry in motion) could photograph bloodied fingermarks, on the front lower part of her nightdress - he obviously falsified this account because after police originally brought the rifle from the window (23) to Sheila's body, in what can best be termed, ' a gauging exercise', they must have replaced the rifle back in its original position at the window, so that PC Bird could take photograph 23 showing the rifle where it was. Therefore, if Detective Inspector Ron Cook needed to photograph those bloody fingermarks, on the front lower part of Sheila's nightdress, what better time to do it, then whilst the rifle was photographed back at the window in 23. Why proceed to the point where the rifle had been put back onto Sheila's body, in photographs, 26, 27, 28, before deciding to photograph the bloodied fingermarks, on the nightdress? It doesn't make any bloody sense. It is a load of old codswallop on Detective Inspector Cooks part. He wasn't trying to get PC Bird to take a photograph of that bloodied fingermark on the nightdress at all. He was trying to conceal it...
Why would Detective Inspector Cook, want PC Bird to photograph these bloodied fingermarks, if as claimed by the police, Sheila's hands and fingers were spotlessly clean?
So, where are these photographs of the bloodied fingermarks, who in gods name was responsible for making them? Sheila, herself? June Bamber? The impressions certainly look effeminate...
-
Before you start hurling accusations at me, please remember that it isn't I who is making unverifiable claims here. I have merely quoted CAL's word's and what was said in a previous post.
What I left out -and perhaps should have included- were the words, some of which spring to mind as being part on the alleged suicide note. I can only suggest, that along with all their other alleged mishandlings, the police removed the note -in case it got lost when they moved the Bible- and replaced it when the mishandling was completed. I can see how convenient would be a suicide note but it seems there is no concrete proof that one ever existed.................and why would it if she hadn't planned to commit suicide?
It may well be that "none of these were found on Sheila's bedside table" -That's, right. They weren't. According to CAL, they were found in the Bible- "And certainly, no such notes in June Bamber's handwriting ended up as part of exhibit DRH/42" Which doesn't mean it didn't exist. It would simply be yet another demonstration of how underhanded and corrupt you tell us the police are.
-
They killed her. The police, and not Jeremy Bamber, shot her in 'a gauging exercise' being carried out during 'familiars'. The rifle which was brought to Sheila's body for this purpose had not yet up until that point been checked and made safe. There was therefore a significant level of negligence shown on the part of the police, that makes them culpable for her death...
The alternative was to stage her death scene, and by using fabricated crime scene photographs, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, treat the case as ' four murders and a suicide'. The simple truth is that police framed Sheila for taking her own life, when in actual fact the police themselves had shot and killed her....
-
If Cook and Bird had not fabricated Sheila's death scene by using dishonestly taken crime scene photographs, police officers would almost certainly been charged with culpable murder, in Sheila's case. This motley crew of bent coppers, framed Sheila, for killing herself, so that none of them would have to stand trial for her murder. Then when the relatives started applying the heat, the police found themselves snookered, by their own dishonesty. They had to run a case against Jeremy Bamber by a reliance upon fabricated crime scene photographs, which will now be their undoing...
-
I am a genious...
-
Photographic evidence has now been factored in successfully...
-
Police had to change the bullet that was fired across her throat downstairs in the kitchen - the original bullet had been broken into at least 15 pieces, but had to be exchanged for a whole bullet obtained from the batch of 29 control rounds and test fired a month after the shootings via the anshuzt rifle photographed at the window...
-
Police had to change the bullet that was fired across her throat downstairs in the kitchen - the original bullet had been broken into at least 15 pieces, but had to be exchanged for a whole bullet obtained from the batch of 29 control rounds and test fired a month after the shootings via the anshuzt rifle photographed at the window...
By the time of the trial, police had two bullets which had been fired through the anshuzt rifle, a replacement PV/20 that was not fired via the rifle, until a month after the shootings, an original PV/19 which was the bullet which killed her, after the rifle was brought to her body, for 'gauging purposes', an activity carried out during a routine exercise, known more commonly as, 'familiars'...
-
It hadn't gone unnoticed - Jeremy was no angle (edited - ha, ha!! He was no ANGEL either ;D ;D ;D ;D) and his misdemeanour's are well documented and those are only the ones we know about.
The PCL-R is only as good as the tester.
