Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on March 26, 2016, 02:17:PM
-
Lookout I believe there will be a forensic breakthrough in the case soon
I KNOW there will be a forensic breakthrough in the case soon 8)
-
I KNOW there will be a forensic breakthrough in the case soon 8)
Being an ex-cop,I know you'll know.
-
I KNOW there will be a forensic breakthrough in the case soon 8)
Define "soon". This "soon" has been bandied about since, and probably LONG before, I joined the forum.
-
Define "soon". This "soon" has been bandied about since, and probably LONG before, I joined the forum.
That would have been the last failed/disallowed appeal where you'd last heard that.This is now.
-
I KNOW there will be a forensic breakthrough in the case soon 8)
Oh dear you've joined the dark side. I've been hearing this for the last 4 years.
-
Being an ex-cop,I know you'll know.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh dear you've joined the dark side. I've been hearing this for the last 4 years.
I haven't heard anything from anyone. I have new evidence I have unearthed myself that I am in the process of sending to JBs legal team via Andrew Hunter
So you can take the "Oh Dear" back, I am no fool Caroline
-
I haven't heard anything from anyone. I have new evidence I have unearthed myself that I am in the process of sending to JBs legal team via Andrew Hunter
So you can take the "Oh Dear" back, I am no fool Caroline
Yes David - I'm sure you THINK you have new evidence but I am leaving the 'oh dear' exactly where it is! You haven't said ANYTHING which points to innocence, you just seem to have gotten carried along on the whole conspiracy band wagon. I don't think you are a fool, which is why I'm surprised.
-
David is the dark horse on the forum.
-
David is the dark horse on the forum.
Nay! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have new evidence I have unearthed myself that I am in the process of sending to JBs legal team via Andrew Hunter
Good show David, let's hope it is better than the nonsense the official team has generated lately.
But why Andrew Hunter, surely he has enough of his own demons to deal with?
-
I haven't heard anything from anyone. I have new evidence I have unearthed myself that I am in the process of sending to JBs legal team via Andrew Hunter
So you can take the "Oh Dear" back, I am no fool Caroline
Yes. Better keep things under wraps.
You're last discovery was that Bamber could disable all phones upon entrance. This idea was apparently stolen by CAL, although Woffinden suggested it in 2011 and half of this board had previously discussed it.
-
Yes. Better keep things under wraps.
You're last discovery was that Bamber could disable all phones upon entrance. This idea was apparently stolen by CAL, although Woffinden suggested it in 2011 and half of this board had previously discussed it.
Adam
why do you have to be so sarcastic that is not the way to debate wait and see if David has found something of interest and if he has debate that.
-
Adam
why do you have to be so sarcastic that is not the way to debate wait and see if David has found something of interest and if he has debate that.
Oh,well said Susan.
-
Yes David - I'm sure you THINK you have new evidence but I am leaving the 'oh dear' exactly where it is! You haven't said ANYTHING which points to innocence, you just seem to have gotten carried along on the whole conspiracy band wagon. I don't think you are a fool, which is why I'm surprised.
I don't think I KNOW. However Its not appropriate to post on this forum but it will come out in the public domain eventually.
-
Good show David, let's hope it is better than the nonsense the official team has generated lately.
But why Andrew Hunter, surely he has enough of his own demons to deal with?
He is contact with JBs current legal team and is interested in what I have. Also his legal team will take it more seriously if he presents it and not me.
-
He is contact with JBs current legal team and is interested in what I have. Also his legal team will take it more seriously if he presents it and not me.
I doubt it, but carry on.
The evidence against Jerry is overwhelming when all is considered. I used to put the chances of him being innocent at 1% but even that is too optimistic imo. If he ever wants to be released he will have to admit his guilt and pray that some parole board far down the line takes a shine to him and shows mercy. His attempts to implicate Sheila will only seal his fate imo.
Maybe he is past caring.
-
Good show David, let's hope it is better than the nonsense the official team has generated lately.
The official team are so ineffective you would think they are imposters trying to ruin Jeremy's efforts
-
He is contact with JBs current legal team and is interested in what I have. Also his legal team will take it more seriously if he presents it and not me.
Like blood on Sheila's foot? ::). So Andrew Hunter is interested? How is that any guarantee that what you have is of any use? Surely if it's that good, it wouldn't matter who presented it to them?
-
I have split the above posts from their original thread in order to deal with the claims made by david1819.
I will post again on this very soon with further information.
-
As can be seen from the posts in this thread, David1819 has claimed to have unearthed new evidence, of a forensic nature, which supports the defence case. As David1819 has explained he sent details initially to Andrew Hunter, with a view to the material being reviewed by Jeremy Bamber's legal team.
There have been claims of an imminent breakthrough since the rejection of the last application to the CCRC and the subsequent Judicial Review, but understandably there has been increasing scepticism in the absence of any detailed information about this.
In view some of the posts above, understandable in the circumstances, casting doubt on David1819's claim, he contacted me and asked if I would be prepared to review the material he had prepared, in confidence, and give him my opinion of it. I agreed and received the material, reviewed it and gave David1819 my assessment. David1819 then agreed that I could post my overall opinion of his work, without at this stage disclosing the details. I am happy to do that and I agree with David1819's firm view, backed by the advice of Andrew Hunter, that Jeremy Bamber's legal team should review it and it should only be made public subject to their approval.
The material sent to me by David1819 is in the form of a report, which includes images and diagrams as well as text. It is well written and well presented. It analyses an important part of the evidence in the case, using methods not applied previously. Although he accepts that he is not an expert in the relevant field, he has researched published works by experts in the field, quoting relevant extracts in support of his conclusions. He has also studied relevant photographs and made calculations and measurements using techniques which to me seem appropriate.
David1819's conclusions support the defence case on this issue and specifically counter conclusions reached on this by the Court of Appeal in the 2002 appeal.
I am not an expert in the field involved and clearly for this to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions David1819's report and conclusions would have to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert. However, I can see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached and have given david1819 my view in more detail.
If the report is validated the question is whether it could form the basis for the CCRC to refer the case. For various reasons, hard to explain without giving more information than I am able to here, I believe it does satisfy the requirement that it is new evidence, not available at trial. The key question is whether it is on its own sufficient to enable the convictions to be overturned. I am very cautious about this as I believe the CCRC have now set a very high bar in this case. Certainly this would form a valid ground of appeal, but ideally it should be joined with other grounds. I am no longer in the loop as far as Jeremy Bamber's legal team are concerned, and have not been since Simon McKay ceased acting, but I do know of grounds not included in previous submissions which would have been included had the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the last application. I also understand that other work has been undertaken or is contemplated which may lead to additional grounds, but I have very limited knowledge of this.
I am sorry not to be able to give more detail but I hope members will understand why this is not possible at this stage. I will say however that David1819 was genuine in his claim to have discovered something new and important and that he has approached this in a serious and careful way.
-
The official team are so ineffective you would think they are imposters trying to ruin Jeremy's efforts
I wonder if Jeremy has seen the videos?
-
I don't think I KNOW. However Its not appropriate to post on this forum but it will come out in the public domain eventually.
The truth will come out at the end of the day, irrespective of whom it casts in a poor light...
-
Are we allowed to know in what area this new forensic evidence concerns itself? Is David angling for Jeremy Bamber to get off on a technicality when we know Sheila couldn't possibly have done what was ascribed to her?
-
I have to say a Well Done to David.I've realised for a while that he's probably known more than he's letting on. I remember saying many moons ago on here that I enjoyed reading his posts on the red forum and was wishing then that he was on this one. Well there you are. This is what happens when you have more interest in the case than a muddy bike and a wetsuit. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
A big thank you to NGB for his part in explaining what could amount to a strong possibility in a search for the truth.
-
When Bamber is cleared, will any of the 'Bamber is guilty' clan, apologise for being wrong?
I doubt it...
-
What will any of the lab' experts say, once it becomes accepted that two identical parker hale silencers were used, to fool them into thinking that Bamber was guilty of shooting and killing his sister?
-
A big thank you to NGB for his part in explaining what could amount to a strong possibility in a search for the truth.
I agree Lookout and another big thank you to Ngb as he has put so much work into this case supporting Jeremy.
I have always enjoyed David's posts and sent him a PM recently.
Hopefully things are turning a corner in this case and we also have the forensic work Holly is involved in
Brilliant news David
-
Well it all seems to be done and dusted then, and Jeremy will get off on a technicality. However those who are well-informed on the case should just mention that any irregularity with the silencer evidence does not make him innocent.
-
Well it all seems to be done and dusted then, and Jeremy will get off on a technicality. However those who are well-informed on the case should just mention that any irregularity with the silencer evidence does not make him innocent.
Steve, I wonder just how many will think it appropriate that a man convicted of murdering 5 members of his family can be released on a technicality. If it was considered inappropriate for him to have downgraded prison status, I fail to see how it can be considered appropriate to release him. This is more about satisfying egos than getting at the truth.
-
As can be seen from the posts in this thread, david1819 has claimed to have unearthed new evidence, of a forensic nature, which supports the defence case. As david1819 has explained he sent details initially to Andrew Hunter, with a view to the material being reviewed by Jeremy Bamber's legal team.
There have been claims of an imminent breakthrough since the rejection of the last application to the CCRC and the subsequent Judicial Review, but understandably there has been increasing scepticism in the absence of any detailed information about this.
In view some of the posts above, understandable in the circumstances, casting doubt on david1819's claim, he contacted me and asked if I would be prepared to review the material he had prepared, in confidence, and give him my opinion of it. I agreed and received the material, reviewed it and gave david1819 my assessment. david1819 then agreed that I could post my overall opinion of his work, without at this stage disclosing the details. I am happy to do that and I agree with david1819's firm view, backed by the advice of Andrew Hunter, that Jeremy Bamber's legal team should review it and it should only be made public subject to their approval.
The material sent to me by david1819 is in the form of a report, which includes images and diagrams as well as text. It is well written and well presented. It analyses an important part of the evidence in the case, using methods not applied previously. Although he accepts that he is not an expert in the relevant field, he has researched published works by experts in the field, quoting relevant extracts in support of his conclusions. He has also studied relevant photographs and made calculations and measurements using techniques which to me seem appropriate.
david1819's conclusions support the defence case on this issue and specifically counter conclusions reached on this by the Court of Appeal in the 2002 appeal.
I am not an expert in the field involved and clearly for this to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions david1819's report and conclusions would have to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert. However, I can see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached and have given david1819 my view in more detail.
If the report is validated the question is whether it could form the basis for the CCRC to refer the case. For various reasons, hard to explain without giving more information than I am able to here, I believe it does satisfy the requirement that it is new evidence, not available at trial. The key question is whether it is on its own sufficient to enable the convictions to be overturned. I am very cautious about this as I believe the CCRC have now set a very high bar in this case. Certainly this would form a valid ground of appeal, but ideally it should be joined with other grounds. I am no longer in the loop as far as Jeremy Bamber's legal team are concerned, and have not been since Simon McKay ceased acting, but I do know of grounds not included in previous submissions which would have been included had the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the last application. I also understand that other work has been undertaken or is contemplated which may lead to additional grounds, but I have very limited knowledge of this.
I am sorry not to be able to give more detail but I hope members will understand why this is not possible at this stage. I will say however that david1819 was genuine in his claim to have discovered something new and important and that he has approached this in a serious and careful way.
Thank you Neil, Much appreciated :)
-
Steve, I wonder just how many will think it appropriate that a man convicted of murdering 5 members of his family can be released on a technicality. If it was considered inappropriate for him to have downgraded prison status, I fail to see how it can be considered appropriate to release him. This is more about satisfying egos than getting at the truth.
And it won't bring any of the victims back.
-
David hello
Good Luck with your find it is great you have NGB posting can't wait to see what happens I had an idea something was in the wind but no idea what.
-
Steve, I wonder just how many will think it appropriate that a man convicted of murdering 5 members of his family can be released on a technicality. If it was considered inappropriate for him to have downgraded prison status, I fail to see how it can be considered appropriate to release him. This is more about satisfying egos than getting at the truth.
Why are you giving an opinion when you are not privy to the evidence that David has shared with Ngb
I have been disgusted by the ridicule David has been subjected to and I admire the way he has dealt with it
Jane when will you learn your lesson
I doubt very much that David or Ngb would want Jeremy cleared on a technicality if they thought Jeremy had shot two children in the head
As I said to Lookout recently trust Ngb
-
The truth will come out at the end of the day, irrespective of whom it casts in a poor light...
Indeed, and all those who have been criticizing your efforts Mike wont have the final laugh. :)
-
There is no forensic breakthrough.
David sitting at home on his computer will not uncover anything Bamber, Bamber's lawyers and expensive experts would not have uncovered in 30 years.
Sending documents to Andrew Hunter won't do anything. He hasn't come out to play for years. And won't now.
There is nothing stopping this being annonced now. Bamber and the CT and people like Mike discuss everything under the sun. Both pre and post appeal.
David giving it to a fellow supporter in order to get a diplomatic endorsement on here, smacks of cowadice and is an underhand way to give the flagging campaign a boost after Trudies terrible vlogs.
NGB's diplomatic endorsement does give David slightly more gravitas in comparison to the other supporters on here.
-
I have been disgusted by the ridicule David has been subjected to
Nobody is ridiculing David. This is far too serious a matter.
-
Firstly, I will say that I have always got along with David - and that isn't hyperbole like others who are now sucking up to him, when he wouldn't be given the time of day in the past.
I think a lot can be read into NGB's post - although he believe that David may have found something new/interesting. It likely will not get to or past the CCRC.
Let's not forget the paint evidence was apparently new, the scratch marks was apparently new, the burn evidence was apparently new. I believe the people invovled in this believed what they were saying was not only genuine but damaging to the prosecution and enough to seal a successful CCRC submission, but it wasn't.
Although I believe David is genuine I don't think that anything he has found will affect the case - no forensic testing has been carried out on what David has found - so I think "Forensice breakthrough" is a little strong.
Jeremy Bamber isn't getting out of prison. We will still be here talking about this next year. These claims have been made for years and years and the people who have been making them have been genuine people - as if David - but nothing short of proving SHEILA guilty gets Jeremy to or past the CCRC.
What I will say to David, if is that you obviously believe in what you have found and that you are going the perfect way about - that's admirable. I hope deep down that you're right, because I would mus trather this be the case of a mentally ill mother guilty that a greedy son wiping out his family for financial gain - but you're now going to have snakes contact you with their niceness, just remember who people are and the reasons for their contact.
-
Indeed, and all those who have been criticizing your efforts Mike wont have the final laugh. :)
Nobody is laughing either.
-
To my knowledge, ngb has NEVER said, on forum that he believes in Jeremy's innocence and if this finding has anything to do with the silencer, it WILL be a technicality -because he can still be guilty without it- and what David and ngb might want will have nothing to do with it. And unless David has sought fit to confide in you, why are you commenting? I'll learn my lesson the day after you learn yours but from your pasts behaviours I don't think we should hold our breath.
I'd be very shocked if David has shared any of his findings with JackiePreece.
-
Firstly, I will say that I have always got along with David - and that isn't hyperbole like others who are now sucking up to him, when he wouldn't be given the time of day in the past.
I think a lot can be read into NGB's post - although he believe that David may have found something new/interesting. It likely will not get to or past the CCRC.
Let's not forget the paint evidence was apparently new, the scratch marks was apparently new, the burn evidence was apparently new. I believe the people invovled in this believed what they were saying was not only genuine but damaging to the prosecution and enough to seal a successful CCRC submission, but it wasn't.
Although I believe David is genuine I don't think that anything he has found will affect the case - no forensic testing has been carried out on what David has found - so I think "Forensice breakthrough" is a little strong.
Jeremy Bamber isn't getting out of prison. We will still be here talking about this next year. These claims have been made for years and years and the people who have been making them have been genuine people - as if David - but nothing short of proving SHEILA guilty gets Jeremy to or past the CCRC.
What I will say to David, if is that you obviously believe in what you have found and that you are going the perfect way about - that's admirable. I hope deep down that you're right, because I would mus trather this be the case of a mentally ill mother guilty that a greedy son wiping out his family for financial gain - but you're now going to have snakes contact you with their niceness, just remember who people are and the reasons for their contact.
BRILLIANTLY eloquent post, Mat.
-
Indeed, and all those who have been criticizing your efforts Mike wont have the final laugh. :)
I seem to think you may have done your own share of it, in the past, David, OR are you going to confirm that you believe everything Mike has said here to be the truth.
-
To my knowledge, ngb has NEVER said, on forum that he believes in Jeremy's innocence and if this finding has anything to do with the silencer, it WILL be a technicality -because he can still be guilty without it- and what David and ngb might want will have nothing to do with it. And unless David has sought fit to confide in you, why are you commenting? I'll learn my lesson the day after you learn yours but from your pasts behaviours I don't think we should hold our breath.
Let's get this clear, you think Ngb has helped Jeremy even though he may believe Jeremy is guilty?
-
Let's get this clear, you think Ngb has helped Jeremy even though he may believe Jeremy is guilty?
Can you point me to a post from ngb where he categorically states that he believes Jeremy is innocent?
-
Do you actually believe Ngb would confide in you?
You have no idea how many emails/messages NGB has exchanged with me about the case?
Ngb is a legal expert and would certainly know what advice or who to contact regarding 'the new evidence'
Knowing Ngb as I do I do not think in a million years he would have supported Jeremy if he believed he was guilty
Never
I've never asked NGB to confide in me, nor would I expect him to. We've never spoken personally about the case. But if I asked him something, he would very likely answer.
I don't care how many messages you and NGB have swapped with each other. Why would I care? If he has confided in you with ANYTHING recently then xxxx xxxx xxx. But I highly doubt he would do.
-
As can be seen from the posts in this thread, david1819 has claimed to have unearthed new evidence, of a forensic nature, which supports the defence case. As david1819 has explained he sent details initially to Andrew Hunter, with a view to the material being reviewed by Jeremy Bamber's legal team.
There have been claims of an imminent breakthrough since the rejection of the last application to the CCRC and the subsequent Judicial Review, but understandably there has been increasing scepticism in the absence of any detailed information about this.
In view some of the posts above, understandable in the circumstances, casting doubt on david1819's claim, he contacted me and asked if I would be prepared to review the material he had prepared, in confidence, and give him my opinion of it. I agreed and received the material, reviewed it and gave david1819 my assessment. david1819 then agreed that I could post my overall opinion of his work, without at this stage disclosing the details. I am happy to do that and I agree with david1819's firm view, backed by the advice of Andrew Hunter, that Jeremy Bamber's legal team should review it and it should only be made public subject to their approval.
The material sent to me by david1819 is in the form of a report, which includes images and diagrams as well as text. It is well written and well presented. It analyses an important part of the evidence in the case, using methods not applied previously. Although he accepts that he is not an expert in the relevant field, he has researched published works by experts in the field, quoting relevant extracts in support of his conclusions. He has also studied relevant photographs and made calculations and measurements using techniques which to me seem appropriate.
david1819's conclusions support the defence case on this issue and specifically counter conclusions reached on this by the Court of Appeal in the 2002 appeal.
I am not an expert in the field involved and clearly for this to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions david1819's report and conclusions would have to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert. However, I can see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached and have given david1819 my view in more detail.
If the report is validated the question is whether it could form the basis for the CCRC to refer the case. For various reasons, hard to explain without giving more information than I am able to here, I believe it does satisfy the requirement that it is new evidence, not available at trial. The key question is whether it is on its own sufficient to enable the convictions to be overturned. I am very cautious about this as I believe the CCRC have now set a very high bar in this case. Certainly this would form a valid ground of appeal, but ideally it should be joined with other grounds. I am no longer in the loop as far as Jeremy Bamber's legal team are concerned, and have not been since Simon McKay ceased acting, but I do know of grounds not included in previous submissions which would have been included had the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the last application. I also understand that other work has been undertaken or is contemplated which may lead to additional grounds, but I have very limited knowledge of this.
I am sorry not to be able to give more detail but I hope members will understand why this is not possible at this stage. I will say however that david1819 was genuine in his claim to have discovered something new and important and that he has approached this in a serious and careful way.
Ten out of Ten David ...
Whether or not your work leads anywhere you have obviously approached this case in exactly the right way ... very well done indeed ...
If by chance your new evidence has anything to do with the silencer have you considered the possibility that IF someone planted the silencer they might also have actually had something to do with the murder ?
And maybe they also forced Julie into her "confession" ?
Just a thought mate ...
-
Ten out of Ten David ...
Whether or not your work leads anywhere you have obviously approached this case in exactly the right way ... very well done indeed ...
If by chance your new evidence has anything to do with the silencer have you considered the possibility that IF someone planted the silencer they might also have actually had something to do with the murder ?
And maybe they also forced Julie into her "confession" ?
Just a thought mate ...
'Course it is, Mike...
-
'Course it is, Mike...
If you think i am Mike then i now know beyond any doubt why you have had trouble with analysing even the most basic of facts in this case - your mind is firmly closed to facts and totally full of one sided bias ...
Open your mind Jane - look at things logicaly and think them through properly ...
You might be surprised how much clearer you see things ;)
-
'Course it is, Mike...
I have just reported you April for goading
Again !!!
-
Ten out of Ten David ...
Whether or not your work leads anywhere you have obviously approached this case in exactly the right way ... very well done indeed ...
If by chance your new evidence has anything to do with the silencer have you considered the possibility that IF someone planted the silencer they might also have actually had something to do with the murder ?
And maybe they also forced Julie into her "confession" ?
Just a thought mate ...
David won't give any details about this mysterious new evidence he has discovered after 30 years.
He's sent it to Andrew Hunter and got NGB to say it was 'well written'. That is enough to get supporters excited. So no point in spoiling things by divulging information for the sceptics to savage.
Hopefully it's not another thing Bob Woffinden mentioned in 2011. And hopefully he can now explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
-
If you think i am Mike then i now know beyond any doubt why you have had trouble with analysing even the most basic of facts in this case - your mind is firmly closed to facts and totally full of one sided bias ...
Open your mind Jane - look at things logicaly and think them through properly ...
You might be surprised how much clearer you see things ;)
Sherlock she is goading again and interesting she called you Mike because she is actually called April
-
If you think i am Mike then i now know beyond any doubt why you have had trouble with analysing even the most basic of facts in this case - your mind is firmly closed to facts and totally full of one sided bias ...
Open your mind Jane - look at things logicaly and think them through properly ...
You might be surprised how much clearer you see things ;)
Excellent posts Sherlock
Spot on
-
I have just reported you April for goading
Again !!!
She isn't goading Jackie - she is just showing herself up ...
Only an obsessed person could confuse me with Mike ...
I am more than happy to let other forum members reach their own conclusions as to her very obvious lack of reasoning abilities regarding her silly comment :)
-
I have just reported you April for goading
Again !!!
You STUPID woman!!! NOW REPORT THAT ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
-
She isn't goading Jackie - she is just showing herself up ...
Only an obsessed person could confuse me with Mike ...
I am more than happy to let other forum members reach their own conclusions as to her very obvious lack of reasoning abilities regarding her silly comment :)
I know and she had just done it again
-
She isn't goading Jackie - she is just showing herself up ...
Only an obsessed person could confuse me with Mike ...
I am more than happy to let other forum members reach their own conclusions as to her very obvious lack of reasoning abilities regarding her silly comment :)
I think you'll find I'm not the only one to reach the conclusion as to who you are.
-
Sherlock she is goading again and interesting she called you Mike because she is actually called April
I am indeed -I've never tried to hide that- and I don't need to change persona.
-
She isn't goading Jackie - she is just showing herself up ...
Only an obsessed person could confuse me with Mike ...
I am more than happy to let other forum members reach their own conclusions as to her very obvious lack of reasoning abilities regarding her silly comment :)
If you want to be recognized as Mike, a word of advice. Stop using his phraseology. Stop using his grammar. Stop using his style. Stop using his punctuations......................or you could find yourself accused of being obsessed with him.
-
David won't give any details about this mysterious new evidence he has discovered after 30 years.
He's sent it to Andrew Hunter and got NGB to say it was 'well written'. That is enough to get supporters excited. So no point in spoiling things by divulging information for the sceptics to savage.
Hopefully it's not another thing Bob Woffinden mentioned in 2011. And hopefully he can now explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
David is 100% correct to give this to the lawyers before putting it on an internet forum Adam ...
Surely you can see the reasons for that being the correct course of action ?
Maybe it wasn't Sheila or Jeremy Adam ...
One unexplained factor of this case is the 3 burn marks on Nevilles back ...
No one has an explanation for that - it is a mystery to every one ...
The most likely explanation is he was tortured / threatened to make that call ...
You yourself have pointed out that it is VERY strange that Neville must have waited some time for Jeremy to answer the phone and yet when Jeremy answered he only had time to say a very few words before the phone went dead - sort of fits with the torture theory don't you think ?
Like i have said before keep an open mind Adam ...
One of the very best lawyers in the UK once said to me that it is dangerous to assume anything ...
He said that for very good reason ...
-
She isn't goading Jackie - she is just showing herself up ...