Yes it had gone unnoticed. All the other misdemeanour's of his are fairly typical of a young man. You would expect a long history of conduct disorder, fire starting, getting expelled, animal torture and being a completely reckness nutcase in general like Patrick Mackay for example
-
Yes it had gone unnoticed. All the other misdemeanour's of his are fairly typical of a young man. You would expect a long history of conduct disorder, fire starting, getting expelled, animal torture and being a completely reckness nutcase in general like Patrick Mackay for example
There were stories aplenty at the time. The newspapers were full of them. Who knows if they were true? I could recount several that have been told me, MOST of which I believe to be true.....................however, I won't be telling you those. I will though, ask you if you think a young man, with a clean record through childhood and a comfortable lifestyle, SUDDENLY involves himself in drugs -using and selling, not to mention smuggling- breaking into the family business, and thinking up ways to rid himself of his family?
-
Do we know when June wrote her letter " not to be opened until after her death ".
Would someone mind finding out !!
-
Do we know when June wrote her letter " not to be opened until after her death ".
Would someone mind finding out !!
I think we've been through this before, Lookout. To the best of my knowledge, the letter wasn't dated.
-
I think we've been through this before, Lookout. To the best of my knowledge, the letter wasn't dated.
I've found reference to it. It's in one of JM's statements dated 14/10/85. It was the letter which JM had taken out of the tape department of JB's car. JB had told her it was from his mother to be read after her death and he'd gone on to say that she'd written it recently. Obviously prior to the killings.
It's on this forum and was posted by Patti on the 26th of December 2012.
-
It was no myth or theory that Sheila " heard voices " of God in her head. This is in CC's mother's statement and Sheila was confused about who was who,ringing Mrs Brencher mistaking her for Dr Ferguson. This was latterly,a few months before her death.
Did Sheila hear voices on the night of the killings ?
-
I've found reference to it. It's in one of JM's statements dated 14/10/85. It was the letter which JM had taken out of the tape department of JB's car. JB had told her it was from his mother to be read after her death and he'd gone on to say that she'd written it recently. Obviously prior to the killings.
It's on this forum and was posted by Patti on the 26th of December 2012.
According to CAL it was given to Jeremy by Basil Cock on Tuesday, Sept. 3rd.
-
It was no myth or theory that Sheila " heard voices " of God in her head. This is in CC's mother's statement and Sheila was confused about who was who,ringing Mrs Brencher mistaking her for Dr Ferguson. This was latterly,a few months before her death.
Did Sheila hear voices on the night of the killings ?
We need to be very clear about this, Lookout. I imagine that she was hearing voices prior to her last admission to St Andrews but she was medicated, intravenously, with Haldol during her stay. There is no indication that she was hearing voices AFTER her release. The other meds were merely to counteract any side effects.
-
It was no myth or theory that Sheila " heard voices " of God in her head. This is in CC's mother's statement and Sheila was confused about who was who,ringing Mrs Brencher mistaking her for Dr Ferguson. This was latterly,a few months before her death.
Did Sheila hear voices on the night of the killings ?
Interestingly,the last time that Mrs Bencher saw Sheila,Sheila had not long come out of hospital,telling Mrs B that she'd found God. Sheila broke down and Mrs B had said it was the " first time that she'd seen Sheila show any emotion "------------------------
-
According to CAL it was given to Jeremy by Basil Cock on Tuesday, Sept. 3rd.
JM's statement states different ?
-
JM's statement states different ?
Undoubtedly as I believe she found it in the glove compartment of Jeremy's car where I guess Jeremy had put it. It's unlikely she'd been present when Jeremy was given it.
-
We need to be very clear about this, Lookout. I imagine that she was hearing voices prior to her last admission to St Andrews but she was medicated, intravenously, with Haldol during her stay. There is no indication that she was hearing voices AFTER her release. The other meds were merely to counteract any side effects.
Exactly.
-
There nothing to say that she didn't hear voices again ? Unless you know different.?
No medication is a miracle cure and Sheila objected to the prescribed dose.
Why,didn't she want to get better ? Or didn't she want to feel out of control ?
-
There nothing to say that she didn't hear voices again ? Unless you know different.?
No medication is a miracle cure and Sheila objected to the prescribed dose.
Why,didn't she want to get better ? Or didn't she want to feel out of control ?
And no one has come forward to say she had heard voices again. CAL has interviewed numerous who knew Sheila and none of them has said anything about it.
I'm sure we're all aware that no meds aren't miracle cures. According to some psych consultants, it applies even more to certain psych meds. Sheila was as entitled, as you and I, to object to a dose she found difficult to live with, but I don't rule out the possibility that, had she stayed longer in St Andrews, her meds would have been adjusted before she left.
-
People with mental health issues aren't in the habit of telling others about their problems,so how ALL these people had professed to know Sheila,I don't know. Even the relatives had no idea of her illness.
-
People with mental health issues aren't in the habit of telling others about their problems,so how ALL these people had professed to know Sheila,I don't know. Even the relatives had no idea of her illness.
She lived in London, Lookout. These people who, as you put it, "professed to know her" -why SHOULDN'T they have known her- probably gave her more in the way of emotional support than her family. NOT a totally unusual situation for many of us. As she rarely saw them, it wasn't strictly necessary for her to tell the relatives about her illness. None of those who spoke of her seemed to have been in the dark regarding her illness.
-
That letter is interesting because it tells us of the remorse June felt for how she may have neglected her children throughout her life, and whether she had a premonition of death as was reportedly the case with her husband she still put pen to paper rather than approach Sheila and Jeremy directly. Presumably Jeremy retrieved it from Basil Cock upon her demise, which is why it ended up in the glove compartment under Julie's cognizance and she was witness to Jeremy's comments,namely that he was "glad his mother was dead" but "I do miss the old man occasionally".
Of course there is no corroboration of this account, but it does smack of a man who has put the tragedy behind him and is ready to move on from the burden of the Farm and the bugbear of expectation,which he had endured from the Gresham's days, but now with a vacuum whether temporary or permament filled by foreign trips and the attraction of London city life,yet the reader of all these books on the case is left wondering whether Jeremy would remain happy for long in whatever environment he inhabited post-murders.
-
There nothing to say that she didn't hear voices again ? Unless you know different.?
No medication is a miracle cure and Sheila objected to the prescribed dose.
Why,didn't she want to get better ? Or didn't she want to feel out of control ?
Given there is no evidence that she did, it's simply you speculating and doing to Sheila what you say EP did to Jeremy.
-
Speculation is what we're all doing because of it being such a crap investigation.
-
because he got 14 years for being a fake that's why
The man (GDS) knew the law inside out, back to front - how does that make him a fake?
-
The man (GDS) knew the law inside out, back to front - how does that make him a fake?
I will give you a clue, he was A conman who duped people into thinking he was a bona fide legal professional, he pleaded guilty to fraud including stealing 150000 compensation from a client that lost an arm in a crash, he also pleaded guilty to defrauding a couple out of 160000 including a women's life savings of 750000 he had no qualifications what so ever, fo 8 years I worked as a driving instructor, I had to pass 3 exams to get my green badge, if i had given paid driving lessons without the green badge I would have been prosecuted, plenty of people know driving inside out and looks like Giovanni was pretty clued up on law but where does it put the people like me and NGB who paid and studied hard to get our certificates or degrees when a conman, fake, swindler whatever we want to call him can set up shop? e
-
The man (GDS) knew the law inside out, back to front - how does that make him a fake?
Going on that theory, Mike, if I gen up on human anatomy and physiology, it will qualify me to amputate one of your limbs even though it won't make me a surgeon.
-
The man (GDS) knew the law inside out, back to front - how does that make him a fake?
So do lots of criminals - it helps them get around it! Point is that without being qualified, he's breaking the law and if he knew the law that well, he knew he was breaking it and that makes him a criminal not a lawyer which means he falsely represented himself and as such - he's a FAKE lawyer.
-
I will give you a clue, he was A conman who duped people into thinking he was a bona fide legal professional, he pleaded guilty to fraud including stealing 150000 compensation from a client that lost an arm in a crash, he also pleaded guilty to defrauding a couple out of 160000 including a women's life savings of 750000 he had no qualifications what so ever, fo 8 years I worked as a driving instructor, I had to pass 3 exams to get my green badge, if i had given paid driving lessons without the green badge I would have been prosecuted, plenty of people know driving inside out and looks like Giovanni was pretty clued up on law but where does it put the people like me and NGB who paid and studied hard to get our certificates or degrees when a conman, fake, swindler whatever we want to call him can set up shop? e
How did he manage to represent so many people in court without any qualifications?