Only an obsessed person could confuse me with Mike ...
I am more than happy to let other forum members reach their own conclusions as to her very obvious lack of reasoning abilities regarding her silly comment :)
Probably best you put 'it' on ignore
Just a minor irritant while we are interested in looking for the truth
-
If you want to be recognized as Mike, a word of advice. Stop using his phraseology. Stop using his grammar. Stop using his style. Stop using his punctuations......................or you could find yourself accused of being obsessed with him.
You are showing yourself up in public again Jane ;)
It is obvious to all forum users just how bizzare your claim that i am Mike actually is ...
Still carry on if you want - it's no skin off my nose - and i actually find it amusing ;D
-
David is 100% correct to give this to the lawyers before putting it on an internet forum Adam ...
Surely you can see the reasons for that being the correct course of action ?
Maybe it wasn't Sheila or Jeremy Adam ...
One unexplained factor of this case is the 3 burn marks on Nevilles back ...
No one has an explanation for that - it is a mystery to every one ...
The most likely explanation is he was tortured / threatened to make that call ...
You yourself have pointed out that it is VERY strange that Neville must have waited some time for Jeremy to answer the phone and yet when Jeremy answered he only had time to say a very few words before the phone went dead - sort of fits with the torture theory don't you think ?
Like i have said before keep an open mind Adam ...
One of the very best lawyers in the UK once said to me that it is dangerous to assume anything ...
He said that for very good reason ...
There is a thread on the burn marks. And the Arizona tests which resulted in Bamber saying Neville's burn marks were from the rifle nozzle.
Is that why Neville's call to the police was not in the 2012 CCRC submission ? Because they had already released it as front page news in the Mirror two years earlier ? Guess they should have kept it secret.
-
Probably best you put 'it' on ignore
Just a minor irritant while we are interested in looking for the truth
I genuinely suspect that Jane's real agenda on this forum might be to cover the real truth ...
Maybe she knows more than she is prepared to say ...
I really mean that for very good reason ...
If you analysise Jane's posts you will see she is obsessed with protecting the people who ended up with all the loot ...
And i really do wonder why ...
-
There is a thread on the burn marks. And the Arizona tests which resulted in Bamber saying Neville's burn marks were from the rifle nozzle.
Is that why Neville's call to the police was not in the 2012 CCRC submission ? Because they had already released it as front page news in the Mirror two years earlier ?
There are LOTS of threads and posts on this forum covering the burn marks ...
And i haven't seen one single post or idea relating to the burn marks that is anywhere near as likely as the torture scenario ...
In fact i cannot think of a single post that has even attempted to come up with a theory at all ...
Have you Adam ?
-
I genuinely suspect that Jane's real agenda on this forum might be to cover the real truth ...
Maybe she knows more than she is prepared to say ...
I really mean that for very good reason ...
If you analysise Jane's posts you will see she is obsessed with protecting the people who ended up with all the loot ...
And i really do wonder why ...
I have noticed that too Sherlock, it's become very obvious
-
Blimey, why do you people all start frothing at the mouth?
Some of the posts in this thread are ridiculous.
Good for you David, if you have discovered something that may indicate that Jeremy may be innocent.
Obviously people will be sceptical, I certainly am, but this is much better than baking cakes or reading letters a grave sides.
-
There are LOTS of threads and posts on this forum covering the burn marks ...
And i haven't seen one single post or idea relating to the burn marks that is anywhere near as likely as the torture scenario ...
In fact i cannot think of a single post that has even attempted to come up with a theory at all ...
Have you Adam ?
I have it's in my thread.
Bamber took the silencer off to burn Neville's back with the rifle nozzle. To make sure there were no signs of life.
Who agrees ? Bamber does.
-
I have noticed that too Sherlock, it's become very obvious
And i bet we are far from the only 2 members / guests who have noticed it either ... ;)
But Hartley is right we should all stick to discussing David's excellent efforts in this thread ...
And we should all be following his example ...
ie analysing the facts logically and if possible scientifically and with an open mind ...
You have set a great example to us all David - well done !
-
And i bet we are far from the only 2 members / guests who have noticed it either ... ;)
But Hartley is right we shall all stick to discussing David's excellent efforts in this thread ...
And we should all be following his example ...
ie analysing the facts logically and if possible scientifically and with an open mind ...
You have set a great example to us all David - well done !
Excellent efforts.
He hasn't posted has he. Although he has sent something off to Andrew Hunter. But won't say what.
-
Who was supposed to have tortured Neville ?
The hit man or Sheila ?
-
I have it's in my thread.
Bamber took the silencer off to burn Neville's back with the rifle nozzle. To make sure there were no signs of life.
Who agrees ? Bamber does.
So why didn't he test for signs of life with June or Sheila then ?
But let's save that for another thread Adam ...
What do you think about David's approach to trying to discover what happened ?
NGB has told us enough about David's methods for us to discuss it ...
So what do you think ?
-
Blimey, why do you people all start frothing at the mouth?
Some of the posts in this thread are ridiculous.
Good for you David, if you have discovered something that may indicate that Jeremy may be innocent.
Obviously people will be sceptical, I certainly am, but this is much better than baking cakes or reading letters a grave sides.
Classy, as always.
-
David intially annonced he had sent something off to Andrew Hunter several days ago.
When that made no impact he went to NGB, seeking his approval on the forum. As a fellow supporter, this was done.
One problem, no one knows what this mysterious new evidence is.
-
So why didn't he test for signs of life with June or Sheila then ?
But let's save that for another thread Adam ...
What do you think about David's approach to trying to discover what happened ?
NGB has told us enough about David's methods for us to discuss it ...
So what do you think ?
How could Sheila burn her own back ? She was supposed to have committed suicide.
He checked out Neville as he had put up a tremendous fight for life. So a good idea to make sure.
-
I genuinely suspect that Jane's real agenda on this forum might be to cover the real truth ...
Maybe she knows more than she is prepared to say ...
I really mean that for very good reason ...
If you analysise Jane's posts you will see she is obsessed with protecting the people who ended up with all the loot ...
And i really do wonder why ...
And what reason would that be Mr. Holmes? For an individual such as Jeremy Bamber, who was given a chance in life that most people of his generation could only dream of, not only to attempt to usurp land which had been tilled by the same families for generations but to kill those occupants in the process including the shooting of two infants in the head as they slept is an example of the grossest diablerie I could ever imagine.
-
Who was supposed to have tortured Neville ?
The hit man or Sheila ?
The murderer WHOEVER that was - but let's get back on topic Adam ...
-
The murderer WHOEVER that was - but let's get back on topic Adam ...
There is no topic. A supporter has sent something to Andrew Hunter. But won't say what.
Why would the murderer torture Neville ? Bamber just wanted them dead. So would a hit man. And so would Sheila.
-
And what reason would that be Mr. Holmes? For an individual such as Jeremy Bamber, who was given a chance in life that most people of his generation could only dream of, not only to attempt to usurp land which had been tilled by the same families for generations but to kill those occupants in the process including the shooting of two infants in the head as they slept is an example of the grossest diablerie I could ever imagine.
For the reason that i have analysed her posts and it is obvious ...
Jeremy was 100% family was he not ? or do you in some way disagree with that ?
I do agree to use your words that the murders were the "grossest diablerie " imaginable ...
But at the present time i like 2 Jury members still have some doubt that it was in fact Jeremy that did it ...
-
Classy, as always.
Haha, thank you Neil, but 'always' might be stretching it a bit. :P
-
There is no topic. A supporter has sent something to Andrew Hunter. But won't say what.
Why would the murderer torture Neville ? Bamber just wanted them dead. So would a hit man. And so would Sheila.
Keep an open mind Adam ...
For all we know for sure the murderer could have been ANYBODY - not just the people you mention ...
I for one suspect everybody ...
Which is why my chances of uncovering the truth are higher than people who assume without actually knowing for absolute certain ...
-
How could Sheila burn her own back ? She was supposed to have committed suicide.
He checked out Neville as he had put up a tremendous fight for life. So a good idea to make sure.
Sheila's back was not burnt Adam - only Neville's - so what's your point ?
-
Keep an open mind Adam ...
For all we know for sure the murderer could have been ANYBODY - not just the people you mention ...
I for one suspect everybody ...
Which is why my chances of uncovering the truth are higher than people who assume without actually knowing for absolute certain ...
Sorry Adam - i did not answer your question fully ...
The murderer would have burnt Nevilles back to force him to phone Jeremy ...
That's the theory ...
And it's actually the most likely explanation for the three burn marks on Neville's back ...
And it would explain why something similar was not done to June or Sheila ...
-
There is no topic. A supporter has sent something to Andrew Hunter. But won't say what.
David's approach is fair enough to me, although I don't necessarily understand the reluctance to have his theories tested on the forum.
Why he has chosen to say anything at all on the forum is a mystery, presumably he's sticking two fingers up at people who dismissing his opinions. :-\
-
Sorry Adam - i did not answer your question fully ...
The murderer would have burnt Nevilles back to force him to phone Jeremy ...
That's the theory ...
And it's actually the most likely explanation for the three burn marks on Neville's back ...
And it would explain why something similar was not done to June or Sheila ...
Weren't the burns said to be made after he was already dead?
I thought I'd read that in Vanezis' reports but may be mistaken.
-
David's approach is fair enough to me, although I don't necessarily understand the reluctance to have his theories tested on the forum.
Why he has chosen to say anything at all is a mystery, presumably he's sticking two fingers up at people who dismissing his opinions. :-\
It could be possible if he is on to something that by posting publicly it could tip off an as yet undiscovered guilty person that their number is up - allowing them to flee
That's just one possible example of why it would be a bad idea ...
For example if it turned out to prove Julie definitely lied it could encourage her to take on a new identity again - this time without telling the Police ...
Apart from satisfying our curiosity what possible good could it do to release it on the forum ?
I for one am happy to wait to read all about it in the Times should it prove to be substantial ...
If it does not get anywhere after the experts / lawyers have analysed it then there would be an advantage to posting it here ...
We are only drinkers in the last chance saloon not the people who should get first look at anything seriously relevant and new ...
-
Weren't the burns said to be made after he was already dead?
I thought I'd read that in Vanezis' reports but may be mistaken.
I will certainly look into it ...
Thank you for that ...
-
I will certainly look into it ...
Thank you for that ...
I just had a quick look and couldn't find that, so I'm probably mistaken.
-
I just had a quick look and couldn't find that, so I'm probably mistaken.
I will have a look as well just to be absolutely sure ...
-
David intially annonced he had sent something off to Andrew Hunter several days ago.
When that made no impact he went to NGB, seeking his approval on the forum. As a fellow supporter, this was done.
I knew full well it would make no impact as so many baseless claims have been made before I don't blame anyone for not thinking much of it until now.
One reason I discussed with NGB was that by him revealing something the board it would somewhat revitalised the forum as all the discussions are stale and repetitive. Everyone now has something new to look forward to and its long overdue.
One problem, no one knows what this mysterious new evidence is.
I know, My Dad knows, NGB knows, Andrew Hunter knows and Jeremy and his legal team probably know by now also.
My first issue was and thought this through carefully. I made this finding almost three weeks ago now. Although at the time I was 90% convinced I made a significant breakthrough and now I have no doubt about it.
At the time my mind was telling me maybe its too good to be true? and by thinking that I then worried that if I did go public and turns out I was wrong the Campaign team would without a doubt use it a propaganda and that I didn't want to happen, that was my initial reason for secrecy.
Then a few days later I was told that going public would harm the legal process because if the Crown got news of it they would have more time to try and prepare for it so the later the better. So that is reason why I have not released anything to date.
-
For the reason that i have analysed her posts and it is obvious ...
Jeremy was 100% family was he not ? or do you in some way disagree with that ?
I do agree to use your words that the murders were the "grossest diablerie " imaginable ...
But at the present time i like 2 Jury members still have some doubt that it was in fact Jeremy that did it ...
In law he was yes, but out of his depth in bucolic employment measured by Nevill's farming genius which he could never hope to emulate, nor understand June's proselytization, which maybe he was right to discard. Eight years spent at Gresham's for no valid purpose in his mind other than to confer on him inheritance rights, which again by law were his, but over which he obsessed, evincing a superiority over his parents with the meagrest of natural talents.
Had Sheila been the killer there would be pity for her plight; as it is Jeremy is not insane but deceitful, as he sits in prison with an inexorable soul, after thirty years still unable to see how he has transgressed.
-
I knew full well it would make no impact as so many baseless claims have been made before I don't blame anyone for not thinking much of it until now.
One reason I discussed with NGB was that by him revealing something the board it would somewhat revitalised the forum as all the discussions are stale and repetitive. Everyone now has something new to look forward to and its long overdue.
I know, My Dad knows, NGB knows, Andrew Hunter knows and Jeremy and his legal team probably know by now also.
My first issue was and thought this through carefully. I made this finding almost three weeks ago now. Although at the time I was 90% convinced I made a significant breakthrough and now I have no doubt about it.
At the time my mind was telling me maybe its too good to be true? and by thinking that I then worried that if I did go public and turns out I was wrong the Campaign team would without a doubt use it a propaganda and that I didn't want to happen, that was my initial reason for secrecy.
Then a few days later I was told that going public would harm the legal process because if the Crown got news of it they would have more time to try and prepare for it so the later the better. So that is reason why I have not released anything to date.
At the risk of repeating myself - your approach has been an excellent example to all of us ...
Instead of trying to point score with other members you have in fact been analysing the evidence with a fine tooth comb and an open mind ...
Very well done indeed - i salute you and your approach to this case !
-
all the discussions are stale and repetitive.
I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath.
-
In law he was yes, but out of his depth in bucolic employment measured by Nevill's farming genius which he could never hope to emulate, nor understand June's proselytization, which maybe he was right to discard. Eight years spent at Gresham's for no valid purpose in his mind other than to confer on him inheritance rights, which again by law were his, but over which he obsessed, evincing a superiority over his parents with the meagrest of natural talents.
Had Sheila been the killer there would be pity for her plight; as it is Jeremy is not insane but deceitful, as he sits in prison with an inexorable soul, because after thirty years he still cannot see how he has transgressed.
Neville and June loved him incredibly and totally ...
He was 100% family ...
To suggest otherwise is mind boggling to the extreme ...
What on earth have his talents and abilities got to do with whether he was family or not ?
All i can say is i am extremely glad that you and i are not related !
If he is guilty then it is evil ...
As it would be if any member of any family committed such a crime ...
But how you can question the fact he was 100% family is way way beyond my understanding ...
Just a hunch but you sound like you come from not far from the farm with such way way out of touch attitudes about what real family is and is not ...
The only time in my life i have heard of such outrageous attitudes towards family has in fact been from some of the players in this case which is why i assume you come from the same strange place ...
-
Neville and June loved him incredibly and totally ...
He was 100% family ...
To suggest otherwise is mind boggling to the extreme ...
What on earth have his talents and abilities got to do with whether he was family or not ?
All i can say is i am extremely glad that you and i are not related !
If he is guilty then it is evil ...
As it would be if any member of any family committed such a crime ...
But how you can question the fact he was 100% family is way way beyond my understanding ...
Just a hunch but you sound like you come from not far from the farm with such way way out of touch attitudes about what real family is and is not ...
The only time in my life i have heard of such outrageous attitudes towards family has in fact been from some of the players in this case which is why i assume you come from the same strange place ...
They did love him in their own way, but the profit motive always came first, which is why Jeremy was packed off to Gresham's in the first place so he would be a cut above people whom he would one day have to employ. After the death of his second sister Diana Nevill became morose and his emotions were cloistered, which may explain Sheila starting private school in mid-term. Nevill never pulled rank with his children, yet this was only viewed as a sign of weakness and exploited by them both.
As for June, she became estranged from everyone save the local vicar as her religious mania took hold and the family was sundered as Jeremy refused the role to which his parents had assigned him. Sheila for her part became more desperate as all her efforts proved ineffectual, and by the time the parents did try to rein in some of their children's behaviours the damage was irreparable.
-
They did love him in their own way, but the profit motive always came first, which is why Jeremy was packed off to Gresham's in the first place so he would be a cut above people whom he would one day have to employ. After the death of his second sister Diana Nevill became morose and his emotions were cloistered, which may explain Sheila starting private school in mid-term. Nevill never pulled rank with his children, yet this was only viewed as a sign of weakness and exploited by them both.
As for June, she became estranged with everyone save the local vicar as her religious mania took hold and the family was sundered as Jeremy refused the role to which his parents had assigned him. Sheila for her part became more desperate as all her efforts proved ineffectual, and by the time the parents did try to rein in some of their children's behaviours the damage was irreparable.
Like so many post War families in Britain i am sure they were to some extent dysfunctional ...
Personally i blame the War and it's after effects for that ...
There were vast amounts of very damaged people in all strands of society after the War - it was a tough environment to grow up in in so many ways because of that ...
But they were 100% family - and Neville and June's deep love for their 2 children is in no doubt whatsoever in my mind ...
All over the world the big majority of people want their children to have the best possible education so as to give them the very best possible start in life ...
I do not accept that Neville (or June) sent them to boarding school for a "profit motive" however ...
Like most Parents they just wanted their very much loved children to have the very best possible start in life - for the children's benefit - not for the Parents benefit ...
Whether sending children to boarding school is actually a good idea on balance is another question - but i know for sure Nevile and June did it believing it to be the best thing for their very deeply loved children ...
Despite any faults they were 100% family ...
-
Like so many post War families in Britain i am sure they were to some extent dysfunctional ...
Personally i blame the War and it's after effects for that ...
There were vast amounts of very damaged people in all strands of society after the War - it was a tough environment to grow up in in so many ways because of that ...
But they were 100% family - and Neville and June's deep love for their 2 children is in no doubt whatsoever in my mind ...
All over the world the big majority of people want their children to have the best possible education so as to give them the very best possible start in life ...
I do not accept that Neville (or June) sent them to boarding school for a "profit motive" however ...
Like most Parents they just wanted their very much loved children to have the very best possible start in life - for the children's benefit - not for the Parents benefit ...
Whether sending children to boarding school is actually a good idea on balance is another question - but i know for sure Nevile and June did it believing it to be the best thing for their very deeply loved children ...
But June was incapable of expressing this love, apart from on paper to be opened after her death, which was dismissed by Jeremy along with all her other missives and phylacteries dotted around the house. He did this because June had rejected Suzette, which Jeremy may or may not have believed was the stress which caused her miscarriages, and called his next girlfriend a harlot. She excoriated her daughter for indulging in extra-marital sex and chauffeured her to the abortion clinic, whilst in the forefront of Sheila's mind was the "Devil's child" remark which never left her. I don't know how much the war and the austerity of the post-war period shaped the older generation's values, neither do I know how much the children really did try to work, but my suspicion is that with never having been asked whether they would prefer state or private school and with very little praise forthcoming in any sphere they simply gave up trying to please their parents in any meaningful way.
-
But June was incapable of expressing this love, apart from on paper to be opened after her death, which was dismissed by Jeremy along with all her other missives and phylacteries dotted around the house. He did this because June had rejected Suzette, which Jeremy may or may not have believed was the stress which caused her miscarriages, and called his next girlfriend a harlot. She excoriated her daughter for indulging in extra-marital sex and chauffeured her to the abortion clinic, whilst in the forefront of Sheila's mind was the "Devil's child" remark which never left her. I don't know how much the war and the austerity of the post-war period shaped the older generation's values, neither do I know how much the children really did try to work, but my suspicion is that with never having been asked whether they would prefer state or private school and with very little praise forthcoming in any sphere they simply gave up trying to please their parents in any meaningful way.
A verbal expression of love is really meaningless ...
Love is expressed by actions ...
Many people do not verbally express love ...
But they show it in 100's of small actions ...
Also many people verbally express love but do not show it in their actions ...
My opinion is that Neville and June like so many of their generation might not have verbally expressed their love ...
But i am sure they expressed it in 1000's of their actions ...
I am sure Sheila and Jeremy therefore felt very much loved as they grew up because of that ...
And i have no doubt they were very deeply loved by their parents indeed ...
-
A verbal expression of love is really meaningless ...
Love is expressed by actions ...
Many people do not verbally express love ...
But they show it in 100's of small actions ...
Also many people verbally express love but do not show it in their actions ...
My opinion is that Neville and June like so many of their generation might not have verbally expressed their love ...
But i am sure they expressed it in 1000's of their actions ...
I am sure Sheila and Jeremy therefore felt very much loved as they grew up because of that ...
And i have no doubt they were very deeply loved by their parents indeed ...
My guess is that Sheila's mental problems were drug induced ...
June's mental problems i think stemmed from her conscience because of her War work ...
Possibly Neville's conscience remained troubled because of his Wartime experiences ...
I do not believe Jeremy had any mental problems at all ...
Just a slightly dysfunctional family to contend with ...
And i don't think that was a great problem for him ...
He was still more than happy to be a part of that family ...
I believe he loved them ...
Did that love turn to hate near the end for some reason ? The Jury is still out on that one ...
-
Sorry Adam - i did not answer your question fully ...
The murderer would have burnt Nevilles back to force him to phone Jeremy ...
That's the theory ...
And it's actually the most likely explanation for the three burn marks on Neville's back ...
And it would explain why something similar was not done to June or Sheila ...
So Bamber lifted up Neville's pyjama top while he was still alive. And burnt his back three times to torture him. Was that after or before he had shot him four times upstairs ?
Neville was slumped on a chair with his head over a coal scuttle. His back and pyjama top were easily accessible for Bamber. He was by the aga holding the rifle. It was also a good idea to make sure Neville was dead as he was a strong man.
-
I knew full well it would make no impact as so many baseless claims have been made before I don't blame anyone for not thinking much of it until now.
One reason I discussed with NGB was that by him revealing something the board it would somewhat revitalised the forum as all the discussions are stale and repetitive. Everyone now has something new to look forward to and its long overdue.
I know, My Dad knows, NGB knows, Andrew Hunter knows and Jeremy and his legal team probably know by now also.
My first issue was and thought this through carefully. I made this finding almost three weeks ago now. Although at the time I was 90% convinced I made a significant breakthrough and now I have no doubt about it.
At the time my mind was telling me maybe its too good to be true? and by thinking that I then worried that if I did go public and turns out I was wrong the Campaign team would without a doubt use it a propaganda and that I didn't want to happen, that was my initial reason for secrecy.
Then a few days later I was told that going public would harm the legal process because if the Crown got news of it they would have more time to try and prepare for it so the later the better. So that is reason why I have not released anything to date.
How can you going to NGB and asking him to post on the forum that you're alleged discovery is well written 'revitalise the board' ? You've said you're not going to say what you're discovery is. So there is nothing to discuss.
How did you make this 'signigicant breakthrough', on you're own on you're computer ? Or have you got documents which are not online or in books ? How did you get these ? You're last discovery you said CAL stole, although it been already been discussed on this board and by Bob Woffinden.
Going public would not effect a CCRC submission because they would have 'more time to prepare'.The CCRC would be given Bamber's application weeks or months beforehand. Then spend weeks or months discussing it. So plenty of time for them. They will not take into account forum chat or media coverage. The CCRC are impartial.
Mike's always bringing up new things and has said he has a photo of a deceased Sheila on the bed, which has been passed to legal advisors. This will surely be included in a new CCRC submission.
-
I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath.
I'm not.
-
I knew full well it would make no impact as so many baseless claims have been made before I don't blame anyone for not thinking much of it until now.
One reason I discussed with NGB was that by him revealing something the board it would somewhat revitalised the forum as all the discussions are stale and repetitive. Everyone now has something new to look forward to and its long overdue.
I know, My Dad knows, NGB knows, Andrew Hunter knows and Jeremy and his legal team probably know by now also.
My first issue was and thought this through carefully. I made this finding almost three weeks ago now. Although at the time I was 90% convinced I made a significant breakthrough and now I have no doubt about it.
At the time my mind was telling me maybe its too good to be true? and by thinking that I then worried that if I did go public and turns out I was wrong the Campaign team would without a doubt use it a propaganda and that I didn't want to happen, that was my initial reason for secrecy.
Then a few days later I was told that going public would harm the legal process because if the Crown got news of it they would have more time to try and prepare for it so the later the better. So that is reason why I have not released anything to date.
You handled this exactly right David and knew you could trust Ngb
He will be there for you with the right advice
-
Classy, as always.
No well done David then for uncovering new evidence
-
Like so many post War families in Britain i am sure they were to some extent dysfunctional ...
Personally i blame the War and it's after effects for that ...
There were vast amounts of very damaged people in all strands of society after the War - it was a tough environment to grow up in in so many ways because of that ...
But they were 100% family - and Neville and June's deep love for their 2 children is in no doubt whatsoever in my mind ...
All over the world the big majority of people want their children to have the best possible education so as to give them the very best possible start in life ...
I do not accept that Neville (or June) sent them to boarding school for a "profit motive" however ...
Like most Parents they just wanted their very much loved children to have the very best possible start in life - for the children's benefit - not for the Parents benefit ...
Whether sending children to boarding school is actually a good idea on balance is another question - but i know for sure Nevile and June did it believing it to be the best thing for their very deeply loved children ...
Despite any faults they were 100% family ...
I do agree with you that many, many people were emotionally damaged by the war. Many people in the armed forces and civilians suffered from unrecognised PTSD there can be no doubt about that.
When we speak about June Bamber's mental health problems they may have developed due to her experiences during the war. People were expected to just cope with their fear of dying, the deaths of many colleagues or friends and family and to keep going, all that buried grief, stress and anxiety take their toll sometimes not until any years later.
-
How can you going to NGB and asking him to post on the forum that you're alleged discovery is well written 'revitalise the board' ? You've said you're not going to say what you're discovery is. So there is nothing to discuss.
How did you make this 'signigicant breakthrough', on you're own on you're computer ? Or have you got documents which are not online or in books ? How did you get these ? You're last discovery you said CAL stole, although it been already been discussed on this board and by Bob Woffinden.
Going public would not effect a CCRC submission because they would have 'more time to prepare'.The CCRC would be given Bamber's application weeks or months beforehand. Then spend weeks or months discussing it. So plenty of time for them. They will not take into account forum chat or media coverage. The CCRC are impartial.
Mike's always bringing up new things and has said he has a photo of a deceased Sheila on the bed, which has been passed to legal advisors. This will surely be included in a new CCRC submission.
Adam
your efforts to discredit David is IMO an insult to NGB
-
I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath.
Steve
it is not like you to be so negative and sarcastic give David a chance please.
-
I knew full well it would make no impact as so many baseless claims have been made before I don't blame anyone for not thinking much of it until now.
One reason I discussed with NGB was that by him revealing something the board it would somewhat revitalised the forum as all the discussions are stale and repetitive. Everyone now has something new to look forward to and its long overdue.
I know, My Dad knows, NGB knows, Andrew Hunter knows and Jeremy and his legal team probably know by now also.
My first issue was and thought this through carefully. I made this finding almost three weeks ago now. Although at the time I was 90% convinced I made a significant breakthrough and now I have no doubt about it.
At the time my mind was telling me maybe its too good to be true? and by thinking that I then worried that if I did go public and turns out I was wrong the Campaign team would without a doubt use it a propaganda and that I didn't want to happen, that was my initial reason for secrecy.
Then a few days later I was told that going public would harm the legal process because if the Crown got news of it they would have more time to try and prepare for it so the later the better. So that is reason why I have not released anything to date.
Good for you David, I congratulate you on your sensible approach to all this. I have said on the forum that I have come to the decision that I thought JB was probably guilty but have always had an open mind and a small percentage of not sure and maybe innocent.
I look forward to hearing about your discovery in due time and hope if it does point to innocence JB will be granted his freedom. :)
-
Good for you David, I congratulate you on your sensible approach to all this. I have said on the forum that I have come to the decision that I thought JB was probably guilty but have always had an open mind and a small percentage of not sure and maybe innocent.
I look forward to hearing about your discovery in due time and hope if it does point to innocence JB will be granted his freedom. :)
Maggie
excellent post and my feelings as well about the guilty/innocent I am at the stage of not sure and my wish is if he is innocent he is released but if guilty he stays where he is.
-
In a typed memo addressed to DCS Ainsley, 'Ron' Cook deliberately deceived Ainsley by informing him that although at that time it was scientifically proven that exposure of the known harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes has on body fluids, including blood, that he said does not apply in this case, because the blood was taken out of the silencer prior to the date when it was treated by superglue method...
Cook lied...
The key flake was presumably still inside the parker hale silencer on the 15th August 1985, when 'Ron' Cook exposed it to the harmful effects of superglue treatment, since it was not until 12th September 1985, that Fletcher and Hayward removed the flake from inside silencer 'DB/1'...
Either, the blood removed on 12th September, was irrevocably contaminated by exposure to the harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes, in which case, no blood expert worth their own weight in gold, would entertain trying to group it. On the other hand, if the flake that went on to be analysed was not coated by the harmful fumes, does this then throw up the possibility that the flake cannot have been inside the silencer at the time the silencer was exposed to the harmful cynoacrylate fumes, on the 15th August, 1985, but that the flake had got into it by a process of contamination...
Bear in mind also, that by May 1986, experts were still swabbing the silencers end cap, top washer, and its 17 individual metal baffle plates, and still getting positive blood group activity. How could this still have been possible once the silencer ('SBJ/1') had been previously exposed to superglue treatment on 15th August?
One thing which becomes clear to me, having regard to the aforementioned, is that by September 12th, the need for a replacement uncontaminated parker hale silencer, in which the recovered flake could be allocated into by reference only. This to me seems to be the most likeliest reason for why Ann Eaton handed over the second uncontaminated identical looking parker hale silencer (DRB/1), and adequately explains the key dates when this second silencer came into the fold...
-
In a typed memo addressed to DCS Ainsley, 'Ron' Cook deliberately deceived Ainsley by informing him that although at that time it was scientifically proven that exposure of the known harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes has on body fluids, including blood, that he said does not apply in this case, because the blood was taken out of the silencer prior to the date when it was treated by superglue method...
Cook lied...
The key flake was presumably still inside the parker hale silencer on the 15th August 1985, when 'Ron' Cook exposed it to the harmful effects of superglue treatment, since it was not until 12th September 1985, that Fletcher and Hayward removed the flake from inside silencer 'DB/1'...
Either, the blood removed on 12th September, was irrevocably contaminated by exposure to the harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes, in which case, no blood expert worth their own weight in gold, would entertain trying to group it. On the other hand, if the flake that went on to be analysed was not coated by the harmful fumes, does this then throw up the possibility that the flake cannot have been inside the silencer at the time the silencer was exposed to the harmful cynoacrylate fumes, on the 15th August, 1985, but that the flake had got into it by a process of contamination...
Bear in mind also, that by May 1986, experts were still swabbing the silencers end cap, top washer, and its 17 individual metal baffle plates, and still getting positive blood group activity. How could this still have been possible once the silencer ('SBJ/1') had been previously exposed to superglue treatment on 15th August?
One thing which becomes clear to me, having regard to the aforementioned, is that by September 12th, the need for a replacement uncontaminated parker hale silencer, in which the recovered flake could be allocated into by reference only. This to me seems to be the most likeliest reason for why Ann Eaton handed over the second uncontaminated identical looking parker hale silencer (DRB/1), and adequately explains the key dates when this second silencer came into the fold...
They couldn't suggest that an uncontaminated flake of blood was found inside a contaminated silencer (DB/1), contaminated that is by the harmful cynoacrylate fumes. So they moved it into the second uncontaminated silencer (DRB/1)...
-
We know that just prior to 'Ron' Cook sending the contaminated parker hale silencer (DB/1) to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, that he took it upon himself to strip it down, by removing the silencers end cap, top washer, and its 17 baffle plates. He separated the end cap, top washer and several baffle plates, before photographing it. At that stage, there was no flake of blood found trapped between baffles 1 and 2, or anywhere else in the separated baffle plates, otherwise, Cook himself would have found it, and declared that he had found it. But he didn't because Fletcher (ballistics) and Hayward ( blood) did, on the 12th September, 1985. How utterly convenient that on the day after Ann Eaton hands over the second uncontaminated silencer (DRB/1) to DC 769 OAKEY, that Fletch' and Hay' should both take the credit for finding this flake, the flake which would become the egg of the golden goose, the key if you like, to prove that Sheila could not have killed herself...
-
Mike what did the legal advisors say about the picture of Sheila on the bed ?
Is the picture now with Jeremy's lawyers ?
-
Adam
your efforts to discredit David is IMO an insult to NGB
Hi Susan, I don't believe Adam was insulting NGB - he is merely expressing his opinion on the case.
I believe Bamber is a psychopath therefore any new submissions will make no difference to my belief. This isn't an insult to David or NGB - this is my opinion.
Of course the only person who knows what happened on the fateful night is the killer. Maybe some people will suggest I should keep my mind open by a fraction but based on my own experiences with the SH case and other factors (many of which I'm not willing to discuss at this point - related to my discoveries in the SH case over the years) there is no doubt in my mind that Bamber in particular is a con artist.
-
I have already provided the evidence to prove that the parker hale silencer (DRB/1) to which the 'damning' blood group evidence was associated to and with, did not arrive at the lab' until the 20th September, 1985. This of course establishes that 'DRB/1' was not the same parker hale silencer (DB/1) from which Fletcher and Hayward had found and removed the flake of dried blood from, eight days earlier. Furthermore, the flake was made into a solution and produced the same blood group activity, as the blood groups belonging to Sheila Caffell. The tests which produced these results were conducted between the 12th and the 19th September, 1985, again, these results were produced prior to the date when the uncontaminated parker hale silencer (DRB/1) arrived at the lab'...
-
Mike what did the legal advisors say about the picture of Sheila on the bed ?
Is the picture now with Jeremy's lawyers ?
They have confirmation that the photograph exists, and that the negatives which were cut from the photographic strip, was retained by ACC Simpson in his office safe. The COLP investigators recovered these during their investigation, and they made written representations about the fact that Simpson should not have withheld them from the defence lawyers...
-
Good for you David, I congratulate you on your sensible approach to all this.
I disagree re the 'sensible approach.'
Should I get my tin hat? ;D ;D
David States, "so many baseless claims have been made before,"
My claim of belief that Bamber is a psychopath is not baseless.
Clearing Bambers name on a technicality does not make him 'innocent!'
-
Jeremy does NOT wish for a technicality--------which this latest revelation WON'T be. ISN'T !
-
The second parker hale silencer (DRB/1) was a decoy which was falsely and dishonestly introduced as the carrier of the uncontaminated flake of blood...
-
Jeremy does NOT wish for a technicality--------which this latest revelation WON'T be. ISN'T !
Unless you know of what David has submitted and he believes someone other than SC was involved in the murder, you cannot make this sweeping statement IMHO.
-
The wrong parker hale silencer (DRB/1) was the subject of the DNA profiling examination connected with the 2002 appeal - it was not coated in the harmful superglue fumes...
-
I knew full well it would make no impact as so many baseless claims have been made before I don't blame anyone for not thinking much of it until now.
One reason I discussed with NGB was that by him revealing something the board it would somewhat revitalised the forum as all the discussions are stale and repetitive. Everyone now has something new to look forward to and its long overdue.
I know, My Dad knows, NGB knows, Andrew Hunter knows and Jeremy and his legal team probably know by now also.
My first issue was and thought this through carefully. I made this finding almost three weeks ago now. Although at the time I was 90% convinced I made a significant breakthrough and now I have no doubt about it.
At the time my mind was telling me maybe its too good to be true? and by thinking that I then worried that if I did go public and turns out I was wrong the Campaign team would without a doubt use it a propaganda and that I didn't want to happen, that was my initial reason for secrecy.
Then a few days later I was told that going public would harm the legal process because if the Crown got news of it they would have more time to try and prepare for it so the later the better. So that is reason why I have not released anything to date.
We have heard it all before David but full marks for trying. The circumstantial evidence is extensive in this case and taken as a whole clearly supports the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, I have seen nothing or been made aware of anything over the years which will change that situation. The sound moderator forensics are not the Holy Grail in this case which some believe them to be, there is a wealth of other information which first of all establishes who the culprits could be and secondly narrow it down to two individuals, namely Jeremy Bamber and Sheila Caffell. This is established fact beyond all shadow of any doubt.
From this position the way forward is easily determined. One has to find evidence which links either suspect to the murder scene. This task is made all the more difficult because both suspects had valid reasons for being in White House farmhouse.
Armed with the forensic evidence gathered from the farmhouse it is a relatively simple task to work out what happened, who was shot first, where the fight took place etc etc... the MEANS. One then has to look to the two suspects, their physical attributes, their state of mind etc... It soon becomes clear that there is no tangible evidence that Jeremy Bamber carried out the killings. Certainly he knew how to get to the farm without attracting attention, he knew how to get into and out of the farmhouse even when it appeared locked and secure. His presence would not have disturbed the farm dog or set it off barking. He had no alibi for the night of the murders, he thus has OPPORTUNITY.
One then has to look to Jeremy's adoptive sister Sheila for answers. The scene which confronted the police when they entered the master bedroom suggested that Sheila had committed suicide by shooting herself twice in the neck. Indeed, they went with this scenario initially before further evidence came to their attention. If Sheila had fired off 25 rounds, reloaded the rifle and had a scuffle with her adoptive father Nevill Bamber in the kitchen, there would have been forensic evidence in abundance in the form of fingerprints, gunshot residues, blood and blood spatter. The evidence however tells a very different story.
Sheila Caffell had none of the forensic indicators either on her or on her clothing associated with the events which we know took place, you could say she was forensically clean. There is no possible way Sheila could have committed those dreadful murders and come out of it as cousin David Boutflour succinctly put it, "Without a single hair out of place".
One then has to look to other evidence in order to build up a case, Julie Mugford eventually came forward and filled in the missing pieces of the puzzle, the MOTIVE was easily established.
Do let me know if I have missed anything?
-
The parker hale silencer (DB/1) which was exposed to the harmful superglue treatment at Sandridge on the 15th August 1985, was eventually handed back to David Boutflour, after the trial...
-
Jeremy does NOT wish for a technicality--------which this latest revelation WON'T be. ISN'T !
I like the new approach.
New evidence is allegedly going to clear Bamber's name according to supporters. But no one knows what this evidence is supposed to be. It's a big secret.
And no one will ever know, unless Bamber gets and wins a CCRC hearing. The COA will then publish their report, as it did in 2002.
-
Bent cops only introduce false evidence which they know will prove beneficial in helping the prosecution secure a conviction. Introduction of the second uncontaminated Parker hale silencer (DRB/1) so as it to be presented as the carrier of the uncontaminated flake, is proof that cops, relatives, and dodgy lab' experts framed Bamber as the killer..
-
I like the new approach.
New evidence is allegedly going to clear Bamber's name according to supporters. But no one knows what this evidence is supposed to be. It's a big secret.
And no one will ever know, unless Bamber gets and wins a CCRC hearing. The COA will then publish their report, as it did in 2002.
In all honesty I don't always read David's posts but with regards to those of his posts I have read and if memory serves me correctly, his belief in innocence or guilt hasn't been clear - nor indeed has he been a 'fence sitter.'
Maybe David will clarify his position?
Also IMO, some of David's posts suggests his ego is at play as opposed to total objectivity. Which leaves me to believe his findings could be technicality based. Of course I could be wrong and if I am I will hold my hands up. But I'm not convinced David has looked at the bigger picture. Just my thoughts...
Further, it's been suggested my judgement in the past has been wrong re the SH case. I do not disagree with this claim. However, this claim should also then apply to Kier Starmer QC, Dr Michael Naughton, David Jessel & other members of the CCRC, Private Eye, Michael Mansfield QC, Campbell Malone, the Rough Justice crew - to name but a few....
-
They have confirmation that the photograph exists, and that the negatives which were cut from the photographic strip, was retained by ACC Simpson in his office safe. The COLP investigators recovered these during their investigation, and they made written representations about the fact that Simpson should not have withheld them from the defence lawyers...
Thank you Mike. Jeremy will be pleased when he can provide photograpic proof Sheila died on the bed.
Why did the police move Sheila to the floor before taking pictures ?
-
Bent cops only introduce false evidence which they know will prove beneficial in helping the prosecution secure a conviction. Introduction of the second uncontaminated Parker hale silencer (DRB/1) so as it to be presented as the carrier of the uncontaminated flake, is proof that cops, relatives, and dodgy lab' experts framed Bamber as the killer..
All anyone needs to do, is refer to all the related police and lab' records, as per key exhibits, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, photographs, and a calender...
You will all be able to judge for yourselves, the date when the second uncontaminated silencer (DRB/1) came into play, and why it did...
-
Thank you Mike. Jeremy will be pleased when he can provide photograpic proof Sheila died on the bed.
Why did the police move Sheila to the floor before taking pictures ?
To search the bed, looking for a weapon. The anshuzt rifle was not on the bed, it was leaning up against the wall by the side of the bedroom window...
-
Bent cops only introduce false evidence which they know will prove beneficial in helping the prosecution secure a conviction. Introduction of the second uncontaminated Parker hale silencer (DRB/1) so as it to be presented as the carrier of the uncontaminated flake, is proof that cops, relatives, and dodgy lab' experts framed Bamber as the killer..
The police have better things to do than go around framing criminals. The White House Farm murders case is no different.
-
The court of appeal will be hard pushed not to quash these convictions considering that the silencer (DRB/1), blood and paint evidence has finally been debunked, and put to bed. The court which tried Jeremy for these murders were well and truly taken for a ride, by the introduction of this evidence, what with all the significance that the prosecution placed upon it, and around it. 'Ron' Cook, DS Davidson, DS Eastwood, DC 769 OAKEY, and Fletcher, Hayward and Howard, have all got some very serious questions to answer. Nobody can ignore the serious nature regarding what has been done, or how it has been done. Noble cause corruption is one thing, but to deliberately fake blood group evidence inside a silencer (DRB/1) that didn't even get to the lab' until eight days after the flake was already supposed to have been found inside it, is taking it too far by half.
Funny how Julie Mugford never mentioned anything about use of a silencer, in the shootings...
-
All anyone needs to do, is refer to all the related police and lab' records, as per key exhibits, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, photographs, and a calender...
You will all be able to judge for yourselves, the date when the second uncontaminated silencer (DRB/1) came into play, and why it did...
The sound moderator labelling was a shambles but beyond that, no conspiracy.
-
The court of appeal will be hard pushed not to quash these convictions considering that the silencer (DRB/1), blood and paint evidence has finally been debunked, and put to bed. The court which tried Jeremy for these murders were well and truly taken for a ride, by the introduction of this evidence, what with all the significance that the prosecution placed upon it, and around it. 'Ron' Cook, DS Davidson, DS Eastwood, DC 769 OAKEY, and Fletcher, Hayward and Howard, have all got some very serious questions to answer. Nobody can ignore the serious nature regarding what has been done, or how it has been done. Noble cause corruption is one thing, but to deliberately fake blood group evidence inside a silencer (DRB/1) that didn't even get to the lab' until eight days after the flake was already supposed to have been found inside it, is taking it too far by half.
Funny how Julie Mugford never mentioned anything about use of a silencer, in the shootings...
You are only speculating on what you think occurred as it fits your own agenda,
It won't even get a referral by the CCRC. You must think they're stupid!
-
All anyone needs to do, is refer to all the related police and lab' records, as per key exhibits, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, photographs, and a calender...
You will all be able to judge for yourselves, the date when the second uncontaminated silencer (DRB/1) came into play, and why it did...
There were numerous errors and inconsistencies through out the SH case documents also.. This doesn't prove innocence...
-
The sound moderator labelling was a shambles but beyond that, no conspiracy.
Shambolic, would be an understatement, if it were merely a collection of mistaken labels, but this goes much deeper, cops have succeeded for nigh on 30 years in hiding the use of the second uncontaminated silencer (DRB/1), by relying on the smokescreen involving all these different exhibit references, and lab' item Reference numbers. But the big mistake they overlooked, was the dates when a silencer were submitted to the lab' and not only when this occurred, but also the reason why they got sent to the lab'. DRB/1 was submitted and arrived at the lab' completely out of sequence, as compared to the date of the alleged recovery of the flake of blood, and the results of blood group activity which matched Sheila's all having been analysed and verified to have occurred before DRB/1 was even sent and received at the lab'...
-
I like the new approach.
New evidence is allegedly going to clear Bamber's name according to supporters. But no one knows what this evidence is supposed to be. It's a big secret.
And no one will ever know, unless Bamber gets and wins a CCRC hearing. The COA will then publish their report, as it did in 2002.
David knows NGB knows need I go on do you read other people's posts I think not
-
I can't be bothered to quote some of David's previous postings but here's one that stands out;
Allot of people do. Ages ago I first pointed out that Jeremy could have entered the house and taken the phone off the hook in the kitchen and that will disable all the lines in the house preventing anyone else from making an outgoing call and that's all he needed to do.
That then became part of CALs version of events in her book when it was published some 6-7 month later. Holly over at red has noticed things like that also. could be coincidence tho
I have made a few other discoveries but I am reluctant to post it because I don't want some author or journalist to steal it :(
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7504.msg354092.html#msg354092
IMO this is ego based..
-
To search the bed, looking for a weapon. The anshuzt rifle was not on the bed, it was leaning up against the wall by the side of the bedroom window...
So Sheila shot herself by the window, then went to lay on the bed, leaving the rifle by the window.
Would the police not have seen a rifle if it was on the bed. They are big.
-
David knows NGB knows need I go on do you read other people's posts I think not
Hi Susan I've read previous posts, including NGB's.
Like Adams, my posts aren't personally aimed at anyone or intended to undermine in anyway. I am merely expressing my personal opinion.
I believe Bamber is a psychopath. I therefore do not believe David's findings will make much difference, however strong they may appear to others.
I don't believe having a differing opinion to others should make any difference to a n others credibility. Nor do I see it as such. We are all different and holding opposing views shouldn't cause conflict.
-
The sound moderator labelling was a shambles but beyond that, no conspiracy.
Yet that's what had " sealed the deal " so far as everyone was concerned ? Because there was now't else.
-
A verbal expression of love is really meaningless ...
Love is expressed by actions ...
Many people do not verbally express love ...
But they show it in 100's of small actions ...
Also many people verbally express love but do not show it in their actions ...
My opinion is that Neville and June like so many of their generation might not have verbally expressed their love ...
But i am sure they expressed it in 1000's of their actions ...
I am sure Sheila and Jeremy therefore felt very much loved as they grew up because of that ...
And i have no doubt they were very deeply loved by their parents indeed ...
What a brilliant post and exactly how I feel
-
What a brilliant post and exactly how I feel
Feeling something isn't being objective!
-
I was born and brought up in that era when " kisses and cuddles " were in short supply but it didn't mean that children were thought any less of. I'd wager a bet that more children back then were born more out of love than in this day and age where we see countless cases of child neglect and cruelty !!
-
I was born and brought up in that era when " kisses and cuddles " were in short supply but it didn't mean that children were thought any less of. I'd wager a bet that more children back then were born more out of love than in this day and age where we see countless cases of child neglect and cruelty !!
What's that got to do with the new forensic breakthrough?
-
There were numerous errors and inconsistencies through out the SH case documents also.. This doesn't prove innocence...
It proves his innocence in this case, and in his circumstances, by virtue of the fact that its alleged admissibility during the trial was being strongly touted as the proof of his guilt. That is why the silencer evidence is so pivotal in Bambers case, you can't on the one hand say, oh, a silencer was used, it had Sheila's blood inside it, she couldn't have removed it after she had killed herself, and with the 7" silencer fitted to the rifles barrel the overall length of the weapon so configured would have made it too long for her to have shot herself even if she had wanted to. And then, once its accepted (as it surely will be) that the relatives, the cops, and even some key experts from the Home Office Lab' at Huntingdon, have all ' conspired' together to pervert the course of justice, by introducing a decoy second uncontaminated silencer into the mix, there can only be one outcome, and that will be to quash the convictions, and they had better get on with it sharphish, otherwise there will be hundreds of other cases queuing up to have their cases reviewed, if any of these conspirators had any involvement in their own prosecutions...
-
There were numerous errors and inconsistencies through out the SH case documents also.. This doesn't prove innocence...
I am so bored hearing about the SH case. We all know he was a thug and a murderer and you are a very bad judge of character
This is a thread about David not your bad judgement
-
Hi Susan I've read previous posts, including NGB's.
Like Adams, my posts aren't personally aimed at anyone or intended to undermine in anyway. I am merely expressing my personal opinion.
I believe Bamber is a psychopath. I therefore do not believe David's findings will make much difference, however strong they may appear to others.
I don't believe having a differing opinion to others should make any difference to a n others credibility. Nor do I see it as such. We are all different and holding opposing views shouldn't cause conflict.
Hello Steph
I cannot comment on Jeremy Bamber being a psychopath as I have not got a clue. I strongly believe posters should post with different views without conflict and I always try to do and I apologise if I come over like that. I thought it was terrible that David's find has been ridiculed to a certain extent as none of us know what it is and I am sure NGB would not have posted about it if he did not think it was worth a mention.
-
It proves his innocence in this case, and in his circumstances, by virtue of the fact that its alleged admissibility during the trial was being strongly touted as the proof of his guilt. That is why the silencer evidence is so pivotal in Bambers case, you can't on the one hand say, oh, a silencer was used, it had Sheila's blood inside it, she couldn't have removed it after she had killed herself, and with the 7" silencer fitted to the rifles barrel the overall length of the weapon so configured would have made it too long for her to have shot herself even if she had wanted to. And then, once its accepted (as it surely will be) that the relatives, the cops, and even some key experts from the Home Office Lab' at Huntingdon, have all ' conspired' together to pervert the course of justice, there can only be one outcome, and that will be to quash the convictions, and they had better get on with it sharphish, otherwise there will be hundreds of other cases queuing up to have their cases reviewed, if any of these conspirators had any involvement in their own prosecutions...
No it doesn't. It just shows errors were made!
-
What's that got to do with the new forensic breakthrough?