-
How did he manage to represent so many people in court without any qualifications?
Supreme confidence goes a long way.
-
Supreme confidence goes a long way.
Did no one bother to check his credentials, or look for him on the register of the law society?
It seems he duped fools.
-
Did no one bother to check his credentials, or look for him on the register of the law society?
It seems he duped fools.
Many make careers out of duping people -psychopaths are particularly good at it because they lack conscience- so it's a very sweeping statement to label all those duped of being fools. In the case of professionals, 'careless' might be more appropriate.
-
How did he manage to represent so many people in court without any qualifications?
I don't know the answer to that one, maybe NGB could answer it for us and give his thoughts? In the world we live in anything is possible.
-
Whatever the man was or wasn't,it wasn't Jeremy's fault that he happened to have chosen him.
-
Many make careers out of duping people -psychopaths are particularly good at it because they lack conscience- so it's a very sweeping statement to label all those duped of being fools. In the case of professionals, 'careless' might be more appropriate.
In life you have to bend the rules from time to time, but Distefano pushed his luck way too far. hence he is in prison
-
In life you have to bend the rules from time to time, but Distefano pushed his luck way too far. hence he is in prison
Fine to bend rules when it's only oneself who's involved, but bending rules at others' expense.........???
-
Fine to bend rules when it's only oneself who's involved, but bending rules at others' expense.........???
It all depends on situation.
-
I don't know the answer to that one, maybe NGB could answer it for us and give his thoughts? In the world we live in anything is possible.
For court work GDS used a firm of solicitors and counsel. They acted as the official "front end" of Studio Legale.
-
For court work GDS used a firm of solicitors and counsel. They acted as the official "front end" of Studio Legale.
Thanks for that NGB, but he still set himself up as a Lawyer when he had no legal qualifications and he was not registered to work as a lawyer in Italy or the UK?
-
Did no one bother to check his credentials, or look for him on the register of the law society?
It seems he duped fools.
It seems that way, people still believe whatever he said?
-
Thanks for that NGB, but he still set himself up as a Lawyer when he had no legal qualifications and he was not registered to work as a lawyer in Italy or the UK?
There is a bit of a grey area here. There is nothing to stop an unqualified person offering legal advice and describing himself as a legal adviser, as long he does not represent himself to be a qualified lawyer. The problem for GDS was that several clients gave evidence that they had paid money to him understanding that he was qualified and the jury obviously believed that evidence.
-
There is a bit of a grey area here. There is nothing to stop an unqualified person offering legal advice and describing himself as a legal adviser, as long he does not represent himself to be a qualified lawyer. The problem for GDS was that several clients gave evidence that they had paid money to him understanding that he was qualified and the jury obviously believed that evidence.
. Thanks again NGB, why did he not go for the qualifications, I don't think the jury needed much persuading because he had already pleaded guilty to 27 charges regarding deception, fraud and money laundering
-
If he had been upfront and everyone knew he wasnt qualified i think he could have gone a long way. However ic its true he stole clients money then he deserves to be where he is. That is unforgivable and needs a severe punishment.
-
I will give you a clue, he was A conman who duped people into thinking he was a bona fide legal professional, he pleaded guilty to fraud including stealing 150000 compensation from a client that lost an arm in a crash, he also pleaded guilty to defrauding a couple out of 160000 including a women's life savings of 750000 he had no qualifications what so ever, None of this made him a fake. Fake what? fo 8 years I worked as a driving instructor, I had to pass 3 exams to get my green badge, if i had given paid driving lessons without the green bad I would have been prosecuted, It was not illegal doing what GDS did in law, he was as good and elequent as any qualified lawyer...plenty of people know driving inside out and looks like Giovanni was pretty clued up on law but where does it put the people like me and NGB who paid and studied hard to get our certificates or degrees when a conman, fake He was not a fake. Fake what?, swindler whatever we want to call him can set up shop? e
Most if not all of his clients that he successfully defended would not agree with your view...
-
Most if not all of his clients that he successfully defended would not agree with your view...
I agree with you Mike he was a good honest law abiding person, another MOJ, shame on me for thinking about the clients he had made I'll gains from when I should have been thinking about his good deeds.