Get off your high horse !
It has a lot to do with your accusations of JB's " behaviour/psychopathy " that you get in with every post whether it's relevant or not to the thread.
-
I can't be bothered to quote some of David's previous postings but here's one that stands out;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7504.msg354092.html#msg354092
IMO this is ego based..
The CAL claim was rubbished as that issue had been discussed before on here, and in 2011 by Woffinden.
David also said in 2015 he was going to submit a breakdown of how Sheila committed the massacre. Then delayed this submission to 2016 as he wanted to make it detailed. It has never been submitted.
-
Strange how I knew how this thread would pan out !!
-
I was born and brought up in that era when " kisses and cuddles " were in short supply but it didn't mean that children were thought any less of. I'd wager a bet that more children back then were born more out of love than in this day and age where we see countless cases of child neglect and cruelty !!
Hello lookout
I agree with your post but think we are in the wrong thread. :'(
-
Yet that's what had " sealed the deal " so far as everyone was concerned ? Because there was now't else.
In your opinion.
-
The CAL claim was rubbished as that issue had been discussed before on here, and in 2011 by Woffinden.
David also said in 2015 he was going to submit a breakdown of how Sheila committed the massacre. Then delayed this submission to 2016 as he wanted to make it detailed. It has never been submitted.
How predictable ;D
None of these claimed breakthroughs ever materialise but never mind, the craic is good.
-
Hello Steph
I cannot comment on Jeremy Bamber being a psychopath as I have not got a clue. I strongly believe posters should post with different views without conflict and I always try to do and I apologise if I come over like that. I thought it was terrible that David's find has been ridiculed to a certain extent as none of us know what it is and I am sure NGB would not have posted about it if he did not think it was worth a mention.
There's no need to apologise for your opinions Susan but what you are suggesting, unless I'm misinterpreting what you have posted, is that because NGB has posted in what you perceive as 'support of David,' people like myself (who believe Bamber is guilty) shouldn't give further opinion as to do so shows disrespect to NGB in some way and/or undermines his credibility in his field?
I have based my opinion on what I have seen of some of David's posts. I believe he is ego lead. I've no idea what he has found but I don't believe whatever it is will change my belief that Bamber is a psychopath.
-
The CAL claim was rubbished as that issue had been discussed before on here, and in 2011 by Woffinden.
David also said in 2015 he was going to submit a breakdown of how Sheila committed the massacre. Then delayed this submission to 2016 as he wanted to make it detailed. It has never been submitted.
So then David sounds like a conspiracy theorist...
-
No it doesn't. It just shows errors were made!
You can't call the blatant introduction of a decoy second silencer (DRB/1) an error...
What they have done, is a criminal offence, its called perverting the course of justice, its called fabricating of the evidence, its nothing remotely like anything you could possibly describe as 'an error'...
They dropped a clanger by introducing the second decoy silencer too late in the day. They have shot themselves in the foot, so to speak. They call it 'tampering with the evidence', and people like them who do these things, do it with the view of making it look more believable that somebody is guilty of doing something they might not have done, or didn't do. These things they have done, can't be explained away as 'errors', no, no, no, these were deliberate acts of dishonesty, and I am afraid heads will have to roll...
-
You can't call the blatant introduction of a decoy second silencer (DRB/1) an error...
What they have done, is a criminal offence, its called perverting the course of justice, its called fabricating of the evidence, its nothing remotely like anything you could possibly describe as 'an error'...
They dropped a clanger by introducing the second decoy silencer too late in the day. They have shot themselves in the foot, so to speak. They call it 'tampering with the evidence', and people like them who do these things, do it with the view of making it look more believable that somebody is guilty of doing something they might not have done, or didn't do. These things they have done, can't be explained away as 'errors', no, no, no, these were deliberate acts of dishonesty, and I am afraid heads will have to roll...
All merely in your opinion.
-
All merely in your opinion.
As relied upon by the provable facts now available to anyone and everyone...
-
As relied upon by the provable facts now available to anyone and everyone...
Where?
The more I see regarding Bambers claims of innocence, his CT vlogs, blogs and letters etc, the stronger my belief on his guilt becomes..
-
So then David sounds like a conspiracy theorist...
All supporters have to be.
-
The key to the undoing of the dodgy silencer evidence, was the fact that relatives did not find two separate parker hale silencers (SBJ/1 and DRB/1), one month a part. They only found one (SBJ/1) on the 10th August 1985. 'Ron' Cook fucked up the evidence, by exposing that silencer and any blood or paint in it, or upon it, to the harmful fumes of superglue treatment on the 15th August, 1985. The relatives didn't find the second parker hale silencer (DRB/1) on the 11th September, 1985, they handed it over to police on that day. That's how the decoy silencer got introduced, it was needed as an uncontaminated carrier of the uncontaminated flake of blood. It was not workable to use the contaminated silencer (DB/1) as the carrier of the uncontaminated flake of dried blood, cops needed an uncontaminated second silencer, and the relatives duly provided them with DRB/1...
-
There's no need to apologise for your opinions Susan but what you are suggesting, unless I'm misinterpreting what you have posted, is that because NGB has posted in what you perceive as 'support of David,' people like myself (who believe Bamber is guilty) shouldn't give further opinion as to do so shows disrespect to NGB in some way and/or undermines his credibility in his field?
I have based my opinion on what I have seen of some of David's posts. I believe he is ego lead. I've no idea what he has found but I don't believe whatever it is will change my belief that Bamber is a psychopath.
Steph
I must not have made myself clear as I think we all should have our own opinions and post them in a pleasant manner I don't like Adam's attitude at times and this is of course just how I perceive his posts I don'texpect posters to agree with me why should they. As far as David is concerned I know nothing about his ego as I have had no dealings with him. Jeremy could indeed by a psychopath how would I know.
-
Where?
The more I see regarding Bambers claims of innocence, his CT vlogs, blogs and letters etc, the stronger my belief on his guilt becomes..
The usual standard hilarious posts criticising everyone who believes JB is guilty
-
The key to the undoing of the dodgy silencer evidence, was the fact that relatives did not find two separate parker hale silencers (SBJ/1 and DRB/1), one month a part. They only found one (SBJ/1) on the 10th August 1985. 'Ron' Cook fucked up the evidence, by exposing that silencer and any blood or paint in it, or upon it, to the harmful fumes of superglue treatment on the 15th August, 1985. The relatives didn't find the second parker hale silencer (DRB/1) on the 11th September, 1985, they handed it over to police on that day. That's how the decoy silencer got introduced, it was needed as an uncontaminated carrier of the uncontaminated flake of blood. It was not workable to use the contaminated silencer (DB/1) as the carrier of the uncontaminated flake of dried blood, cops needed an uncontaminated second silencer, and the relatives duly provided them with DRB/1...
I wonder why the police attempt to frame people ? I assume they join the police for honerable reasons and there is nothing in it for them.
The LA police planted OJ's blood and DNA at the crime scene, in his car, and at his property. Then planted Ron and Nicole's blood in his car and property. Then planted OJ's footprint, glove and cap at the crime scene. And the victims hair fibres on his clothes.
Why do the police try to frame innocent men ?
-
Steph
I must not have made myself clear as I think we all should have our own opinions and post them in a pleasant manner I don't like Adam's attitude at times and this is of course just how I perceive his posts I don'texpect posters to agree with me why should they. As far as David is concerned I know nothing about his ego as I have had no dealings with him. Jeremy could indeed by a psychopath how would I know.
I understand that, I don't like the attitudes of other posters at times.
With regards David's ego, I post my opinion based on what I've read. David doesn't appear to have considered the fact Bamber is (could be to some and not to others) a classic psychopath; for example. Based on my understanding of NGB's post regarding David's findings - it appears technicality based.
NGB's post doesn't state David is right and everyone else is wrong nor does it state he believes Bamber innocent or guilty. It merely outlines David has does some research which he (David) appears to have backed up with supporting evidence and that from NGB's point of view it is a new claim - meaning it hasn't been explored before or put before the courts.
As can be seen from the posts in this thread, david1819 has claimed to have unearthed new evidence, of a forensic nature, which supports the defence case. As david1819 has explained he sent details initially to Andrew Hunter, with a view to the material being reviewed by Jeremy Bamber's legal team.
There have been claims of an imminent breakthrough since the rejection of the last application to the CCRC and the subsequent Judicial Review, but understandably there has been increasing scepticism in the absence of any detailed information about this.
In view some of the posts above, understandable in the circumstances, casting doubt on david1819's claim, he contacted me and asked if I would be prepared to review the material he had prepared, in confidence, and give him my opinion of it. I agreed and received the material, reviewed it and gave david1819 my assessment. david1819 then agreed that I could post my overall opinion of his work, without at this stage disclosing the details. I am happy to do that and I agree with david1819's firm view, backed by the advice of Andrew Hunter, that Jeremy Bamber's legal team should review it and it should only be made public subject to their approval.
The material sent to me by david1819 is in the form of a report, which includes images and diagrams as well as text. It is well written and well presented. It analyses an important part of the evidence in the case, using methods not applied previously. Although he accepts that he is not an expert in the relevant field, he has researched published works by experts in the field, quoting relevant extracts in support of his conclusions. He has also studied relevant photographs and made calculations and measurements using techniques which to me seem appropriate.
david1819's conclusions support the defence case on this issue and specifically counter conclusions reached on this by the Court of Appeal in the 2002 appeal.
I am not an expert in the field involved and clearly for this to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions david1819's report and conclusions would have to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert. However, I can see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached and have given david1819 my view in more detail.
If the report is validated the question is whether it could form the basis for the CCRC to refer the case. For various reasons, hard to explain without giving more information than I am able to here, I believe it does satisfy the requirement that it is new evidence, not available at trial. The key question is whether it is on its own sufficient to enable the convictions to be overturned. I am very cautious about this as I believe the CCRC have now set a very high bar in this case. Certainly this would form a valid ground of appeal, but ideally it should be joined with other grounds. I am no longer in the loop as far as Jeremy Bamber's legal team are concerned, and have not been since Simon McKay ceased acting, but I do know of grounds not included in previous submissions which would have been included had the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the last application. I also understand that other work has been undertaken or is contemplated which may lead to additional grounds, but I have very limited knowledge of this.
I am sorry not to be able to give more detail but I hope members will understand why this is not possible at this stage. I will say however that david1819 was genuine in his claim to have discovered something new and important and that he has approached this in a serious and careful way.
This does not mean Bamber is innocent.
-
I understand that, I don't like the attitudes of other posters at times.
With regards David's ego, I post my opinion based on what I've read. David doesn't appear to have considered the fact Bamber is (could be to some and not to others) a classic psychopath; for example. Based on my understanding of NGB's post regarding David's findings - it appears technicality based.
NGB's post doesn't state David is right and everyone else is wrong nor does it state he believes Bamber innocent or guilty. It merely outlines David has does some research which he (David) appears to have backed up with supporting evidence and that from NGB's point of view it is a new claim - meaning it hasn't been explored before or put before the courts.
Steph
This does not mean Bamber is innocent.
Steph excellent post and one with which I agree perhaps I did not make myself clear earlier.
-
As relied upon by the provable facts now available to anyone and everyone...
Untrue, you have no way of proving who did what and when regarding any of the silencers, its all one big conspiracy to you, a bit like a dog with a bone.
The evidence in the Bamber case is crystal clear, Bamber did it because Sheila couldn't possibly have. There are no other possibilities. Unless you come up with credible new evidence to support Bamber could I suggest a few days in Disneyland or even Fantasy World?
-
Steph excellent post and one with which I agree perhaps I did not make myself clear earlier.
What Ive learned by NGB's posts are that he takes peoples comments/opinions/theories as he finds them. He remains opened minded, impartial and assists where he can.
There's a big difference re the above and the sweeping claims made by posters such as Jackiepreece that NGB believes Bamber to be innocent or indeed guilty.
-
What Ive learned by NGB's posts are that he takes peoples comments/opinions/theories as he finds them. He remains opened minded, impartial and assists where he can.
There's a big difference re the above and the sweeping claims made by posters such as Jackiepreece that NGB believes Bamber to be innocent or indeed guilty.
Steph
I agree although I have discussed the case with NGB he has never stated his opinion on Jeremy's innocence or guilt think he keeps an open mind.
-
Where?
The more I see regarding Bambers claims of innocence, his CT vlogs, blogs and letters etc, the stronger my belief on his guilt becomes..
The provable facts I am referring to are there for all and everyone to see. To simplify, one parker hale silencer, SBJ/1 (22), found on 10th August 1985, taken to lab' by Cook for the attention of Howard, who detects human blood. She states there is insufficient blood for testing purposes. Gives SBJ/1 (22) back to Cook, who says he proceeded to carry SBJ/1 (22) around in his coat pocket for the next 17 days. On 15th August 1985, Cook exposes SBJ/1 to the harmful superglue treatment, damaging any prospect of getting any uncontaminated blood group, or much later, uncontaminated DNA results. Still, whilst Cook still retains possession of SBJ/1 (22) he proceeds to strip it down, dismantling it, piece by piece, until he has demonstrated no presence of blood anywhere amongst the separated baffle plates. He photographs all of this. He doesn' t see any blood, he doesn't find any blood. He rebuilds the silencer, and then afixs it directly onto the screw thread on the end of the rifles barrel. What Cook then does is he takes another photograph showing the rebuilt silencer (SBJ/1 - 22) screwed onto the barrel of the gun. What he then purports to do is, he resubmits SBJ/1 (22) back to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, disguised as DB/1 (23). He already knows there is no blood inside it, because he had stripped it down, examined it with close scrutiny, and took a photograph confirming what he himself had done. Anyway, nobody knows what the lab' did with DB/1 for the next 13 days, until suddenly there is a rush of activity on the 12th September, 1985, with the restripping of DB/1 by Fletcher and Hayward, and the astonishing discovery of the flake of dried blood trapped between baffles 1 and 2. Testing of this flake took place over the next seven days or so. So that by 19th September, 1985, blood expert, Hayward, had obtained 4 distinctive blood groups (A, EAPBA, HP 2-1, and AK1). But, these results were known to be potentially problematic, for example, having been obtained from inside a silencer (DB/1) which had been exposed to the harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes...
My best guess, is that when 'Ron' Cook dismantled SBJ/1 as mentioned, that he used blood taken from the third blood sample obtained from the neck of Sheila Caffell during autopsy performed on 7th August 1985, and dripped some of this uncontaminated blood belonging to her, onto the baffles before rebuilding it. The problem he had however, was that he placed uncontaminated blood belonging to Sheila, inside DB/1 (23), which had got contaminated baffle plates, which if the matter had not been addressed would stand out as a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice...
That was why, the second decoy silencer (DRB/1) was sent to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985. It was sent because it was needed to become the carrier of Sheila's blood, in an uncontaminated environment (DRB/1). Police / relatives deliberately used this second decoy silencer (DRB/1) to make fresh scratch marks on the kitchen aga back at the farmhouse, because Cook believed that exposure of SBJ/1 (22), to harmful superglue treatment carried out on 15th August, 1985 may have irreparably damaged paint on SBJ/1. So they made new scratches on the aga surround, and sent DRB/1 off to the lab' on the pretense of it being checked for blood and fibers...
The rest is history...
-
Where?
The more I see regarding Bambers claims of innocence, his CT vlogs, blogs and letters etc, the stronger my belief on his guilt becomes..
The usual standard hilarious posts criticising everyone who believes JB is guilty
No you see, you are projecting, as per usual..
I am not criticising anyone, I am giving my opinion. It's not personal. I have already pointed out that to have an opposing view to someone else doesn't make that person an enemy. I can't be any clearer than that.
-
The provable facts I am referring to are there for all and everyone to see. To simplify, one parker hale silencer, SBJ/1 (22), found on 10th August 1985, taken to lab' by Cook for the attention of Howard, who detects human blood. She states there is insufficient blood for testing purposes. Gives SBJ/1 (22) back to Cook, who says he proceeded to carry SBJ/1 (22) around in his coat pocket for the next 17 days. On 15th August 1985, Cook exposes SBJ/1 to the harmful superglue treatment, damaging any prospect of getting any uncontaminated blood group, or much later, uncontaminated DNA results. Still, whilst Cook still retains possession of SBJ/1 (22) he proceeds to strip it down, dismantling it, piece by piece, until he has demonstrated no presence of blood anywhere amongst the separated baffle plates. He photographs all of this. He doesn' t see any blood, he doesn't find any blood. He rebuilds the silencer, and then afixs it directly onto the screw thread on the end of the rifles barrel. What Cook then does is he takes another photograph showing the rebuilt silencer (SBJ/1 - 22) screwed onto the barrel of the gun. What he then purports to do is, he resubmits SBJ/1 (22) back to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, disguised as DB/1 (23). He already knows there is no blood inside it, because he had stripped it down, examined it with close scrutiny, and took a photograph confirming what he himself had done. Anyway, nobody knows what the lab' did with DB/1 for the next 13 days, until suddenly there is a rush of activity on the 12th September, 1985, with the restripping of DB/1 by Fletcher and Hayward, and the astonishing discovery of the flake of dried blood trapped between baffles 1 and 2. Testing of this flake took place over the next seven days or so. So that by 19th September, 1985, blood expert, Hayward, had obtained 4 distinctive blood groups (A, EAPBA, HP 2-1, and AK1). But, these results were known to be potentially problematic, for example, having been obtained from inside a silencer (DB/1) which had been exposed to the harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes...
My best guess, is that when 'Ron' Cook dismantled SBJ/1 as mentioned, that he used blood taken from the third blood sample obtained from the neck of Sheila Caffell during autopsy performed on 7th August 1985, and dripped some of this uncontaminated blood belonging to her, onto the baffles before rebuilding it. The problem he had however, was that he placed uncontaminated blood belonging to Sheila, inside DB/1 (23), which had got contaminated baffle plates, which if the matter had not been addressed would stand out as a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice...
That was why, the second decoy silencer (DRB/1) was sent to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985. It was sent because it was needed to become the carrier of Sheila's blood, in an uncontaminated environment (DRB/1). Police / relatives deliberately used this second decoy silencer (DRB/1) to make fresh scratch marks on the kitchen aga back at the farmhouse, because Cook believed that exposure of SBJ/1 (22), to harmful superglue treatment carried out on 15th August, 1985 may have irreparably damaged paint on SBJ/1. So they made new scratches on the aga surround, and sent DRB/1 off to the lab' on the pretense of it being checked for blood and fibers...
The rest is history...
I've read all this Mike but I don't agree with your opinions/theories.
-
Untrue, you have no way of proving who did what and when regarding any of the silencers, its all one big conspiracy to you, a bit like a dog with a bone.
The evidence in the Bamber case is crystal clear, Bamber did it because Sheila couldn't possibly have. There are no other possibilities. Unless you come up with credible new evidence to support Bamber could I suggest a few days in Disneyland or even Fantasy World?
Yes, it is all provable, to anyone, and everyone...
The second decoy silencer (DRB/1) handed to DC 769 OAKEY, by Ann Eaton on the 11th September, 1985, along with three other DRB exhibits (DRB/2, DRB/3, and DRB/4). Its all documented in the police files. That same decoy silencer, fingerprinted by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood on the 13th September, 1985, then along with other items, DRB/1 (second decoy silencer) was sent to the lab' on 20th September, 1985, to ' be checked for blood and fibers'...
All much too late, I am afraid, for the flake to have been inside DRB/1 at the lab' on the 12th September, 1985, eight days earlier than DRB/1 was even sent to the lab. Hold the front page, we haven't done yet, the uncontaminated flake, only then goes and produces four individual blood groups (A, EAPBA, HP 2-1, and AK1) already in the bag by the 19th September, 1985, which if your not intelligent enough to be able to work it out, were all obtained the day before DRB/1 was even sent to the lab' for the very first time...
-
I like the new approach.
New evidence is allegedly going to clear Bamber's name according to supporters. But no one knows what this evidence is supposed to be. It's a big secret.
And no one will ever know, unless Bamber gets and wins a CCRC hearing. The COA will then publish their report, as it did in 2002.
David knows NGB knows need I go on do you read other people's posts I think not
Steph excellent post and one with which I agree perhaps I did not make myself clear earlier.
Your post did appear bias Susan.
-
I've read all this Mike but I don't agree with your opinions/theories.
Facts, not opinions, or theories...
-
How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. ;D
However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.
Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.
If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat ;D
-
Ask yourselves, when and what date do cops, relatives, and lab' experts start referring to the carrier of the uncontaminated blood flake, by the exhibit reference DRB/1?
-
Ask yourselves, when and what date do cops, relatives, and lab' experts start referring to the carrier of the uncontaminated blood flake, by the exhibit reference DRB/1?
Not until after the third submission of a silencer to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985...
1st submission to lab' - 13th August, 1985, (SBJ/1 - 22)
2nd submission to lab' - 30th August, 1985, (DB/1 - 23)
3rd submission to lab' - 20th September, 1985, (DRB/1 - 22)
-
How come, nobody at the lab' acknowledges the receipt of DRB/1 at the lab' on and after the 20th September, 1985? How come nobody examines it, or checks it for blood and fibers? How come we don't have a diagram of it bearing signatures, and dates, or whatever?
Where are the results, and the conclusions, from its inspection?
-
How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. ;D
However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.
Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.
If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat ;D
Hi David, thanks for your post!
I can assure you I haven't got the time to read through all your posts on the forum, especially at the moment. I believe my previous post clearly stated I based my opinion on a handful of posts you had made and those which I recalled. My posts are in no way meant as a personal slight, merely an observation..
And I can further assure you I'm not interested in who you are, where you come from or indeed what you have found. In fact my advice with regards your true identity is that you keep it unknown where possible!
You still don't make it clear if you believe Bamber is innocent or guilty or indeed whether or not you are bothered by either? Can you explain please... What is you aim exactly?
...........
ego;
noun
a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
"he needed a boost to his ego"
synonyms: self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-conceit, self-image, self-confidence; amour propre
"he needed a boost to his ego"
PSYCHOANALYSIS
the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.
PHILOSOPHY
(in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.
-
Ask yourselves, when and what date do cops, relatives, and lab' experts start referring to the carrier of the uncontaminated blood flake, by the exhibit reference DRB/1?
First mention of parker hale silencer, as DRB/1, as follows:-
David Robert Boutflour , 17th November, 1985 (page 1)
David Robert Boutflour, 17th December, 1985 (page 9)
Malcolm Fletcher, 13th November, 1985, (page 1)
Ronald Walter Cook, 23rd September, 1985, (page 1)
Glynis Howard, 13th November 1985, (page 1)
-
How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. ;D
However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.
Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.
If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat ;D
But as Adam has clearly pointed out David, a few weeks ago you were also making other claims, in contradiction of your current claims.. Do you understand this?
-
How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. ;D
However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.
Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.
If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat ;D
I guess we won't be able to give an opinion re your Dad's advice until your discovery is in the public domain...
-
How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. ;D
However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.
Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.
If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat ;D
Have you been offered money for your discovery or are you basing your belief on what your Dad suggested?
And am I right in thinking that you are now publicly backing Bambers claims of innocence, in the hope of what you've found will clear his name?
-
The police have better things to do than go around framing criminals. The White House Farm murders case is no different.
I don't particular think the Police framed Jeremy ...
But i have an open mind ...
I have come to eventually accept there were 2 silencers - Jeremy's and Anthony's ...
Apparently Anthony took his home from the farm the weekend before ...
But here is a question for you John ...
If you were a Police officer
And you knew beyond a doubt (or thought you did ) that a man had murdered 2 children ...
But you could not prove it ...
What would you do ?
Let him get away with it ? ...
Maybe to kill more children ...
Or would you do whatever it took to lock him up ?
Including planting fake evidence ?
Tough one that ain't it John ...
It's called Noble Cause Corruption ...
Very very common in the 1980's including in Essex ...
I always keep an open mind and believe the truth can only be found by so doing ...
And analysing EVERY piece of evidence and unusual occurrences very carefully indeed ...
-
How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. ;D
However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.
Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.
If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat ;D
My afternoon is far more grim than what you believe it to be David. I am putting together a document with regards the inquest into SH's death in custody.
But just to be clear David. It is because of statements like the one you have made above that I have come to the conclusions I have ie; you are ego lead..
You ego believes I have spent my afternoon reading through all your posts on the forum. I haven't! And why would you believe that I have? I don't find you that interesting. Again, no slight or disrespect meant, I'm merely telling the truth as I see it.
I know nothing of your character David other than you don't appear to be interested in innocence or guilt?
You appear to have found something that could possibly help a future appeal of Bambers and you have turned down a suggestion of making money in relation to your find in order for his legal team to present it as fresh evidence?
I take it you believe I should commend you for this, as opposed to expressing my belief in Bambers guilt?
-
But just to be clear David. It is because of statements like the one you have made above that I have come to the conclusions I have ie; you are ego lead..
You believe I am Egotistical however your perceptions and interpretations of my statements does not necessarily reflect me in reality. Its just your opinion.
Same goes for my conclusions about you. I think you are Utterly Butterly Crazy, but still that's my opinion I could be wrong.