-
I agree with you Mike he was a good honest law abiding person, another MOJ, shame on me for thinking about the clients he had made I'll gains from when I should have been thinking about his good deeds.
What is another word for a Fraudster? Noun
swindler cheat hoaxer charlatan impostor fraud fake sham phony confidence trickster so take your pick?
Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)
-
On 27 March 2013 he was found guilty of all charges; nine counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception, eight counts of fraud, three counts of acquiring criminal property, two counts of using a false instrument, one count of attempting to obtain a money transfer by deception, one count of obtaining property by deception and one count of using criminal property.[6] He subsequently pleaded guilty to two additional counts: defrauding a couple out of £160,000, including a woman's life savings of £75,000, and stealing £150,000 from a man who had been in a car accident and lost a limb.[128]
He was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Judge Alistair McCreath stated that Di Stefano had caused misery and frustration to many people and called him a predator for his treatment of "desperate and vulnerable" clients: "You had no regard for them nor for their anguish. Your only concern was to line your own pockets." He described Di Stefano's crimes as "planned and persistent," his defence in court as "breathtakingly cynical,"[20] and his overall conduct as showing "greed, dishonesty and utter disregard for the sensibilities of others."[12On April 4, 2014, eight and a half years were added to Di Stefano's fourteen-year sentence, unless he compensated his victims immediately. The judge who jailed him last March at Southwark Crown Court, Alistair McCreath, told him to "pay back £1.4million forthwith or serve the extra time." He said Di Stefano had no intention of paying and had "stuck up two fingers to the court”.[1308].
Looks like he was a good man after all? Looks like he has got 22 years for nothing? Wonder what the 2 counts of using a false instrument was for?
-
Most if not all of his clients that he successfully defended would not agree with your view...
"It was not illegal doing what GDS did in law, he was as good and eloquent as any qualified lawyer" Am I to understand from that statement that you believe duping is fine if you're good enough not to get found out?
-
"It was not illegal doing what GDS did in law, he was as good and eloquent as any qualified lawyer" Am I to understand from that statement that you believe duping is fine if you're good enough not to get found out?
It seems Dodgy DiStefano does have some legal ventures after all. ;D
(http://images.cdbaby.name/g/i/giovannidistefano.jpg)
-
. Thanks again NGB, why did he not go for the qualifications, I don't think the jury needed much persuading because he had already pleaded guilty to 27 charges regarding deception, fraud and money laundering
In order to have qualified he would have to have undertaken several years of full time degree and post degree education and a further period as a trainee. Clearly that was not something he was able or willing to do. There was nothing wrong with the basic structure of his operation, operating as Studio Legale based in Italy and instructing qualified lawyers in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere. He did achieve success for a few clients in this way. However, he needed to make clear to his clients that this was the arrangement and it is clear that he did not always do that. He also in at least one case took a lot of money from a client then failed to do anything on the client's behalf.
-
In order to have qualified he would have to have undertaken several years of full time degree and post degree education and a further period as a trainee. Clearly that was not something he was able or willing to do. There was nothing wrong with the basic structure of his operation, operating as Studio Legale based in Italy and instructing qualified lawyers in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere. He did achieve success for a few clients in this way. However, he needed to make clear to his clients that this was the arrangement and it is clear that he did not always do that. He also in at least one case took a lot of money from a client then failed to do anything on the client's behalf.
Thanks NGB
-
In order to have qualified he would have to have undertaken several years of full time degree and post degree education and a further period as a trainee. Clearly that was not something he was able or willing to do. There was nothing wrong with the basic structure of his operation, operating as Studio Legale based in Italy and instructing qualified lawyers in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere. He did achieve success for a few clients in this way. However, he needed to make clear to his clients that this was the arrangement and it is clear that he did not always do that. He also in at least one case took a lot of money from a client then failed to do anything on the client's behalf.
So I could do legal work for someone aslong as it passes through a qualified lawyer and the client is aware I am no Lawyer?
-
So I could do legal work for someone aslong as it passes through a qualified lawyer and the client is aware I am no Lawyer?
Yes you could.
-
Yes you could.
Hi NGB, did he get 22 years overall sentence?
-
Hi NGB, did he get 22 years overall sentence?