-
You believe I am Egotistical however your perceptions and interpretations of my statements does not necessarily reflect me in reality. Its just your opinion.
Same goes for my conclusions about you. I think you are Utterly Butterly Crazy, but still that's my opinion I could be wrong.
Not egotistical (As in superego) based on your posts, emotionally immature would be a better description. In reality I know nothing about you nor you of me.
-
Your post did appear bias Susan.
Steph
if my post seems to be bias it was not meant I can assure you. What I posted to Adam stands that is how I perceived it and always will. I made a similar post to another on here this morning.
-
The provable facts I am referring to are there for all and everyone to see. To simplify, one parker hale silencer, SBJ/1 (22), found on 10th August 1985, taken to lab' by Cook for the attention of Howard, who detects human blood. She states there is insufficient blood for testing purposes. Gives SBJ/1 (22) back to Cook, who says he proceeded to carry SBJ/1 (22) around in his coat pocket for the next 17 days. On 15th August 1985, Cook exposes SBJ/1 to the harmful superglue treatment, damaging any prospect of getting any uncontaminated blood group, or much later, uncontaminated DNA results. Still, whilst Cook still retains possession of SBJ/1 (22) he proceeds to strip it down, dismantling it, piece by piece, until he has demonstrated no presence of blood anywhere amongst the separated baffle plates. He photographs all of this. He doesn' t see any blood, he doesn't find any blood. He rebuilds the silencer, and then afixs it directly onto the screw thread on the end of the rifles barrel. What Cook then does is he takes another photograph showing the rebuilt silencer (SBJ/1 - 22) screwed onto the barrel of the gun. What he then purports to do is, he resubmits SBJ/1 (22) back to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, disguised as DB/1 (23). He already knows there is no blood inside it, because he had stripped it down, examined it with close scrutiny, and took a photograph confirming what he himself had done. Anyway, nobody knows what the lab' did with DB/1 for the next 13 days, until suddenly there is a rush of activity on the 12th September, 1985, with the restripping of DB/1 by Fletcher and Hayward, and the astonishing discovery of the flake of dried blood trapped between baffles 1 and 2. Testing of this flake took place over the next seven days or so. So that by 19th September, 1985, blood expert, Hayward, had obtained 4 distinctive blood groups (A, EAPBA, HP 2-1, and AK1). But, these results were known to be potentially problematic, for example, having been obtained from inside a silencer (DB/1) which had been exposed to the harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes...
My best guess, is that when 'Ron' Cook dismantled SBJ/1 as mentioned, that he used blood taken from the third blood sample obtained from the neck of Sheila Caffell during autopsy performed on 7th August 1985, and dripped some of this uncontaminated blood belonging to her, onto the baffles before rebuilding it. The problem he had however, was that he placed uncontaminated blood belonging to Sheila, inside DB/1 (23), which had got contaminated baffle plates, which if the matter had not been addressed would stand out as a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice...
That was why, the second decoy silencer (DRB/1) was sent to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985. It was sent because it was needed to become the carrier of Sheila's blood, in an uncontaminated environment (DRB/1). Police / relatives deliberately used this second decoy silencer (DRB/1) to make fresh scratch marks on the kitchen aga back at the farmhouse, because Cook believed that exposure of SBJ/1 (22), to harmful superglue treatment carried out on 15th August, 1985 may have irreparably damaged paint on SBJ/1. So they made new scratches on the aga surround, and sent DRB/1 off to the lab' on the pretense of it being checked for blood and fibers...
The rest is history...
Quite a tale, if only it were true. ;)
-
How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. ;D
However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.
Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.
If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat ;D
I think you have just shot yourself in the foot David and it was all going so well.
-
How come, nobody at the lab' acknowledges the receipt of DRB/1 at the lab' on and after the 20th September, 1985? How come nobody examines it, or checks it for blood and fibers? How come we don't have a diagram of it bearing signatures, and dates, or whatever?
Where are the results, and the conclusions, from its inspection?
This is where your tale breaks down, the inability to prove ownership throughout the investigation. A case of revolving doors I'm afraid.
-
I don't particular think the Police framed Jeremy ...
But i have an open mind ...
I have come to eventually accept there were 2 silencers - Jeremy's and Anthony's ...
Apparently Anthony took his home from the farm the weekend before ...
But here is a question for you John ...
If you were a Police officer
And you knew beyond a doubt (or thought you did ) that a man had murdered 2 children ...
But you could not prove it ...
What would you do ?
Let him get away with it ? ...
Maybe to kill more children ...
Or would you do whatever it took to lock him up ?
Including planting fake evidence ?
Tough one that ain't it John ...
It's called Noble Cause Corruption ...
Very very common in the 1980's including in Essex ...
I always keep an open mind and believe the truth can only be found by so doing ...
And analysing EVERY piece of evidence and unusual occurrences very carefully indeed ...
There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict Jeremy but Julie's inside information was all that was needed to be sure of it. She provided the motive when even the police were struggling to make sense of it all. If the police wanted to frame Bamber they would have to have done so from the very beginning and with the assistance of several forensic science officers if Mike Tesko's wild allegations are to be believed. That in itself is something I have great difficulty accepting.
There was no need to fabricate evidence in this case, noble cause or otherwise. There isn't a single piece of evidence which points to Sheila's involvement other than as a victim otherwise I too would still be questioning it.
I have always said, Jeremy is very guilty or very unlucky!
-
I think you have just shot yourself in the foot David and it was all going so well.
On the contrary, it's only just begun. A new chapter in the Bamber saga is on the Horizon you have my word on that John and I shall not disappoint
-
On the contrary, it's only just begun. A new chapter in the Bamber saga is on the Horizon you have my word on that John and I shall not disappoint
Can I ask you David, do you believe Bamber is innocent?
Do you know what a psychopath is and are you aware they thrive on any attention?
I've just clicked on your poster name and copied 3 of your first 4 posts from February 2015;
Why are you even allowed to post on this forum? You seem to have more fictional stories than Walt Disney!
Hello all
I'm very sceptical of the safety of Bambers conviction. I believe only he knows what happened that early morning.
Due to the serious nature of what he has been convicted of The crown will not risk releasing him.
The Home secretary and the Justice secretary have the power to release prisoners on whole life tariffs. This satisfied the EU courts.
I believe the Queen does also have the power to quash convictions but I doubt she will ever use it.
I think whole life tariffs are 100% justified. Do you really want the prospect of Ian Brady, The Bus-Stop Stalker, The Crossbow Cannibal, The Gameshow Killer and Dennis Nilsen one day walking free just for Bambers sake?
Your first post was aimed at Mike T ;D
What has changed your mind about Bambers guilt from a year ago?
I'm obviously not asking you to reveal what it is that you've found, I'm just curious as to whether or not you have questioned where this could lead and the consequences of that..
I'm not questioning your word David but ensure you protect yourself and maybe discuss it with your Dad and NGB. The fallout from any publicity isn't nice, especially in relation to cases like this. My advice would be, as I've stated before; do not put your true identity into the public domain and certainly not before your findings have reached any positive conclusion.
-
There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict Jeremy but Julie's inside information was all that was needed to be sure of it. She provided the motive when even the police were struggling to make sense of it all. If the police wanted to frame Bamber they would have to have done so from the very beginning and with the assistance of several forensic science officers if Mike Tesko's wild allegations are to be believed. That in itself is something I have great difficulty accepting.
There was no need to fabricate evidence in this case, noble cause or otherwise. There isn't a single piece of evidence which points to Sheila's involvement other than as a victim otherwise I too would still be questioning it.
I have always said, Jeremy is very guilty or very unlucky!
The relatives said there was enough evidence without the silencer.
They were right. There is a forensic evidence library !
I'll create a circumstantial evidence library one day. But only if I can have NGB say what a good boy I've been.
-
No well done David then for uncovering new evidence
What new evidence?
-
What new evidence?
I would think xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx edited
There is so much going on at the moment which only a few people are aware of but I believe David is following Ngb's advice and keeping the fine details confidential
I am sure other people with new evidence would go straight to Ngb for help and advice
There is no better option
Safe hands
-
Can I ask you David, do you believe Bamber is innocent?
From what I have found, at the moment I am fairly confident the man is innocent
However I am open to the possibility the crown may find a credible answer to it but until then we will have to wait and see.
What has changed your mind about Bambers guilt from a year ago?
I have kept going over the evidence and there is a lot of it. So overtime my conclusions have changed
I'm not questioning your word David but ensure you protect yourself and maybe discuss it with your Dad and NGB. The fallout from any publicity isn't nice, especially in relation to cases like this. My advice would be, as I've stated before; do not put your true identity into the public domain and certainly not before your findings have reached any positive conclusion.
Yeah I understand the issues that can arise, However if my findings get a positive conclusion people will be to busy focusing and speculating what will happen next and not really give me much thought anyway
-
What Ive learned by NGB's posts are that he takes peoples comments/opinions/theories as he finds them. He remains opened minded, impartial and assists where he can.
There's a big difference re the above and the sweeping claims made by posters such as Jackiepreece that NGB believes Bamber to be innocent or indeed guilty.
Just to make this crystal clear incase this has not sunk in
There is no way in a million years Ngb would have helped or supported Jeremy over the years if he thought for a second Jeremy killed two young children and one day Jeremy will realise what Ngb has done for him
To think the conviction could be overturned because of genuine supporters and not involving the CT would make my so happy
-
From what I have found, at the moment I am fairly confident the man is innocent
However I am open to the possibility the crown may find a credible answer to it but until then we will have to wait and see.
I have kept going over the evidence and there is a lot of it. So overtime my conclusions have changed
Yeah I understand the issues that can arise, However if my findings get a positive conclusion people will be to busy focusing and speculating what will happen next and not really give me much thought anyway
So you thought he was guilty and now believe him to be innocent, is that what you are saying?
How long have you been looking at the evidence? Since you joined the forum or long before?
I hope your beliefs are all you believe them to be.
-
There is no way in a million years Ngb would have helped or supported Jeremy over the years if he thought for a second Jeremy killed two young children and one day Jeremy will realise what Ngb has done for him
I have not seen anything definitive to suggest NGB believes Bamber to be innocent.
-
What new evidence?
I would think going by your previous posts you would be the last person to learn about new evidence
There is so much going on at the moment which only a few people are aware of but I believe David is following Ngb's advice and keeping the fine details confidential
I am sure other people with new evidence would go straight to Ngb for help and advice
There is no better option
Safe hands
Are you suggesting this because Neil has talked about smoking cannabis in his youth?
There isn't "so much going on at the moment" this is your over the top interpretation by the sounds of it.
David has found something that he believes could help Bamber; NGB has confirmed he has seen these findings and they have not been used before therefore the findings could be seen to be fresh evidence.
-
I would think going by your previous posts you would be the last person to learn about new evidence
There is so much going on at the moment which only a few people are aware of but I believe David is following Ngb's advice and keeping the fine details confidential
I am sure other people with new evidence would go straight to Ngb for help and advice
There is no better option
Safe hands
David is most likely a great bloke. He may well have uncovered something interesting.
Jackie, you seem perfectly happy and content to believe that convincing new evidence exists, without even knowing what it is!
-
I want to make it clear I'm not knocking David's efforts. I know nothing about David or indeed what he has found. I think it's great David appears to have uncovered something new after 30 years but because of my belief that Bamber is a psychopath I have obvious fears.
-
David is most likely a great bloke. He may well have uncovered something interesting.
Agreed Neil!
-
Hello David, may I ask, why have you at this stage, decided to publicly declare that you have potentially found new evidence?
-
I have not seen anything definitive to suggest NGB believes Bamber to be innocent.
Ask him simple, I know the answer
-
What past behaviour ???
Nothing could be worse that handing out fliers accusing innocent men of the murders your hubby committed
What vile despicable disgusting unforgiveable behaviour
Please explain how what I did then is any different to what you are doing now?
You are blaming a young mother, who suffered from mental health, of murdering her twin boys and parents and who doesn't have a voice of her own because her brother murdered her.
-
Are you suggesting this because Neil has talked about smoking cannabis in his youth?
There isn't "so much going on at the moment" this is your over the top interpretation by the sounds of it.
David has found something that he believes could help Bamber; NGB has confirmed he has seen these findings and they have not been used before therefore the findings could be seen to be fresh evidence.
Please supply proof of how you 'know' nothing is going on ?
-
David is most likely a great bloke. He may well have uncovered something interesting.
Jackie, you seem perfectly happy and content to believe that convincing new evidence exists, without even knowing what it is!
I absolutely 100% know what some of the new evidence is and have known for sometime
As I have said before there is a LOT going on at the moment which is highly confidential
-
I absolutely 100% know what some of the new evidence is and have known for sometime
As I have said before there is a LOT going on at the moment which is highly confidential
You and 'highly confidential' do not go hand in hand IMO therefore I do not take much notice of your repeated claims.
-
Please explain how what I did then is any different to what you are doing now?
You are blaming a young mother, who suffered from mental health, of murdering her twin boys and parents and who doesn't have a voice of her own because her brother murdered her.
"I'm not blaming Sheila she was undoubtedly a victim"
Do you have any evidence Jeremy is or was or ever has been a psychopath? ?
?
FACT: June Bamber suffered severe depression requiring hospitalisation and ECT whilst SC was circa 2 yoa.??FACT: How a baby/small child bonds ( known as attachment) with his/her primary caregiver has a profound effect on his/her later mental health/emotional well being.??FACT: There's now much evidence linking poor attachment with psychopathy.??A Google search of 'attachment and psychopathy' returns 119,000 results."
-
Please explain how what I did then is any different to what you are doing now?
You are blaming a young mother, who suffered from mental health, of murdering her twin boys and parents and who doesn't have a voice of her own because her brother murdered her.
All the evidence is now available to prove without a doubt Jeremy is not guilty of murder and will soon be a free man
-
"I'm not blaming Sheila she was undoubtedly a victim"
Do you have any evidence Jeremy is or was or ever has been a psychopath? ?
?
FACT: June Bamber suffered severe depression requiring hospitalisation and ECT whilst SC was circa 2 yoa.??FACT: How a baby/small child bonds ( known as attachment) with his/her primary caregiver has a profound effect on his/her later mental health/emotional well being.??FACT: There's now much evidence linking poor attachment with psychopathy.??A Google search of 'attachment and psychopathy' returns 119,000 results."
Seems you've part answered your own question
-
The above thread is open again.
Please stick to the subject rather than personal attacks and name calling. If it continues I shall lock the thread for the rest of the evening.
-
Why have some of my posts been deleted?
-
"I'm not blaming Sheila she was undoubtedly a victim"
Do you have any evidence Jeremy is or was or ever has been a psychopath? ?
?
FACT: June Bamber suffered severe depression requiring hospitalisation and ECT whilst SC was circa 2 yoa.??FACT: How a baby/small child bonds ( known as attachment) with his/her primary caregiver has a profound effect on his/her later mental health/emotional well being.??FACT: There's now much evidence linking poor attachment with psychopathy.??A Google search of 'attachment and psychopathy' returns 119,000 results."
Are you suggesting SC was a psychopath?
-
Hi David,
You posted the following in response to a post made by Scipio.
"You have put so much emotional investment in your position on this case you will never consider otherwise or any alternative, never consider, contemplate or accept any doubts errors or mistakes you may have made. Your extensive emotional investment combined with your ego will involuntarily impose mental gymnastics on your cognitive though processes where the you will always come to the same conclusion regardless of what is put infront of you. In your mind your version of events seem rational to you because you have a psychological defence mechanism protecting your fragile ego and self-esteem from contemplating you might be wrong."
Out of interest, have you applied this theory to your recent findings?
-
Why have some of my posts been deleted?
I have removed some personal posts from this thread and am afrAid some of yours were included Neil.
-
Hi David,
You posted the following in response to a post made by Scipio.
"You have put so much emotional investment in your position on this case you will never consider otherwise or any alternative, never consider, contemplate or accept any doubts errors or mistakes you may have made. Your extensive emotional investment combined with your ego will involuntarily impose mental gymnastics on your cognitive though processes where the you will always come to the same conclusion regardless of what is put infront of you. In your mind your version of events seem rational to you because you have a psychological defence mechanism protecting your fragile ego and self-esteem from contemplating you might be wrong."
Out of interest, have you applied this theory to your recent findings?
I mentioned yesterday That one of the reasons I decided not go public with the findings is that if it turns out I am wrong I wouldn't want the campaign using it as propaganda. Of course I have considered I could be wrong. NGB can back me up on that one
-
I mentioned yesterday That one of the reasons I decided not go public with the findings is that if it turns out I am wrong I wouldn't want the campaign using it as propaganda. Of course I have considered I could be wrong. NGB can back me up on that one
Thanks for clarifying David.
NGB posted the following:
"The material sent to me by david1819 is in the form of a report, which includes images and diagrams as well as text. It is well written and well presented. It analyses an important part of the evidence in the case, using methods not applied previously. Although he accepts that he is not an expert in the relevant field, he has researched published works by experts in the field, quoting relevant extracts in support of his conclusions. He has also studied relevant photographs and made calculations and measurements using techniques which to me seem appropriate.
david1819's conclusions support the defence case on this issue and specifically counter conclusions reached on this by the Court of Appeal in the 2002 appeal.
I am not an expert in the field involved and clearly for this to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions david1819's report and conclusions would have to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert. However, I can see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached and have given david1819 my view in more detail.
If the report is validated the question is whether it could form the basis for the CCRC to refer the case. For various reasons, hard to explain without giving more information than I am able to here, I believe it does satisfy the requirement that it is new evidence, not available at trial. The key question is whether it is on its own sufficient to enable the convictions to be overturned. I am very cautious about this as I believe the CCRC have now set a very high bar in this case. Certainly this would form a valid ground of appeal, but ideally it should be joined with other grounds. I am no longer in the loop as far as Jeremy Bamber's legal team are concerned, and have not been since Simon McKay ceased acting, but I do know of grounds not included in previous submissions which would have been included had the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the last application. I also understand that other work has been undertaken or is contemplated which may lead to additional grounds, but I have very limited knowledge of this."
-
I mentioned yesterday That one of the reasons I decided not go public with the findings is that if it turns out I am wrong I wouldn't want the campaign using it as propaganda. Of course I have considered I could be wrong. NGB can back me up on that one
And to confirm, did you apply the theory you gave about Scipios posts to your own findings?
-
There is no forensic breakthrough.
David sitting at home on his computer will not uncover anything Bamber's lawyers and expensive experts would not have uncovered in 30 years.
Well as absurd an unbelievable as it sounds that is actually what I have done. However its not so much well done me its more like shame on the authorities for not working it out yet.
NGB can verify this claim
-
I mentioned yesterday That one of the reasons I decided not go public with the findings is that if it turns out I am wrong I wouldn't want the campaign using it as propaganda. Of course I have considered I could be wrong. NGB can back me up on that one
So you're alleged forensic breakthrough could be wrong. But NGB who you went to cap in hand, said it was 'well written'.
Why worry about the CT ? If posters on here shoot down you're theory, then at least you know. And it's unlikely the CT will then use it as properganda.
Neville's alledged call to the police was made before this forum was created. So no one refuted it. Once the claim was made they couldn't back down after forums shot it down. It's now used for properganda.
As I said earlier today, there is nothing stopping you informing a Bamber forum what this alleged forensic breakthrough is. But you know it will carry more weight by not divulging.
-
I have removed some personal posts from this thread and am afrAid some of yours were included Neil.
What about reply #198?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the slightest bit bothered about being insulted by Jackie, or anyone else for that matter, but nothing I said to Jackie was any worse than that.
-
On the contrary, it's only just begun. A new chapter in the Bamber saga is on the Horizon you have my word on that John and I shall not disappoint
I mentioned yesterday That one of the reasons I decided not go public with the findings is that if it turns out I am wrong I wouldn't want the campaign using it as propaganda. Of course I have considered I could be wrong. NGB can back me up on that one
So you do recognise you could be wrong?
-
Well as absurd an unbelievable as it sounds that is actually what I have done. However its not so much well done me its more like shame on the authorities for not working it out yet.
NGB can verify this claim
You appear to have handled this situation perfectly and you have nobody to answer to.
I look forward to hearing more news from you in the future when the timing is right
-
I mentioned yesterday That one of the reasons I decided not go public with the findings is that if it turns out I am wrong I wouldn't want the campaign using it as propaganda. Of course I have considered I could be wrong. NGB can back me up on that one
Hello David, may I ask, why have you at this stage, decided to publicly declare that you have potentially found new evidence?
-
Well as absurd an unbelievable as it sounds that is actually what I have done. However its not so much well done me its more like shame on the authorities for not working it out yet.
In the SH case the prosecution failed to establish the exact motive therefore IMO left themselves wide open. The theory they came up with was that it was a burglary gone wrong but it wasn't... So I know these things happen.
I felt a bit like you as in "shame of the authorities for having not worked it out." Or maybe they did but couldn't secure a conviction with the evidence they had found?
-
Hello David, may I ask, why have you at this stage, decided to publicly declare that you have potentially found new evidence?
David has backed himself into a corner.
He's amazingly turned into a supporter. But knows only xxxx xxx xxx xxxx will support him on here. Mike usually posting on other threads.
His threads do nothing to convince guilters and he either defends 'guilty' threads or doesn't respond if the 'guilty' thread evidence is so overwhelming.
He claimed that he's sent new evidence to Andrew Hunter, which raised zero eyebrows. For some reason he then gave the documents to a fellow supporter on here, who wrote a conservation approval post.
David will now arguing Bamber's innocence on the basis of an undisclosed item he sent to Andrew Hunter. And I thought xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxx.
-
Hello David, may I ask, why have you at this stage, decided to publicly declare that you have potentially found new evidence?
Why not?
-
You appear to have handled this situation perfectly and you have nobody to answer to.
I look forward to hearing more news from you in the future when the timing is right
Jackie, you earlier claimed that there was other evidence, which is even more compelling than David's findings. This obviously implies that you have seen what David has to offer.
Are you or David able to confirm whether this is indeed the case?
-
So you do recognise you could be wrong?
Once more you take my sentences out of context. At one stage I was not certain I was correct. however I am now certain I am correct but I have been told that if I release the information it could harm the legal process. Thus its for Jeremy's legal team to decide when or if its appropriate.
-
Jackie, you earlier claimed that there was other evidence, which is even more compelling than David's findings. This obviously implies that you have seen what David has to offer.
Are you or David able to confirm whether this is indeed the case?
Only person on this forum I have shown is Neil (NGB)
-
What about reply #198?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the slightest bit bothered about being insulted by Jackie, or anyone else for that matter, but nothing I said to Jackie was any worse than that.
I edited the first sentence, nothing else particularly personal in the post. 8)
-
Once more you take my sentences out of context. At one stage I was not certain I was correct. however I am now certain I am correct but I have been told that if I release the information it could harm the legal process. Thus its for Jeremy's legal team to decide when or if its appropriate.
David
quite right it would be totally inappropriate for you to disclose your find it is up to Jeremy's Legal team to decide that.
-
Once more you take my sentences out of context. At one stage I was not certain I was correct. however I am now certain I am correct but I have been told that if I release the information it could harm the legal process. Thus its for Jeremy's legal team to decide when or if its appropriate.
What have I taken out of context?
NGB clearly states that he is not an expert in the field and for your findings to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions they would need to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert.
This hasn't happened yet so you could be wrong. I think you are jumping the gun.
-
Only person on this forum I have shown is Neil (NGB)
Wise move.
-
Why not?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way criticising you for doing so. I am just curious as to why you chose to announce it now, rather than wait until such a time as an expert had had time to assess your findings.
-
At the risk of repeating myself - your approach has been an excellent example to all of us ...
Instead of trying to point score with other members you have in fact been analysing the evidence with a fine tooth comb and an open mind ...
Very well done indeed - i salute you and your approach to this case !
I appreciate your support! :)
-
David
quite right it would be totally inappropriate for you to disclose your find it is up to Jeremy's Legal team to decide that.
But David's findings may turn out to be wrong once looked at by an expert in the field Susan.
-
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way criticising you for doing so. I am just curious as to why you chose to announce it now, rather than wait until such a time as an expert had had time to assess your findings.
I did ask David how he got this unseen forensic evidence. But he did not answer.
There is no reason why he can't disclose the information now on here. Any CCRC hearing is years away.
If he isn't going to disclose it now, there was no point in mentioning it in the first place.
-
I did ask David how he got this unseen forensic evidence. But he did not answer.
There is no reason why he can't disclose the information now on here. Any CCRC hearing is years away.
If he isn't going to disclose it now, there was no point in mentioning it in the first place.
I understand your points Adam and agree with you. But David is obviously excited so we shouldn't knock him for that. I've done it myself and it turned out I was wrong.
-
I edited the first sentence, nothing else particularly personal in the post. 8)
It was the first sentence to which I was referring!
You've only now edited it, since I've drawn your attention to it.
Again, it really doesn't bother me in the slightest, if someone chooses to insult me. In fact, I would rather it wasn't edited.
I would hope for fair and balanced editing though.
-
I did ask David how he got this unseen forensic evidence. But he did not answer.
There is no reason why he can't disclose the information now on here. Any CCRC hearing is years away.
If he isn't going to disclose it now, there was no point in mentioning it in the first place.
That's your opinion Adam but David has every right to disclose it on the forum if he wishes to do so.
I understand David and Ngb agreed to release the information to stimulate debate..... it seems it has worked.
-
I appreciate your support! :)
You have my support too David, only I believe Bamber is guilty. I'm not your enemy. I just don't think you've considered all the other factors at play in this case. Just my opinion of course..
-
That's your opinion Adam but David has every right to disclose it on the forum if he wishes to do so.
I understand David and Ngb agreed to release the information to stimulate debate..... it seems it has worked.
Think that was obvious Maggie ;D
-
That's your opinion Adam but David has every right to disclose it on the forum if he wishes to do so.
I understand David and Ngb agreed to release the information to stimulate debate..... it seems it has worked.
What are we debating?
-
I understand your points Adam and agree with you. But David is obviously excited so we shouldn't knock him for that. I've done it myself and it turned out I was wrong.
All that's happened is a theory has been sent to Andrew Hunter. Who may not be engaging with Bamber anymore. Hunter has not come out to play for years and I understand is ill.
It can be discussed on this board. If Hunter passes it onto Bamber it's up to him if it goes public, or gets included in a future CCRC submission. Or both/neither.
-
All that's happened is a theory has been sent to Andrew Hunter. Who may not be engaging with Bamber anymore. Hunter has not come out to play for years and I understand is ill.
It can be discussed on this board. If Hunter passes it onto Bamber it's up to him if it goes public, or gets included in a future CCRC submission. Or both.
I believe it's to do with David's previous posts, though I can't be bothered to go through them, something to do with the guns maybe?
-
Discussing it on this board will assist Bamber and his team.
It will help Bamber and the CT decide whether to use it at all. Or not.
-
It was the first sentence to which I was referring!
You've only now edited it, since I've drawn your attention to it.
Again, it really doesn't bother me in the slightest, if someone chooses to insult me. In fact, I would rather it wasn't edited.
I would hope for fair and balanced editing though.
Sorry I missed it Neil, it was not intentional and certainly was not due to unfair or unbalanced editing. Of course it was removed when you pointed it out because I had MISSED it!!!!
I don't understand your attitude,
I'm afraid personally insulting posts are usually removed or edited and its not left to the personal choice of either person involved.
-
What are we debating?
Well I don't know but it seems to me people have plenty to say. You're on here for one so I presume you have some interest apart from telling me how to mod the forum.
-
That's your opinion Adam but David has every right to disclose it on the forum if he wishes to do so.
I understand David and Ngb agreed to release the information to stimulate debate..... it seems it has worked.
There is nothing to debate.
David alleges he has made a forensic breakthough. But refuses to say how or what. But got a fellow Bamber supporter to post diplomatic support.
-
Discussing it on this board will assist Bamber and his team.
It will help Bamber and the CT decide whether to use it at all. Or not.
Maybe Adam but David and Ngb have decided not to discuss it on here which is their prerogative.
-
Once more you take my sentences out of context. At one stage I was not certain I was correct. however I am now certain I am correct but I have been told that if I release the information it could harm the legal process. Thus its for Jeremy's legal team to decide when or if its appropriate.
What have I taken out of context?
NGB clearly states that he is not an expert in the field and for your findings to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions they would need to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert.
This hasn't happened yet so you could be wrong. I think you are jumping the gun.
David I take it you know if your findings do turn out to be supported by experts in the field, it could be years before your findings lead anywhere? Do you think you'll be able to keep it quiet for that long? ;D
-
Maybe Adam but David and Ngb have decided not to discuss it on here which is their prerogative.
Seems a very cynical ploy to me. After Trudies vlogs didn't work.
If David had just created a thread regarding the details of what he had sent to Hunter, it would have simply been shot down and dismissed by guilters, and then died a death.
However to be fair, to make a bold claim but refuse to say what it is or how it was found is the sort of thing a Bamber supporter would do.
-
Seems a very cynical ploy to me. After Trudies vlogs didn't work.
If David had just created a thread regarding the details of what he had sent to Hunter, it would have simply been shot down and died a death..
However to make a bold claim but refuse to say what it is or how it was found is the sort of thing a Bamber supporter would do.
Adam ;D
-
There is nothing to debate.
David alleges he has made a forensic breakthough. But refuses to say how or what. But got a fellow Bamber supporter to post diplomatic support.
If you read Neil's post, He believes its enough for a fresh appeal. So that is allot to debate if you ask me. Neil is cautious but I am convinced it will get Jeremy back to the court of appeal.
However I can understand why those who have not seen what I have cannot appreciate it. :-\
-
If you read Neil's post, He believes its enough for a fresh appeal. So that is allot to debate if you ask me. Neil is cautious but I am convinced it will get Jeremy back to the court of appeal.
However I can understand why those who have not seen what I have cannot appreciate it. :-\
No he doesn't state that David I think you've misinterpreted what he has said.
Here it is again:
I am not an expert in the field involved and clearly for this to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions david1819's report and conclusions would have to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert. However, I can see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached and have given david1819 my view in more detail.
-
Seems a very cynical ploy to me. After Trudies vlogs didn't work.
If David had just created a thread regarding the details of what he had sent to Hunter, it would have simply been shot down and dismissed by guilters, and then died a death.
However to be fair, to make a bold claim but refuse to say what it is or how it was found is the sort of thing a Bamber supporter would do.
Don't try and provoke me into releasing it Adam it wont work 8)
-
Well I don't know but it seems to me people have plenty to say. You're on here for one so I presume you have some interest apart from telling me how to mod the forum.
I am interested in finding out what the other 'compelling piece of evidence' is, that Jackie was referring to earlier. My earlier posts regarding this, have been indiscriminently deleted.
I am also keen to find out what motivated David to share this piece of news now.
-
Don't try and provoke me into releasing it Adam it wont work 8)
I wonder if you'll be able to say nothing for the next however many years or whether by the end of this week or next you will succumb to the pressure ;D ;D ;D 8) 8) 8)
I'll be watching you like a hawk David lol :-*
Joking btw...
-
I am interested in finding out what the other 'compelling piece of evidence' is, that Jackie was referring to earlier. My earlier posts regarding this, have been indiscriminently deleted.
I am also keen to find out what motivated David to share this piece of news now.
I only made the discovery three weeks ago. Its not like I have held onto it for ages and said nothing
-
Don't try and provoke me into releasing it Adam it wont work 8)
You, xxxx and xxxxxxx have you're own ways to support Bamber on here.
You've chosen to send something to Hunter and ask another supporter on here to praise it. Which no other poster has ever done.
You will now be supporring Bamber on here using something no one has seen and no one knows how you got it.
-
You, Mike and Lookout have you're own ways to support Bamber on here.
You've chosen to send something to Hunter and ask another supporter on here to praise it. You will now be supporring Bamber on here using something no one has seen and no one knows how you got it.
I'm sure if you go through all of David's posts there will be a clue there somewhere Adam.
-
well we will just have to wait and see then.
-
If you read Neil's post, He believes its enough for a fresh appeal. So that is allot to debate if you ask me. Neil is cautious but I am convinced it will get Jeremy back to the court of appeal.
However I can understand why those who have not seen what I have cannot appreciate it. :-\
All we have to debate, is NGB's flowery assessment of your findings.
The way I interpreted it was;
Looks like a good point, but would require conformation/further work by an expert.
Alone, it would probably not be enough to get the CCRC to have another look at the case.
-
All we have to debate, is NGB's flowery assessment of your findings.
The way I interpreted it was;
Looks like a good point, but would require conformation/further work by an expert.
Alone, it would probably not be enough to get the CCRC to have another look at the case.
Agreed Neil ;D
-
I appreciate your support! :)
I have had it officially confirmed to me by Essex Police (on the record) about 2 months ago that there is a current ongoing investigation into the Jeremy Bamber case ...
Maybe you should consider suggesting to Jeremy's legal team that they might hand over a copy of your report to Essex Police (on a confidential basis) as soon as possible in case it assists them with their current investigation ...
-
Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it
Do you think you may kick yourself in future and think you should have listened to your Dad David? ;D
-
I have had it officially confirmed to me by Essex Police (on the record) about 2 months ago that there is a current ongoing investigation into the Jeremy Bamber case ...
Maybe you should consider suggesting to Jeremy's legal team that they might hand over a copy of your report to Essex Police (on a confidential basis) as soon as possible in case it assists them with their current investigation ...
Utter nonsense!!!
I only posted this the other day http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-35932802
-
I'm sure if you go through all of David's posts there will be a clue there somewhere Adam.
No thanks.
I don't believe it will go an
-
well we will just have to wait and see then.
Don't wait up.
-
I only made the discovery three weeks ago. Its not like I have held onto it for ages and said nothing
Your announcement seems to be premature. It would be different if you were openly debating it here. I totally understand why you're not, but why mention it all?
What did you think would be achieved, by prematurely alluding to these findings?
-
Utter nonsense!!!
I only posted this the other day http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-35932802
Are you accusing me of lying ?
Please say if you are ...
Trust me there is a current ongoing Essex Police investigation into the Jeremy Bamber case ...
My Grandma always used to say to me "don't believe everything you read in the newspapers" ...
As i said in my post Essex Police confirmed to me ON THE RECORD that there is an ongoing current investigation ...
If anyone is really interested then you can always email the officer mentioned in the article and ask him if he really meant to say that the case will not be re opened - or if he has been slightly mis quoted - this is his email address :
[email protected]
So there you have it ...
-
I have had it officially confirmed to me by Essex Police (on the record) about 2 months ago that there is a current ongoing investigation into the Jeremy Bamber case ...
Maybe you should consider suggesting to Jeremy's legal team that they might hand over a copy of your report to Essex Police (on a confidential basis) as soon as possible in case it assists them with their current investigation ...
That's interesting Sherlock. Can you be any more specific? Could it be that rather than looking into the crime itself, their investigations relate to other aspects, for example; a defamation claim?
-
Are you accusing me of lying ?
Please say if you are ...
Trust me there is a current ongoing Essex Police investigation into the Jeremy Bamber case ...
My Grandma always used to say to me "don't believe everything you read in the newspapers" ...
As i said in my post Essex Police confirmed to me ON THE RECORD that there is an ongoing current investigation ...
So there you have it ...
You tell me?!
I've just phoned Essex police and they denied your claims?
-
Your announcement seems to be premature. It would be different if you were openly debating it here. I totally understand why you're not, but why mention it all?
What did you think would be achieved, by prematurely alluding to these findings?
David knows he can't support Bamber by debating the released evidence. And he knows he can't make up new evidence on here. He will just get tarred as being another Mike or Lookout.
So he created a theory and annonced that he's sent it to Hunter. When that had no impact on here, he asked the least busy but most respected supporter on here to write a conservative post prasing his theory.
David will now be posting as a supporter on the grounds of invisible evidence. But still won't give his 'detailed' account of how Sheila committed the massacre.
-
Are you accusing me of lying ?
Please say if you are ...
Trust me there is a current ongoing Essex Police investigation into the Jeremy Bamber case ...
My Grandma always used to say to me "don't believe everything you read in the newspapers" ...
As i said in my post Essex Police confirmed to me ON THE RECORD that there is an ongoing current investigation ...
So there you have it ...
Have you got a source ?
Anyway there will always be an ongoing investigation. Bamber's always going on about it.
-
David knows he can't support Bamber by debating the released evidence. And he knows he can't make up new evidence on here. He will just get tarred as being another Mike or Lookout.
So he created a theory and annonced that he's sent it to Hunter. When that had no impact he asked the least busy but most respected supporter on here to write a conservative post prasing his theory.
David will now be posting as a supporter on the grounds of invisible evidence. But still won't give his 'detailed' account of how Sheila committed the massacre.
NGB is the "most respected supporter on here" for good reason. He would never enter into such a dishonest plot.
I think you're gonna have to face it Adam, David has it seems, at the very least, found a new point worthy of serious debate.
-
David did say he was going to stop posting his findings as authors may steal it for their books.
He then confidently gave an example of CAL stealing his idea of Bamber disabling all phones at WHF. Although Woffinden and me had already discussed this months and years before.
He has also refused to submit his 'detailed' account of how Sheila committed the massacre and refused to say how he has developed this current invisible theory.
So there won't be anything to negate the forensic evidence library.
-
That's interesting Sherlock. Can you be any more specific? Could it be that rather than looking into the crime itself, their investigations relate to other aspects, for example; a defamation claim?
They were very careful with their words ...
All they said is :
"There is a current ongoing investigation into the Jeremy Bamber case" ...
I know nothing other than that ...
There are reasons why they told me this - they didn't do it or say it lightly - i am NOT going to go into those reasons other than to say that they told me on the record ...
Otherwise i would not be repeating what they told me ...
-
i take all cliams of new relvlations with a tiny pinch becouse ive heard to many before.
but i do not belive ngb would give he blessing to a cliam that dident have at least some substance.
-
NGB is the "most respected supporter on here" for good reason. He would never enter into such a dishonest plot.
I think you're gonna have to face it Adam, David has it seems, at the very least, found a new point worthy of serious debate.
Well he wasn't going to ask Lookout to endorse it.
NGB and David woukd have jointly decided to not post the findings for debate on here. It would get ripped apart on here and die within an hour.
Anyone can send anything to Hunter. Saying it's been sent but refusing to say what it is or how it was found, gives it more weight.
-
If you read Neil's post, He believes its enough for a fresh appeal. So that is allot to debate if you ask me. Neil is cautious but I am convinced it will get Jeremy back to the court of appeal.
However I can understand why those who have not seen what I have cannot appreciate it. :-\
Yeah I kinda get all of that, people certainly can't comment on something that they haven't seen, well at least not with any authority.
NGB's view on something is perhaps of interest but hardly anything more, he doesn't have a good track record in this case of his belief of 'grounds for appeal' coming to fruition.
The 2012 submission was a strong case, compelling, almost a dead cert. In fact it wasn't going to go to another appeal, the charges were simply going to be dismissed. The CCRC decided otherwise and NGB then declared that the tests were incomplete. Clearly it was the CCRC's fault for dictating a deadline.
I don't actually believe NGB thinks Jeremy is innocent but rather he thinks there is a legal argument against his convictions.
I'm certainly not calling NGB out in any way or asking him to explain his position, nor indeed do I have any intention of being derisive towards him and I hope this isn't taken as such. We all have our opinions, I'm sure he'd be the first to agree. :-\
Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.
I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?
I believe that this will all amount to nothing, time will tell, but how long do we give it.
Can somebody remind me in a years time and we'll reassess.
-
Have you got a source ?
Anyway there will always be an ongoing investigation. Bamber's always going on about it.
Try the Press Office ...
If they will talk to you that is ...
-
One thing David can disclose is how he got this theory.
Was he given priviledged information which no one has seen ? Or spoke to people who have never spoken before.
Or has he looked at evidence we've all seen and believes he's noticed something no one else has in 30 years.
I have asked him twice today, but similar to creating his 2016 'detailed' account of how Sheila did it, he's refusing to budge.
-
Yeah I kinda get all of that, people certainly can't comment on something that they haven't seen, well at least not with any authority.
NGB's view on something is perhaps of interest but hardly anything more, he doesn't have a good track record in this case of his belief of 'grounds for appeal' coming to fruition.
The 2012 submission was a strong case, compelling, almost a dead cert. In fact it wasn't going to go to another appeal, the charges were simply going to be dismissed. The CCRC decided otherwise and NGB then declared that the tests were incomplete. Clearly it was the CCRC's fault for dictating a deadline.
I don't actually believe NGB thinks Jeremy is innocent but rather he thinks there is a legal argument against his convictions.
I'm certainly not calling NGB out in any way or asking him to explain his position, nor indeed do I have any intention of being derisive towards him and I hope this isn't taken as such. We all have our opinions, I'm sure he'd be the first to agree. :-\
Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.
I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?
I believe that this will all amount to nothing, time will tell, but how long do we give it.
Can somebody remind me in a years time and we'll reassess.
That's the conclusion I've reached, having invited David to explain his actions on more than one occasion.
-
Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.
I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?
Honesty Hartley I was told by AH not to disclose what I had found for several reasons, Him being the older and wiser and directly involved with the case I took his advice.
I don't have a reputation for being delusional or making false promises, so I am not impressed by your comments Hartley. You could at leased save the criticism till after you have seen what I have.
-
I am interested in finding out what the other 'compelling piece of evidence' is, that Jackie was referring to earlier. My earlier posts regarding this, have been indiscriminently deleted.
I am also keen to find out what motivated David to share this piece of news now.
The posts were not 'indescriminately' deleted I considered each post on its merits from a neutral position as I always do.
-
Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.
I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?
I believe that this will all amount to nothing, time will tell, but how long do we give it.
Can somebody remind me in a years time and we'll reassess.
I deal with a lot of lawyers and it sounds like very standard practice to me ...
If you read the thread carefully you will see David has already fully explained the circumstances of him breaking this news and then being rightly advised to hold back on the detail ...
Do try to pay attention in class Hartley ;)
-
Honesty Hartley I was told by AH not to disclose what I had found for several reasons, Him being the older and wiser and directly involved with the case I took his advice.
I don't have a reputation for being delusional or making false promises, so I am not impressed by your comments Hartley. You could at leased save the criticism till after you have seen what I have.
Are your findings in relation to your belief of the gun shot residue on SC hands being flawed? Or did you move on from that to something else?
-
Your first post on this forum was to Mike and read:
Why are you even allowed to post on this forum? You seem to have more fictional stories than Walt Disney!
Then today you have said:
Indeed, and all those who have been criticizing your efforts Mike wont have the final laugh. :)
Surely you can see why we are sceptical with regards your claims David? And why some posters are critical of yours claims? You haven't been very consistent.
Not long ago you made a particularly insulting comment towards NGB with regards his beliefs but today you are supporting them because you believe they bolster your argument.
-
Your first post on this forum was to Mike and read:
Then today you have said:
Surely you can see why we are sceptical with regards your claims David? And why some posters are critical of yours claims? You haven't been very consistent.
Your selective reading fails completely once more. I said those criticizing mikes efforts NOT those criticizing his stories
Mike has made allot of effort on this forum. but criticism of his stories is perfectly valid, if he can show me a photo of Shelia on the Bed and prove Jeremy has a daughter than I will take my accept the Disney comparison was wrong, but until then it stands
-
So is it the gunshot residue on the hands theory? Or am I wrong?
-
Hello all
I'm very sceptical of the safety of Bambers conviction. I believe only he knows what happened that early morning.
Due to the serious nature of what he has been convicted of The crown will not risk releasing him.
I do however agree with your above post David and don't think anyone can argue with your comment - 'only he knows what happened'
-
Seems a very cynical ploy to me. After Trudies vlogs didn't work.
If David had just created a thread regarding the details of what he had sent to Hunter, it would have simply been shot down and dismissed by guilters, and then died a death.
However to be fair, to make a bold claim but refuse to say what it is or how it was found is the sort of thing a Bamber supporter would do.
I sense a whiff of sour grapes in some posts.
As far as I can see, David has found something which caught his attention. On further investigation it turned out to be something of interest which may go towards proving or casting doubt on JB's innocence/guilt or may not .
Sensibly he consulted with ngb to confirm he has something of value which needs to be looked at.
I cannot understand what the problem is, was he supposed to ignore what he found because it may not agree with his or others point of view?
I say good for David, surely all avenues should be explored, accepted or dismissed.
-
Maggie
I posted yesterdayabout Adam he has to be sarcastic all the time instead of being gracious and giving David a chance and waiting to see what this evidence is. He seems to be annoyed that he has nothing to post different :))
-
Maggie
I posted yesterdayabout Adam he has to be sarcastic all the time instead of being gracious and giving David a chance and waiting to see what this evidence is. He seems to be annoyed that he has nothing to post different :))
I am surprised at some people's attitude, this is a debating forum, surely we should be objective in our thoughts about this case. Some seem to take David's discovery personally.
I do understand to the family and friends of the victims, it will always be personal which is why the legal system exists.
-
I am surprised at some people's attitude, this is a debating forum, surely we should be objective in our thoughts about this case. Some seem to take David's discovery personally.
I do understand to the family and friends of the victims, it is very personal.
Maggie I agree lets not knock David as being an attention seeker lets wait and see what he has found after reading NGB's post again I would be inclined to think David's find has some credibility. We shall see.
-
I sense a whiff of sour grapes in some posts.
As far as I can see, David has found something which caught his attention. On further investigation it turned out to be something of interest which may go towards proving or casting doubt on JB's innocence/guilt or may not .
Sensibly he consulted with ngb to confirm he has something of value which needs to be looked at.
I cannot understand what the problem is, was he supposed to ignore what he found because it may not agree with his or others point of view?
I say good for David, surely all avenues should be explored, accepted or dismissed.
Maggie
I posted yesterdayabout Adam he has to be sarcastic all the time instead of being gracious and giving David a chance and waiting to see what this evidence is. He seems to be annoyed that he has nothing to post different :))
I am surprised at some people's attitude, surely we should be objective in our thoughts about this case. Some seem to take it as a personal insult.
I'm unsure why Adam is being singled out?
David's claims, although supported by NGB to a degree, are not claims of innocence nor are they yet to be put to the test by experts in the field.
The CCRC made it clear that they would not be entertaining future submissions from Bamber or as NGB states; they have set the bar high. I believe they may know more than we do.
http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/ccrc-statement-on-the-provisonal-decision-in-the-case-of-jeremy-bamber/
We should indeed by objective in our thoughts about the case and rightly so IMO that many do not believe David has looked at the bigger picture.
-
Maggie I agree lets not knock David as being an attention seeker lets wait and see what he has found after reading NGB's post again I would be inclined to think David's find has some credibility. We shall see.
I do not believe posters are knocking David when they suggest he may be an attention seeker. Let's face it, he won't be the first to have made claims he had found something to clear Bambers name. I cannot see what the problem is if posters think this. That is their right surely? Especially those posters who have a lot of knowledge in relation to the case.
I don't agree with you Susan. I'm not a lawyer but I do have experience and know the lengths some appellants will go to con people.
-
Jeremy does not know what happened that night inside the farmhouse, he only knows that his dad called him, and had time to inform him, then the line went dead. He knows that at the time of this call, that his father was still alive. He knows because he has no reason to disbelieve what his dad said to him, that somewhere in the farmhouse, Sheila had gone berserk with a gun. He did not know if by that stage his sister had shot anybody. He was asked to come to the farm quickly, but chose not too. If Jeremy had made the story up about the phone call, why would he introduce that line, ' come, quickly', and then deliberately choose not to attend immediately? Instead, he tried to phone his dad back, but got the engaged tone. He tried again, and again, but still kept getting the engaged tone. So, because Jeremy knew that his dad was the Chairman of the With am Magistrates Bench, Jeremy tried to phone With am police station, but got no response. He then called his girlfriend Julie Mugford, to tell her that there was something wrong at the farm. Then he looked up the telephone number for Chelmsford police station, and called them, and repeated to them what his dad had told him. There was some sort of a delay which gave the impression that the police at Chelmsford already knew that something was amiss at the farmhouse. Unbeknown to Jeremy his dad had already telephoned the police at 3.26am, to tell them that ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', etc. This had the further effect (unbeknown to Jeremy at that stage) of the occupants of CA07 being despatched to the scene before Jeremy had made his own call to the police at 3.36am. At the end of Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station, which ended at 3.45am, or there about, the police told Jeremy to make his way to the farmhouse. Jeremy enquired of PC West whether or not the police would pick him up from his cottage and take him to the farmhouse, but he was told to make his own way there in his own car, because police had already been dispatched to the incident and were effectively minutes away from arriving there. Rather reluctantly, Jeremy was forced to attend the scene by his own motion. He left his cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, Tollershunt D'Arcy, at just after 3.45am and arrived at the scene at 3.52am. On the route to the farmhouse a police car with flashing blue lights overtook him on the way to the farmhouse. These were the occupants of CA07 who had been despatched 10 minutes or slightly more, earlier. The police inside this patrol car arrived in pages lane at around 3.48am, it had taken them 13 minutes to get from With am police station, to the farmhouse. In comparison, it had taken Jeremy around 7 minutes to get from his cottage in Head Street, Goldhanger, to the farmhouse. One thing of note, which needs to be mentioned, and that is before police told Jeremy to make his own way to the farmhouse, they advised Jeremy not to approach the farmhouse alone, should he arrive there ahead of the police, but to wait nearby until police get there...
None of these vital details were recorded in Jeremy's 3.36am call log...
-
I'm unsure why Adam is being singled out?
David's claims, although supported by NGB to a degree, are not claims of innocence nor are they yet to be put to the test by experts in the field.
The CCRC made it clear that they would not be entertaining future submissions from Bamber or as NGB states; they have set the bar high. I believe they may know more than we do.
We should indeed by objective in our thoughts about the case and rightly so IMO, many do not believe David has looked at the bigger picture.
I am not aware I have singled Adam out by name I used his quote because I felt it was a good example.