He must have also lied about his net worth. He claimed to be worth around three hundred million. If that were the case he could have just paid back what he stole plus compensation.
-
Hi NGB, did he get 22 years overall sentence?
He did, but he can avoid the additional 8 years if he pays the compensation ordered. I suspect he will do that, in which case he is likely to serve a total of 7 years.
-
What is another word for a Fraudster? Noun
swindler cheat hoaxer charlatan impostor fraud fake sham phony confidence trickster so take your pick?
Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)
a great guy in the minds of all those he helped,..
-
a great guy in the minds of all those he helped,..
Mike, I'd hazard a guess that if you're trying to convince us that Jeremy is innocent, it may not be a good idea to defend a twister, cheat and con artist, presently doing time, as "a great guy."
-
a great guy in the minds of all those he helped,..
in truth Giovanni Di Stefano has not won his cases, all have been fronted by QCs, Paul Martin, Jerome Lynch, and Trevor Burke and the biggest case the great guy could and did not help or defend was his own.
-
I am a Genious...
-
I am a Genious...
So you've already said. You certainly have the ability to put more interpretations on the same few words, than anyone else, so if that constitutes genius....................?
-
I am a Genious...
Except that the police had no need to cover up shooting her - she was an armed suspect.
-
Except that the police had no need to cover up shooting her - she was an armed suspect.
..and I never understood the Police-issued silencer.
-
..and I never understood the Police-issued silencer.
Nothing to understand Steve - there wasn't one.
-
Except that the police had no need to cover up shooting her - she was an armed suspect.
How do you work that out, when the rifle said to have shot her was resting against the bedroom window when she was shot downstairs, and upstairs, before police photographed 'that' rifle on her body? She wasn't armed when police shot her, so you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise...
-
..and I never understood the Police-issued silencer.
It's simple really, there is a corresponding mark around the first bullet entry wound upon her neck, corresponding to the non fatal shot, or bullet PV/20, which matches the radias and circumference of a sound moderator, which is absent from the second fatal bullet entry wound under the chin. Next, if sheila was shot downstairs in the kitchen, whilst the rifle which supposedly fired the first shot that was photographed resting against the bedroom window, before police photographed 'that' same rifle on her body, which rifle fired the first shot?
-
Except that the police had no need to cover up shooting her Yes, they did... - she was an armed suspect. no, she wasn't...
-
The police, nor anybody else, can get away from the fact, that the very first photograph taken showing the anshuzt rifle (23) was taken showing it resting near to the bedroom window, before any photograph showing 'it' resting on Sheila's body. If that doesn't alert the uneducated to the fact that police 'fabricated the death scene of Sheila Caffell', then all I can say about such ignorant bastards is that they themselves must be corrupt. The facts speak for themselves, the xxxxxxx gun was photographed at the bedroom window, before it was photographed on the body...
If xxxxxx can't understand that, tell you what, why not join the police force and become a xxxxxxx xxxx copper. I hate xxxx xxxxxxx. Scum of the earth, they are lower than a snakes belly...
-
Nothing to understand Steve - there wasn't one. Yes, there was, stop telling porkies. How come DS Davidson fingerprinted such a silencer, on the 9th August 1985, then?
-
Except that the police had no need to cover up shooting her Yes, they did... - she was an armed suspect. no, she wasn't...
I suppose this IS the panto season so OK ......... Oh no they didn't and oh yes she was!
-
I suppose this IS the panto season so OK ......... Oh no they didn't Oh yes they did... and oh yes she was! With rifle at bedroom window from 7.15am, onward, on its own, and Police having to bring the same rifle from the window to her body to stage her death scene, at which point they had to photograph the rifle on her body, so that police could claim she had taken her own life when in fact she hadn't, so "OH no she wasn't armed"...
-
lie detecter tests are in the same catergory as tarot cards,and astrolygy.the most famous killer to pass it was the green river killer.but there have been many others
-
lie detecter tests are in the same catergory as tarot cards,and astrolygy.the most famous killer to pass it was the green river killer.but there have been many others
That's because people incorrectly call them 'lie detectors'. They don't detect lies, they detect stress - that's why psychopaths can pass them.
-
That's because people incorrectly call them 'lie detectors'. They don't detect lies, they detect stress - that's why psychopaths can pass them.
top marks caroline excellently put