If Susan has singled out Adam it is her prerogative on this occasion.
Adam is well known for singling posters out in his posts on the forum, he is far from a victim.
Many can believe what they like but it is my opinion that 'many' have no idea what size picture David has or hasn't looked at.
While it is fair enough to voice concern Imo some are overreacting but that is just my opinion.
I am well aware of the CCRC's position on this case and have no fixed thoughts either way. It is highly likely they do know far more than we know.
-
I do understand to the family and friends of the victims, it will always be personal which is why the legal system exists.
And as it stands today the legal process is that Bambers conviction stands. There have only been claims made in relation to future submissions, that's not the same as the CCRC saying they are once again looking into the case.
I cannot speak for the victims family members but can speak from my own experiences and how claims of innocence made by the guilty damages not only genuine cases but the legal system as a whole and all those who represent it.
-
Jeremy does not know what happened that night inside the farmhouse, he only knows that his dad called him, and had time to inform him, then the line went dead. He knows that at the time of this call, that his father was still alive. He knows because he has no reason to disbelieve what his dad said to him, that somewhere in the farmhouse, Sheila had gone berserk with a gun. He did not know if by that stage his sister had shot anybody. He was asked to come to the farm quickly, but chose not too. If Jeremy had made the story up about the phone call, why would he introduce that line, ' come, quickly', and then deliberately choose not to attend immediately? Instead, he tried to phone his dad back, but got the engaged tone. He tried again, and again, but still kept getting the engaged tone. So, because Jeremy knew that his dad was the Chairman of the With am Magistrates Bench, Jeremy tried to phone With am police station, but got no response. He then called his girlfriend Julie Mugford, to tell her that there was something wrong at the farm. Then he looked up the telephone number for Chelmsford police station, and called them, and repeated to them what his dad had told him. There was some sort of a delay which gave the impression that the police at Chelmsford already knew that something was amiss at the farmhouse. Unbeknown to Jeremy his dad had already telephoned the police at 3.26am, to tell them that ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', etc. This had the further effect (unbeknown to Jeremy at that stage) of the occupants of CA07 being despatched to the scene before Jeremy had made his own call to the police at 3.36am. At the end of Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station, which ended at 3.45am, or there about, the police told Jeremy to make his way to the farmhouse. Jeremy enquired of PC West whether or not the police would pick him up from his cottage and take him to the farmhouse, but he was told to make his own way there in his own car, because police had already been dispatched to the incident and were effectively minutes away from arriving there. Rather reluctantly, Jeremy was forced to attend the scene by his own motion. He left his cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, Tollershunt D'Arcy, at just after 3.45am and arrived at the scene at 3.52am. On the route to the farmhouse a police car with flashing blue lights overtook him on the way to the farmhouse. These were the occupants of CA07 who had been despatched 10 minutes or slightly more, earlier. The police inside this patrol car arrived in pages lane at around 3.48am, it had taken them 13 minutes to get from With am police station, to the farmhouse. In comparison, it had taken Jeremy around 7 minutes to get from his cottage in Head Street, Goldhanger, to the farmhouse. One thing of note, which needs to be mentioned, and that is before police told Jeremy to make his own way to the farmhouse, they advised Jeremy not to approach the farmhouse alone, should he arrive there ahead of the police, but to wait nearby until police get there...
None of these vital details were recorded in Jeremy's 3.36am call log...
This is merely your opinion Mike.
-
I am well aware of the CCRC's position on this case and have no fixed thoughts either way. It is highly likely they do know far more than we know.
Putting aside what the CCRC may or may not know and indeed presuming they know nothing more than many of us.
Many of us have formed an opinion regarding this case and have stuck by our findings. Then David comes along making claims he's got something big.
Neil is cautious but I am convinced it will get Jeremy back to the court of appeal.
However I can understand why those who have not seen what I have cannot appreciate it. :-\
Should debate of guilt seize because of David's claims?
David chose to make his claims public, therefore David should IMO have the courage of his convictions.
David chose to ignore many questions posed to him and indeed David seemed concerned when he was criticised? Does this suggest David's belief in his claims aren't very strong?
-
Yeah I kinda get all of that, people certainly can't comment on something that they haven't seen, well at least not with any authority.
NGB's view on something is perhaps of interest but hardly anything more, he doesn't have a good track record in this case of his belief of 'grounds for appeal' coming to fruition.
The 2012 submission was a strong case, compelling, almost a dead cert. In fact it wasn't going to go to another appeal, the charges were simply going to be dismissed. The CCRC decided otherwise and NGB then declared that the tests were incomplete. Clearly it was the CCRC's fault for dictating a deadline.
I don't actually believe NGB thinks Jeremy is innocent but rather he thinks there is a legal argument against his convictions.
I'm certainly not calling NGB out in any way or asking him to explain his position, nor indeed do I have any intention of being derisive towards him and I hope this isn't taken as such. We all have our opinions, I'm sure he'd be the first to agree. :-\
Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.
I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?
I believe that this will all amount to nothing, time will tell, but how long do we give it.
Can somebody remind me in a years time and we'll reassess.
I am sure I never said the words highlighted in blue Hartley. I agree that I believed that the submissions made by Simon McKay had a good chance of success but the CCRC decided otherwise. I am generally cautious in my predictions, particularly in this case.
-
This is merely your opinion Mike.
No, its not, this is what Jeremy's evidence was, and is...
-
Putting aside what the CCRC may or may not know and indeed presuming they know nothing more than many of us.
Many of us have formed an opinion regarding this case and have stuck by our findings. Then David comes along making claims he's got something big.
Should debate of guilt seize because of David's claims?
David chose to make his claims public, therefore David should IMO have the courage of his convictions.
David chose to ignore many questions posed to him and indeed David seemed concerned when he was criticised? Does this suggest David's belief in his claims aren't very strong?
No reason at all for debate of guilt to cease, I am not aware I have suggested any such thing.
I just find some people's reactions to David's disclosure surprising but that's just my opinion. Maybe I'm not as involved with the case as some, it's an interesting development although at the moment it hasn't developed very far. I am sure we will hear more information some time in the future.
Got loads to do, back later
-
What a horrible nasty thread and to think that those who see JB guilty not long ago said that the likes of myself would be hopping mad and still looking towards innocence if/when found guilty again.
Well the opposite has happened in that because there's a chance of JB's appeal happening,it's those who say guilty are the ones who are kicking off !! WHY ??
-
No reason at all for debate of guilt to cease, I am not aware I have suggested any such thing.
lol I realised after I posted I'd made an error. Thanks for pointing it out Maggie ;D ;D
-
I am not aware I have suggested any such thing.
I just find some people's reactions to David's disclosure surprising but that's just my opinion. Maybe I'm not as involved with the case as some, it's an interesting development although at the moment it hasn't developed very far. I am sure we will hear more information some time in the future.
Got loads to do, back later
My post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular Maggie; it was meant in general terms.
I can't speak for other posters but from my point of view David is helping someone who I believe to be guilty.
-
What a horrible nasty thread and to think that those who see JB guilty not long ago said that the likes of myself would be hopping mad and still looking towards innocence if/when found guilty again.
Well the opposite has happened in that because there's a chance of JB's appeal happening,it's those who say guilty are the ones who are kicking off !! WHY ??
You are getting ahead of yourself Lookout. In order for Bamber to get an appeal, he'll need to have grounds of appeal. This thread suggests there has been a forensic breakthrough. Many of us have dismissed this. What's horrible and nasty about that?
-
Honesty Hartley I was told by AH not to disclose what I had found for several reasons, Him being the older and wiser and directly involved with the case I took his advice.
I don't have a reputation for being delusional or making false promises, so I am not impressed by your comments Hartley. You could at leased save the criticism till after you have seen what I have.
I think you have missed the point.
I am not criticising your findings, in fact my very first sentence in the post that you quoted states that:
"... people certainly can't comment on something that they haven't seen, well at least not with any authority"
My belief that your "new" evidence will amount to nothing is based on the numerous claims that have gone before.
I have not labelled you delusional, I have stated that:
I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me
As an attempt to further clarify something which already appears to be quite clear. I am saying that I do not believe that the Crowns ability to respond to allegations would be enhanced or hindered by the release or non-release of your theories. The very idea seems ridiculous to me and I personally find it quite delusional and overly dramatic, to use that as a reason for keeping things on the QT.
Having said that, I have no problem with keeping it to yourself and have previously stated that I think it's "fair enough" to do so.
I have not called you delusional or indeed suggested that you have a reputation for being delusional and making false promises.
I have stated that:
It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?
It is just my personal view but there are a number of other members who appear to agree. You do appear to be attention seeking and trying to obtain recognition.
It's not that long ago when you decided that you had single handedly come up with the suggestion that a phone off the hook would disable other handsets on the same line, even claiming that your idea had been stolen and included in a published book. Obviously that wasn't the case at all and came across as if you were craving to be seen as important.
You also appear to be boasting about your allegedly "new" information, whilst keeping it under wraps, and then complain about being criticised saying that I should "at leased least save the criticism till after you have seen what I have".
As already mentioned, my scepticism regarding your "new" claims comes from the countless utterly baseless claims that have gone before. I have however said that we will have to wait and see.
I am not criticising your claims, but your behaviour, boasting and apparent smugness, which all comes across as a bit cringeworthy and has led to other members using your claims as an opportunity to attack others.
You may have sought advice from Andrew Hunter, citing him as being older and wiser. Whilst he is certainly older, being 73 years old and having survived a major stroke in May 2014. I do however question his wisdom, to use your favourite accusation of being delusional, this is the man who in 2005 stood up in Parliament and preached that:
First, at 5.25 am, officers in police car call sign Charlie-Alpha 7—the same officers who had met Bamber at White House farm and spent much of the time with him—relayed a message from the tactical firearms team to incident headquarters. The firearms team was in conversation with a person inside the farm. If the police were in conversation with somebody inside the farm at 5.25 am, the case against Bamber collapses. He could not have murdered everybody in the farmhouse before 3 am if at 5.25 am the police were talking to one of his supposed victims. If, on the other hand, the police were in conversation with a third party inside the farmhouse, the judge's ruling that either Jeremy or Sheila and nobody else could have committed the crimes is blatantly wrong.
An apparent cut 'n' paste from the campaign team website of the time? Or maybe the chicken came first, unless it was the egg? :-\
Also next time you are speaking with him, you can also let him know that I/R stands for 'Information Room'.
.......records a message from a Detective Inspector "IR"—we know only his initials—which. said:
"Police entered premises. One male dead, one female dead".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7579.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7579.0.html)
Obviously I don't see his endorsement of your "new" evidence as being particularly impressive.
Whilst you say:
I am not impressed by your comments Hartley
I say that I am not impressed by your interpretation of my comments, say's I.
On a final note, and again as already mentioned, we will wait and see, but to the disappointment of some I am sure, I won't be holding my breath. :)
-
I am sure I never said the words highlighted in blue Hartley. I agree that I believed that the submissions made by Simon McKay had a good chance of success but the CCRC decided otherwise. I am generally cautious in my predictions, particularly in this case.
I might have embellished it a little. ;D
-
My post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular Maggie; it was meant in general terms.
I can't speak for other posters but from my point of view David is helping someone who I believe to be guilty.
I understand but my argument/opinion is that you or I or anyone else may believe he's guilty but that doesn't make him guilty. In the eyes of the law he is most definitely guilty but In spite of all this imo any evidence which turns up should be considered objectively and either accepted for further investigation or dismissed.
-
I understand but my argument/opinion is that you or I or anyone else may believe he's guilty but that doesn't make him guilty. In the eyes of the law he is most definitely guilty but In spite of all this imo any evidence which turns up should be considered objectively and either accepted for further investigation or dismissed.
If it doesn't make him guilty what does it make him? I'm confused?
I get that he's had opportunity to appeal but there are numerous cases cited where the guilty have had their convictions over turned. It most certainly doesn't make him innocent. From my point of view I believe he manipulates both people and the criminal justice system.
-
If it doesn't make him guilty what does it make him? I'm confused?
I get that he's had opportunity to appeal but there are numerous cases cited where the guilty have had their convictions over turned. It most certainly doesn't make him innocent. From my point of view I believe he manipulates both people and the criminal justice system.
I doubt you are confused.I am not saying he's innocent, thought that was clear enough.I agree he may be a manipulator and I don't agree with guilty people going free on a technicality but that is the way the law works at the moment and it shouldn't stop any evidence from being scrutinised imo.
It's a pointless argument anyway,as it's simply supposition at this point, I'm done with it. I agree to disagree with those who disagree with me. :)
-
I doubt you are confused.I am not saying he's innocent, thought that was clear enough. It's a pointless argument anyway, I'm done with it. I agree to disagree with those who disagree with me. :)
I don't agree that you agree to disagree, in fact I disagree with it.
Do you not agree? ;D :-[ :-X
-
I don't agree that you agree to disagree, in fact I disagree with it.
Do you not agree? ;D :-[ :-X
I most certainly do Hartley :)) :)) 8)
-
lol I realised after I posted I'd made an error. Thanks for pointing it out Maggie ;D ;D
Just seen this, sorry Steph, I wasn't pointing your typo out, we all do them, I was agreeing with your comment that David's breakthrough claim shouldn't stifle debate on JBs guilt or innocence. :-\
-
What a horrible nasty thread and to think that those who see JB guilty not long ago said that the likes of myself would be hopping mad and still looking towards innocence if/when found guilty again.
Well the opposite has happened in that because there's a chance of JB's appeal happening,it's those who say guilty are the ones who are kicking off !! WHY ??
Dont get this, what a nasty horrible thread, who started the thread?
I don't think people are nasty just weary, how many times have we been here before, I really hope David has something but he has to understand we have been lead up the garden path loads of times. There is no one on here more equipped than Stephanie who knows how the CCRC, campaigners and prisoners work, how ones hopes and beliefs are built up only to be knocked back again. I have someone in prison who I put a lot of trust and belief in only to find out he has lied and lied. Saying you know something and not telling might have the opposite effect of what was originally intended, where do we go from here, what do we talk about, how can we talk about something we don't know about?
-
Dont get this, what a nasty horrible thread, who started the thread?
I don't think people are nasty just weary, how many times have we been here before, I really hope David has something but he has to understand we have been lead up the garden path loads of times. There is no one on here more equipped than Stephanie who knows how the CCRC, campaigners and prisoners work, how ones hopes and beliefs are built up only to be knocked back again. I have someone in prison who I put a lot of trust and belief in only to find out he has lied and lied. Saying you know something and not telling might have the opposite effect of what was originally intended, where do we go from here, what do we talk about, how can we talk about something we don't know about?
Imo, think all that can be said has been said for now at least, Justice. :-\
As for it being a 'nasty horrible thread' it has been a pain in the butt as far as moderating goes ;D apart from that I am not sure.. :'(
-
Imo, think all that can be said has been said for now at least, Justice. :-\
As for it being a 'nasty horrible thread' it has been a pain in the but as far as moderating goes ;D apart from that I am not sure. :'(
Maggie I agree it is old ground we are gong over all the time. Think it was a good idea for David to tell us about his find it has woken up my brain as to what it could be and it is exciting but I worry that it is not used properly and will vanish into thin air hope he has a good Legal Team to deal with it.
-
Ha ha hi Susan, Mat has a good sense of humour like me. Must catch up sometime, have you got half a day spare lol. Don't like secerets though Susie like David keeps ha ha
I do think David is doing the right thing by not putting the information out there in the public domain, I agree entirely with that, I don't think Andrew Hunter would have been my choice of go-between though, But I bet he regrets putting this topic up stating that he has found something.
-
More tears :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Maggie must say I do agree don't post for an hour I am off walking hahahahaha
-
I do think David is doing the right thing by not putting the information out there in the public domain, I agree entirely with that, I don't think Andrew Hunter would have been my choice of go-between though, But I bet he regrets putting this topic up stating that he has found something.
I think he just cannot wait to tell people and it got the better of him. Good bloke though and credit for finding something if he has? I would have gone to NGB first like he did then put it to me and you lol
-
Maggie must say I do agree don't post for an hour I am off walking hahahahaha
;D ;D ;D ;D :-X
-
I admire David for the work,time and thought that he has put into this latest " find " and I sincerely hope that it's the breakthrough that is so needed after all this time.
I doubt David cares who the " accused " is as his aim is to see fair play within the justice system so he's not emotionally attached in any way. It could happen to anyone ! Well done to him.
-
It is just my personal view but there are a number of other members who appear to agree. You do appear to be attention seeking and trying to obtain recognition.
I am on a forum that has a handful of regular members and few guests visit not only that I also conceal my identity thus attention and recognition is not my agenda.
There is a place for those desperate for attention and recognition its called the X Factor ;D
You may have sought advice from Andrew Hunter, citing him as being older and wiser. Whilst he is certainly older, being 73 years old and having survived a major stroke in May 2014. I do however question his wisdom, to use your favourite accusation of being delusional, this is the man who in 2005 stood up in Parliament and preached that:
An apparent cut 'n' paste from the campaign team website of the time? Or maybe the chicken came first, unless it was the egg? :-\
Your saying Andrew gave me bad advice but I cant tell of your being honest or trying to get me to release the info. ;)
On a final note, and again as already mentioned, we will wait and see, but to the disappointment of some I am sure, I won't be holding my breath. :)
I understand why you wont be holding your breath. However I am not the CT or Mike so give me a chance. If this amounts to nothing and then I make a second bold claim you will have every reason to ridicule and criticize me but until then this is a first.
-
I mentioned yesterday That one of the reasons I decided not go public with the findings is that if it turns out I am wrong I wouldn't want the campaign using it as propaganda. Of course I have considered I could be wrong. NGB can back me up on that one
What exactly are you trying to say David? That Jeremy Bamber didn't shoot his family but had someone else do it for him?
-
Ha ha hi Susan, Mat has a good sense of humour like me. Must catch up sometime, have you got half a day spare lol. Don't like secerets though Susie like David keeps ha ha
Hi Justice
I love a sense of humour. Have missed our chats will pm you before this day is out :)) I hate secrets but can't wait to be told what David has uncovered :))
-
I admire David for the work,time and thought that he has put into this latest " find " and I sincerely hope that it's the breakthrough that is so needed after all this time.
I doubt David cares who the " accused " is as his aim is to see fair play within the justice system so he's not emotionally attached in any way. It could happen to anyone ! Well done to him.
3 weeks is hardly a long time IMO. NGB has already given an indication that it is his belief, on its own it won't be enough. My opinion is it won't see the light of day.
Who said anything about a third party or are you speculating? And of course he's emotionally attached; his previous posts support this.
What could happen to anyone? A miracle ;D
-
I didn't mention a third party !
-
I didn't mention a third party !
My mistake I misread your post.
-
Well the opposite has happened in that because there's a chance of JB's appeal happening,it's those who say guilty are the ones who are kicking off !! WHY ??
Because guilty men lie over and over and over again.
-
What a horrible nasty thread and to think that those who see JB guilty not long ago said that the likes of myself would be hopping mad and still looking towards innocence if/when found guilty again.
Well the opposite has happened in that because there's a chance of JB's appeal happening,it's those who say guilty are the ones who are kicking off !! WHY ??
As it stands, it's all a lot of fuss about, quite literally, nothing!
-
Jeremy Bamber tweeted: The #JeremyBamber Case: Appeal for New Information... Please RT @jbcampaignltd @FreeBamberNow @JBamberFacebook
Now's your chance David, Jeremy's appealing for new information
-
As it stands, it's all a lot of fuss about, quite literally, nothing!
I would be interested to hear how David is approaching this, unless he's answered it and I've missed it!?
Does he think Bamber is;
Innocent
Guilty
and/or
looking at a technicality in law as opposed to either of the above?
-
I would be interested to hear how David is approaching this, unless he's answered it and I've missed it!?
Does he think Bamber is;
Innocent
Guilty
and/or
looking at a technicality in law as opposed to either of the above?
Again David has been inconsistent (this was in response to Scipio);
The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.
I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.
I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.
Are you attempting to impress the two lawyers you've referred to David?
There are often cracks and holes in prosecution cases btw David. You'll find this a common denominator in many cases; especially where the convicted is maintaining innocence. It goes with the territory.
You also appear to be familiar with psychological projection and confirmation bias David, I therefore ask again have you applied this to your own theories and indeed reasonings for doing what you are doing?
-
I admire David for the work,time and thought that he has put into this latest " find " and I sincerely hope that it's the breakthrough that is so needed after all this time.
I doubt David cares who the " accused " is as his aim is to see fair play within the justice system so he's not emotionally attached in any way. It could happen to anyone ! Well done to him.
Excellent post Lookout, I totally agree
-
Jeremy Bamber tweeted: The #JeremyBamber Case: Appeal for New Information... Please RT @jbcampaignltd @FreeBamberNow @JBamberFacebook
Now's your chance David, Jeremy's appealing for new information
Funny ::) ::) ::)
Not a chance
-
As it stands, it's all a lot of fuss about, quite literally, nothing!
I am happy with you thinking that
-
I would be interested to hear how David is approaching this, unless he's answered it and I've missed it!?
Does he think Bamber is;
Innocent
Guilty
and/or
looking at a technicality in law as opposed to either of the above?
But would he be interested in engaging with you
-
My relationship/friendship with Jeremy has no bearing on how strongly I feel that the conviction is unsafe
Name one single factor which points to his innocence?
-
I don't know why David bothered to announce what he did if he isn't prepoared to open it up to debate.
-
Name one single factor which points to his innocence?
That's obviously confidential
-
Good evening Jackie, before we were rudely interrupted last night, we were having a chat about the evidence that you have seen, that in your words, 'is even more compelling than David's'.
Can we tease out of you, any hint of what that evidence may relate to?
Your comment obviously suggests that you have seen David's findings. Can you confirm this?
-
That's obviously confidential
Any factor unrelated to David's latest claim.
-
Good evening Jackie, before we were rudely interrupted last night, we were having a chat about the evidence that you have seen, that in your words, 'is even more compelling than David's'.
Can we tease out of you, any hint of what that evidence may relate to?
Your comment obviously suggests that you have seen David's findings. Can you confirm this?
I have not seen David's findings and I have not asked to see them. I respect David and the way he has handled the situation
Ngb has full details of the other 'findings' and has given me his opinion on the importance of this further evidence
This is highly confidential because of the person involved
But I am astonished that 2 very important pieces of evidence are available around the same time
-
I have not seen David's findings and I have not asked to see them. I respect David and the way he has handled the situation
Ngb has full details of the other 'findings' and has given me his opinion on the importance of this further evidence
This is highly confidential because of the person involved
But I am astonished that 2 very important pieces of evidence are available around the same time
Thanks Jackie. That's very interesting.
I wonder if the two pieces of evidence are related in any way.
Sherlock also mentioned last night, that Essex Police have confirmed to him that they are currently investigating the Jeremy Bamber case.
It gets more and more mysterious.
-
Well said Maggie and well spotted. You have a thankless job Maggie and it was all going so nice.
I don't even get paid Justice :'( :'( :'( :'( crying again, you see ;D ;D
-
Thanks Jackie. That's very interesting.
I wonder if the two pieces of evidence are related in any way.
Sherlock also mentioned last night, that Essex Police have confirmed to him that they are currently investigating the Jeremy Bamber case.
It gets more and more mysterious.
Ngb appears very optimistic
-
I disagree. He appeared to xxxxxxxx xxxx about his findings, then disappeared when the questions became too difficult.
I'm still of the belief he hasn't looked at the bigger picture and therefore is coming from a position of bias.
Ngb is the legal expert on this forum and I expect David is understandably following his advice to keep the details of any new information confidential
-
Ngb appears very optimistic
NGB has given his assessment of what he has seen, nothing more. He did the same in relation to the burglary omission in the SH case. I'm sure he won't mind me bringing this up :-\
So maybe you should try and keep things in perspective.
Ngb is the legal expert on this forum and I expect David is understandably following his advice to keep the details of any new information confidential
Jackie you powers of persuasion and xxxxxxxxxxxx tactics are see through - give it up already. It's xxxxxxxxxxxx to read!
-
Does anyone have any further information about whether Essex Police are currently investigating any aspect of this case?
-
Does anyone have any further information about whether Essex Police are currently investigating any aspect of this case?
They are not.
-
Thanks Jackie. That's very interesting.
I wonder if the two pieces of evidence are related in any way.
Sherlock also mentioned last night, that Essex Police have confirmed to him that they are currently investigating the Jeremy Bamber case.
It gets more and more mysterious.
Hello Neil
I have no idea about any new evidence but I do know the Jeremy Bamber case is under xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
-
They are not.
No they are not.
Although Sherlock attempted to suggest otherwise last night.
Is it me or does Sherlock sound like one of xxxxx pseudonyms?
-
They are not.
Sherlock was adamant last night that they are!
SHERLOCK! Where are you?
-
No they are not.
Although Sherlock attempted to suggest otherwise last night.
Is it me or does Sherlock sound like one of xxxxx pseudonyms?
Look for the ...
-
Hello Neil
I have no idea about any new evidence but I do know the Jeremy Bamber case is under xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Hello Susan, I hope you're well. How do you know that?
-
...
-
Sherlock was adamant last night that they are!
SHERLOCK! Where are you?
;D ;D
-
...
-
...
-
Who was Sheila's biological mother?
Who was Sheila's biological father?
Blood group of biological mother?
Blood group of biological father?
Sheila Caffells alleged unique blood groups?
Blood group results, attributed to flake inside dodgy parker hale silencer (DRB/1)?
-
...
-
...
-
Mike is clearly feeling left out. ;D
-
...
-
Mike is clearly feeling left out. ;D
Mike, obviously knows far more than you could ever imagine...
-
Mike, obviously knows far more than you could ever imagine...
Oh I dunno, I can imagine quite a bit ;D
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNk79dJDzWhror3JZAJHJS3uvZg2p8rKoqwOkrryoqE3_XS2KzCA)
-
The court of trial (October, 1986), and the court of appeal (2002) were 'wrong' to proceed on the footing that the basic blood group results (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) were unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell. The blood group results relied upon served to deceive the court into accepting the premis' that it could only have been her blood, but this was not true, and is not true. The fact of the matter is that the results produced could just as easily have come from a 'third party' to the proceedings, contrary to what the trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, told the jury in his summing up speech, when he told the jury emphatically that there was 'no evidence that a third party could have been involved in the shootings', the killer had to be either Jeremy, or Sheila. But, because the blood group results that were obtained from the flake were by scientific standards 'inconclusive', they lend support to the likelihood that there had been a third party involvement in the killings, and that person could not possibly have been Jeremy Bamber, because he did not share those same 'basic blood group features' found inside the silencer...
-
The court of trial (1986) and the Court of Appeal (2002) have been well and truly deceived by the claim that the blood group results obtained from the examination of the flake, were unique and exclusive to Sheila - when they were not, they could just as easily have belonged or originated from the only other witness to the prosecution who had those very same blood groups, 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour'. The blood could have been his blood, more than it have been Jeremys, or the hitman, Mathew MacDonalds blood type...
-
The court of trial (1986) and the Court of Appeal (2002) have been well and truly deceived by the claim that the blood group results obtained from the examination of the flake, were unique and exclusive to Sheila - when they were not, they could just as easily have belonged or originated from the only other witness to the prosecution who had those very same blood groups, 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour'. The blood could have been his blood, more than it have been Jeremys, or the hitman, Mathew MacDonalds blood type...
Jeremy, nor MacDonald, had the key blood group activity to match the blood group results obtained from the flake, but the chief prosecution protagonist, 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour', did...
-
The court of trial (1986) and the Court of Appeal (2002) have been well and truly deceived by the claim that the blood group results obtained from the examination of the flake, were unique and exclusive to Sheila - when they were not, they could just as easily have belonged or originated from the only other witness to the prosecution who had those very same blood groups, 'Robert Woodwis Boutflour'. The blood could have been his blood, more than it have been Jeremys, or the hitman, Mathew MacDonalds blood type...
Not quite following this Mike, I thought Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one. Will stand to be corrected though.
-
Didn't Sheila's natural mother, Susan Jay give a blood sample and there were 13 out of 17 markers present, suggesting that the blood in the silencer was that of Sheila's. In any case in Mike's theory the Defence is still relying on Sheila having returned the silencer to the gun cupboard before proceeding upstairs and shooting herself, which is unlikely with a schizophrenic in a state of psychosis.
-
Not quite following this Mike, I thought Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one. Will stand to be corrected though.
Hayward, was edging his bets, he knew that in order to pull it off by claiming that the results obtained from the examination of the flake from the silencer, were supposedly, unique and exclusive to Sheila, was not necessarily true. It was not true because he knows, and I know, and of course others know, that the blood group activity presented by him was a very basic presentation of the facts. You see, it wasn't enough, it isn't enough to simply present those four basic blood group markers, and then be able to say off the top of his head, that these results are unique and exclusive to Sheila, and that by implication it somehow proved that the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the gun that shot and killed her. He deliberately omitted key information that would have served to establish that the blood could not actually have been Sheila Caffells at all. That's why in another witness statement, Hayward stated that the blood found inside the silencer could have originated from either, Sheila Caffell, or Robert Woodwis Boutflour. He threw the possibility that the blood could remotely have been an intimate mixture of the parents bloods, just for good measure. he lied to the court when he claimed that the blood from the flake was unique an exclusive to Sheila. He knew he could not possibly make such a claim without producing the other information required from the testing of that blood, which would either serve to disprove it was her blood, or confirm it. The fact that Hayward did not go so far as to seek to find, or if he did, it begs the question, was key information pointing to the blood of the flake not belonging uniquely, or exclusively to Sheila, deliberately withheld by him?
-
Didn't Sheila's natural mother, Susan Jay give a blood sample and there were 13 out of 17 markers present, suggesting that the blood in the silencer was that of Sheila's. In any case in Mike's theory the Defence is still relying on Sheila having returned the silencer to the gun cupboard before proceeding upstairs and shooting herself, which is unlikely with a schizophrenic in a state of psychosis.
My understanding, is that the dna obtained from the examination of the silencer as per the 2002 appeal, did not confirm the presence of Sheila's dna inside the silencer. The Court of appeal ruled in as many words that the dna results were not obtained from blood, and that the dna found to be present could have got into the silencer by a process of contamination, or otherwise. Yes, Susan Jay did provide a blood sample, the results of which were presented in much more detailed manner, than the results presented by John Hayward for use to help to convict Jeremy Bamber for the murders. I will post examples which I have in my possession, which hopefully will give everyone a far better idea of what I am talking about. Haywards evidence was inaccurate, and very misleading in my opinion, a fact that can surely be bolstered up with further reports from trusted and reputable blood experts...
-
No doubt they will be extremely interested in the libellous allegations being promoted here. I must say, I am somewhat surprised that the resident barrister is allowing such comments.
I'm not so sure that is true, presumably you are also referring to NGB, which I think is a bit cheap.
-
I have several examples of different peoples 'more detailed' blood group activity, than the basic information provided by John Hayward in presenting the four blood group results during the trial (1986) and the appeal (2002), and claiming these were unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell - he knows, and I know, and others now know that his claim in that respect is not tenable, because he omitted to include the other tell tale information associated with and to those results. For Example, I have the more detailed blood results for the following individuals of interest:-
Robert Woodwis Boutflour
Pamela Boutflour
Peter Eaton
Ann Eaton
David Boutflour
Anthony Pargeter
Ralph Bamber
June Bamber
Sheila Caffell
Daniel Caffell
Nicholas Caffell
Jeremy Bamber
Susan Jay
Once you see these more detailed results, it suddenly becomes clear the extent with which John Hayward deceived the court at trial (October, 1986), and the court of appeal (2002)...
-
No doubt they will be extremely interested in the libellous allegations being promoted here. I must say, I am somewhat surprised that the resident barrister is allowing such comments
Are you questioning Ngb's judgement ?
Bad move
-
Mike Tesko must realise that there will be consequences for him as a result of his libelling police officers, family members and scientific officers.
Obviously ngb has no say in the matter.
-
Mike Tesko must realise that there will be consequences for him as a result of his libelling police officers, family members and scientific officers.
Obviously ngb has no say in the matter.
Mike Tesko' is speaking the truth, and so long as I believe it to be true, there is nothing they can do about it...
-
Blood evidence given during the trial was 'fraudulent' and 'dishonest'...
Tests and reports produced by reputable blood experts will confirm this to be true...
Was the 'A' type blood result obtained from examination of the flake from the silencer, A+, or A-?
-
Mike Tesko' is speaking the truth, and so long as I believe it to be true, there is nothing they can do about it...
Maybe it is your wish to have this tested in court? Would that assist Jeremy Bamber?
-
Mike Tesko must realise that there will be consequences for him as a result of his libelling police officers, family members and scientific officers.
Obviously ngb has no say in the matter.
John, it's not that long ago the relatives attempted unsuccessfully to get the red forum closed down. I think if I recall correctly that you threatened one of them with the line "If you don't want to be friends then we can be enemies".
It just doesn't sit right with me that you would now perch so high.
-
Maybe it is your wish to have this tested in court? Would that assist Jeremy Bamber?
Can anyone answer, the basic question that I put, was the 'A' type blood obtained from the examination of the flake from the silencer, A+, or A- type blood?
-
What does John Haywards evidence say about 'antigens' or 'antibodies' of the blood obtained from the flake from the silencer?
-
John, it's not that long ago the relatives attempted unsuccessfully to get the red forum closed down. I think if I recall correctly that you threatened one of them with the line "If you don't want to be friends then we can be enemies".
It just doesn't sit right with me that you would now perch so high.
I'm afraid that never happened. The one and only attempt to interefere with the red forum came from the McCanns lawyers and related merely to the copyright of Kate McCanns book Madeleine.
-
As I say, there simply was insufficient detail produced from the examination of the flake from the silencer, to justify John Hayward staking the claim that the basic four blood group results, were unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell. Worse yet, because of such a misleading claim the prosecution was able to rely upon the suggestion that the silencer in question must have been fitted to the barrel of the rifle that fired the fatal shot which killed her, and that she could not have removed the silencer, which contained her unique and exclusive blood, from the barrel of the gun, and transported it downstairs to hide it in the so called gun cupboard - but it was all part of a dishonest deception, based on a claim John Hayward was not entitled to make on the back of such basic blood group activity...
-
I'm afraid that never happened. The one and only attempt to interefere with the red forum came from the McCanns lawyers and related merely to the copyright of Kate McCanns book Madeleine.
You and I know that simply isn't true.
-
As I say, there simply was insufficient detail produced from the examination of the flake from the silencer, to justify John Hayward staking the claim that the basic four blood group results, were unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell. Worse yet, because of such a misleading claim the prosecution was able to rely upon the suggestion that the silencer in question must have been fitted to the barrel of the rifle that fired the fatal shot which killed her, and that she could not have removed the silencer, which contained her unique and exclusive blood, from the barrel of the gun, and transported it downstairs to hide it in the so called gun cupboard - but it was all part of a dishonest deception, based on a claim John Hayward was not entitled to make on the back of such basic blood group activity...
You have to remember that there have been many scientific advances in blood analysis since 1985.
-
You and I know that simply isn't true.
I'm afraid you are mistaken Hartley, the family have never made any threats against the red forum. In any event why would they, the forum is wholly supportive of Jeremy's conviction.
-
I'm afraid you are mistaken Hartley, the family have never made any threats against the red forum.
I most certainly am not.
-
You have to remember that there have been many scientific advances in blood analysis since 1985.
Hence, why it has to be treated as 'fresh Evidence' not available at the time of the 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal hearing...
-
Hence, why it has to be treated as 'fresh Evidence' not available at the time of the 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal hearing...
As someone posted the other day, there is no blood left to sample, it has all effectively been destroyed. Consequently there is nothing to test and no new evidence.
-
why would they, the forum is wholly supportive of Jeremy's conviction.
As I said, it was your "if you don't want to be friends then we can be enemies" , which I'm sure you remember well.
-
As I said, it was your "if you don't want to be friends then we can be enemies" , which I'm sure you remember well.
Perhaps you were just "joking" ?
-
Perhaps you were just "joking" ?
If I recall that was a comment made on a facebook account several years ago.
-
If I recall that was a comment made on a facebook account.
It was not
-
It was not
Actually, yes it was, you are quite correct. That was your private message.
-
As I say, there simply was insufficient detail produced from the examination of the flake from the silencer, to justify John Hayward staking the claim that the basic four blood group results, were unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell. Worse yet, because of such a misleading claim the prosecution was able to rely upon the suggestion that the silencer in question must have been fitted to the barrel of the rifle that fired the fatal shot which killed her, and that she could not have removed the silencer, which contained her unique and exclusive blood, from the barrel of the gun, and transported it downstairs to hide it in the so called gun cupboard - but it was all part of a dishonest deception, based on a claim John Hayward was not entitled to make on the back of such basic blood group activity...
Was there any blood trail in the gun cupboard area? I doubt it..
-
As someone posted the other day, there is no blood left to sample, it has all effectively been destroyed. Consequently there is nothing to test and no new evidence.
The results are on record, clearly in light of new advancements in blood group interpretation, it does not need blood for the results obtained in a bygone era to still be available, since it is possible in hindsight to say whether the basic results that were relied on back then, were reliable, are still reliable, or as the case may be no longer tenable, in light of what is now known...
-
They are not.
and why do you think that Hartley ?
-
No they are not.
Although Sherlock attempted to suggest otherwise last night.
Is it me or does Sherlock sound like one of xxxxx pseudonyms?
I did not attempt to suggest it Stephanie ...
I did suggest it ...
You were the one caught out telling a little porkie last night - not me - or have you forgotten that already ?
Like i suggested to you last night when you have put yourself in a hole - stop digging ;)
-
Sherlock was adamant last night that they are!
SHERLOCK! Where are you?
Don't worry Neil - i am still here ... :))
And i still am adamant ...
Because that is what they told me ...
-
I did not attempt to suggest it Stephanie ...
I did suggest it ...
You were the one caught out telling a little porkie last night - not me - or have you forgotten that already ?
Like i suggested to you last night when you have put yourself in a hole - stop digging ;)
Fair enough I was pulling your leg :P now stick that in your pipe and smoke it ;D
-
Fair enough I was pulling your leg :P now stick that in your pipe and smoke it ;D
Respect for that Stephanie - your credibility is restored :))
I will do but i only get my pipe out at weekends these days so i will have to wait for the pleasure :))
-
Respect for that Stephanie - your credibility is restored :))
I will do but i only get my pipe out at weekends these days so i will have to wait for the pleasure :))
I'm sure there will be some people who will disagree with your sentiment ;D ;D
However, I don't agree with the theories you have put forward nor do I believe there will be a break through in this case any time soon. I don't believe David has thoroughly scrutinised all areas of the case and I further believe he has approached it with an already existing belief of bias, thus his findings will show his confirmation bias. Time will tell.
-
The confirmation bias
"Where do your beliefs and opinions come from? If you are like most people, you probably like to believe that your beliefs are the result of years of experience and objective analysis of the information you have available. The reality is that all of us are susceptible to a tricky problem known as a confirmation bias. While we like to imagine that our beliefs are rational, logical, and objective, the fact is that our ideas are often based on paying attention to the information that upholds our ideas and ignoring the information that challenges our existing beliefs.
A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information that confirms previously existing beliefs or biases. For example, imagine that a person holds a belief that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. Whenever this person encounters a person that is both left-handed and creative, they place greater importance on this "evidence" supporting their already existing belief.
This individual might even seek out "proof" that further backs up this belief, while discounting examples that do not support this idea.
Confirmation biases impact how people gather information, but they also influence how people interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information that supports their beliefs, they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas and remember things in a way that also reinforces these attitudes.
Consider the debate over gun control. Sally is in support of gun control. She seeks out news stories and opinion pieces that reaffirm the need for limitations on gun ownership.
When she hears stories about shootings in the media, she interprets them in a way that supports her existing beliefs. Henry, on the other hand, is adamantly opposed to gun control. He seeks out news sources that are aligned with his position, and when he comes across news stories about shootings, he interprets them in a way that supports his current point of view.
A number of experiments conducted during the 1960s demonstrated that people have a tendency to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs. Unfortunately, this type of bias can prevent us from looking at situations objectively, can influence the decisions we make, and can lead to poor or faulty choices.
During an election season, for example, people tend to seek out positive information that paints their favored candidates in a good light while looking for information that casts the opposing candidate in a negative light. By not seeking out objective facts, interpreting information in a way that only supports their existing beliefs, and only remembering details that uphold these beliefs, people often miss important information that might have otherwise influenced their decision on which candidate to support.
Observations
"Persons believing in extrasensory perception (ESP) will keep close track of instances when they were 'thinking about Mom, and then the phone rang and it was her!' Yet they ignore the farm more numerous times when (a) they were thinking about Mom and she didn't call and (b) they weren't thinking about Mom and she did call. They also fail to recognize that if they talk to Mom about every two weeks, their frequency of "thinking about Mom" will increase near the end of the two-week-interval, thereby increasing the frequency of a 'hit.'"
(Goodwin, 2010)
"We also ignore information that disputes our expectations. We are more likely to remember (and repeat) stereotype-consistent information and to forget or ignore stereotype-inconsistent information, which is one way stereotypes are maintained even in the face of disconfirming evidence. If you learn that your new Canadian friend hates hockey and loves sailing, and that your new Mexican friend hates spicy foods and loves rap music, you are less likely to remember this new stereotype-inconsistent information." (Sanderson, 2010)
"Groopman (2007) points out that the confirmation bias can couple with the availability bias in producing misdiagnosis in a doctor's office. A doctor who had jumped to a particular hypothesis as to what disease a patient has may then ask questions and look for evidence that tends to confirm that diagnosis while overlooking evidence that would tend to disconfirm it. Groopman suggests that medical training should include a course in inductive reasoning that would make new doctors aware of such biases. Awareness, he things, would lead to fewer diagnostic errors. A good diagnostician will test his or her initial hypothesis by searching for evidence against that hypothesis."
(Gray, 2011)
http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/fl/What-Is-a-Confirmation-Bias.htm
-
The confirmation bias
"Where do your beliefs and opinions come from? If you are like most people, you probably like to believe that your beliefs are the result of years of experience and objective analysis of the information you have available. The reality is that all of us are susceptible to a tricky problem known as a confirmation bias. While we like to imagine that our beliefs are rational, logical, and objective, the fact is that our ideas are often based on paying attention to the information that upholds our ideas and ignoring the information that challenges our existing beliefs.
A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information that confirms previously existing beliefs or biases. For example, imagine that a person holds a belief that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. Whenever this person encounters a person that is both left-handed and creative, they place greater importance on this "evidence" supporting their already existing belief.
This individual might even seek out "proof" that further backs up this belief, while discounting examples that do not support this idea.
Confirmation biases impact how people gather information, but they also influence how people interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information that supports their beliefs, they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas and remember things in a way that also reinforces these attitudes.
Consider the debate over gun control. Sally is in support of gun control. She seeks out news stories and opinion pieces that reaffirm the need for limitations on gun ownership.
When she hears stories about shootings in the media, she interprets them in a way that supports her existing beliefs. Henry, on the other hand, is adamantly opposed to gun control. He seeks out news sources that are aligned with his position, and when he comes across news stories about shootings, he interprets them in a way that supports his current point of view.
A number of experiments conducted during the 1960s demonstrated that people have a tendency to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs. Unfortunately, this type of bias can prevent us from looking at situations objectively, can influence the decisions we make, and can lead to poor or faulty choices.
During an election season, for example, people tend to seek out positive information that paints their favored candidates in a good light while looking for information that casts the opposing candidate in a negative light. By not seeking out objective facts, interpreting information in a way that only supports their existing beliefs, and only remembering details that uphold these beliefs, people often miss important information that might have otherwise influenced their decision on which candidate to support.
Observations
"Persons believing in extrasensory perception (ESP) will keep close track of instances when they were 'thinking about Mom, and then the phone rang and it was her!' Yet they ignore the farm more numerous times when (a) they were thinking about Mom and she didn't call and (b) they weren't thinking about Mom and she did call. They also fail to recognize that if they talk to Mom about every two weeks, their frequency of "thinking about Mom" will increase near the end of the two-week-interval, thereby increasing the frequency of a 'hit.'"
(Goodwin, 2010)
"We also ignore information that disputes our expectations. We are more likely to remember (and repeat) stereotype-consistent information and to forget or ignore stereotype-inconsistent information, which is one way stereotypes are maintained even in the face of disconfirming evidence. If you learn that your new Canadian friend hates hockey and loves sailing, and that your new Mexican friend hates spicy foods and loves rap music, you are less likely to remember this new stereotype-inconsistent information." (Sanderson, 2010)
"Groopman (2007) points out that the confirmation bias can couple with the availability bias in producing misdiagnosis in a doctor's office. A doctor who had jumped to a particular hypothesis as to what disease a patient has may then ask questions and look for evidence that tends to confirm that diagnosis while overlooking evidence that would tend to disconfirm it. Groopman suggests that medical training should include a course in inductive reasoning that would make new doctors aware of such biases. Awareness, he things, would lead to fewer diagnostic errors. A good diagnostician will test his or her initial hypothesis by searching for evidence against that hypothesis."
(Gray, 2011)
http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/fl/What-Is-a-Confirmation-Bias.htm
"Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion.
Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior. Here is an example:
Every tornado I have ever seen in the United States rotated counterclockwise, and I have seen dozens of them.
We see a tornado in the distance, and we are in the United States.
I conclude that the tornado we see right now must be rotating counterclockwise.
A meteorologist will tell you that in the United States (which lies in the northern hemisphere), most tornadoes rotate counterclockwise, but not all of them do. Therefore, the conclusion is probably true, but not necessarily true. Inductive reasoning is, unlike deductive reasoning, not logically rigorous. Imperfection can exist and inaccurate conclusions can occur, however rare; in deductive reasoning the conclusions are mathematically certain.
Inductive reasoning is sometimes confused with mathematical induction, an entirely different process. Mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning, in which logical certainties are "daisy chained" to derive a general conclusion about an infinite number of objects or situations.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/inductive-reasoning
-
David,I bet you rue the day that you ever opened your mouth. I know I do.
The forum has been turned on its head and even the guilters on red are squabbling amongst themselves.
Was that a bad move on your part,or what ?
-
David,I bet you rue the day that you ever opened your mouth. I know I do.
The forum has been turned on its head and even the guilters on red are squabbling amongst themselves.
Was that a bad move on your part,or what ?
Hello Lookout
I think it is great that David shared his find with us although not the actual evidence it has given us something to look forward to and we aint squabbling are we :)) :)) :))
-
Hello Lookout
I think it is great that David shared his find with us although not the actual evidence it has given us something to look forward to and we aint squabbling are we :)) :)) :))
Hi Susan,,no,we're not squabbling. I can't even imagine that happening. :)) :)) :)) :-* :-*
But I'm now not so sure whether he should have said anything at all. :(
-
Hi Susan,,no,we're not squabbling. I can't even imagine that happening. :)) :)) :)) :-* :-*
But I'm now not so sure whether he should have said anything at all. :(
Lookout
I hope David is not tempted to tell what he has found if JB is innocent every effort should be made to right this wrong
-
Lookout
I hope David is not tempted to tell what he has found if JB is innocent every effort should be made to right this wrong
Susan,we'll hear soon enough. I'm not in any hurry personally as I'm sure Jeremy isn't,being resigned to the fact that for the last 30 years things have moved in a snail-like way anyway,plus the knock-backs he's had.
I just hope that David hasn't been tempted to tell anyone other than those working for the team because as sure as Hell there'll be " others " working in the background putting the blockers on anything which constitutes a " new find " in the investigation.
-
Susan,we'll hear soon enough. I'm not in any hurry personally as I'm sure Jeremy isn't,being resigned to the fact that for the last 30 years things have moved in a snail-like way anyway,plus the knock-backs he's had.
I just hope that David hasn't been tempted to tell anyone other than those working for the team because as sure as Hell there'll be " others " working in the background putting the blockers on anything which constitutes a " new find " in the investigation.
Lookout very true words I have noticed that David's claim has been rubbished by some and that is their way of trying to get him to tell what it is. David is sensible enough to see this.
-
Lookout very true words I have noticed that David's claim has been rubbished by some and that is their way of trying to get him to tell what it is. David is sensible enough to see this.
I'm not particularly interested in David's claims Susan as my belief of Bambers guilt remains firm! Nor am I particularly interested in seeing what it is he appears to have found. It can only be a technicality IMO.
However, from what little I've seen of david1819 to date, I wouldn't refer to him as sensible. Some of his old posts on this forum reflect my belief. Only a few months ago he believed Bamber to be guilty; again this fact can be seen in his posts on this forum.
I'm not interested in his claims as I believe any attention Bamber receives only fuels his narcissistic supply and keeps this farce going.
-
I'm not particularly interested in David's claims Susan as my belief of Bambers guilt remains firm! Nor am I particularly interested in seeing what it is he appears to have found. It can only be a technicality IMO.
However, from what little I've seen of david1819 to date, I wouldn't refer to him as sensible. Some of his old posts on this forum reflect my belief. Only a few months ago he believed Bamber to be guilty; again this fact can be seen in his posts on this forum.
Steph
I can understand how you feel and that you are adamant of his guilt what would happen if evidence came to light proving he was innocent would you accept this. I know David swings from guilt to innocence and I have done the same but always keep an open mind. I can't wait to see what he has found and I feel it will be quite significant but how it will be used is another thing.
-
Very true Susan.
-
Very true Susan.
No it isn't!
-
Steph
I can understand how you feel and that you are adamant of his guilt what would happen if evidence came to light proving he was innocent would you accept this. I know David swings from guilt to innocence and I have done the same but always keep an open mind. I can't wait to see what he has found and I feel it will be quite significant but how it will be used is another thing.
No one understands how I feel as only I know how I feel. ;D ;D
But, with regards any evidence coming to light - it's not going to happen and I've accepted this as fact. Bamber is a psychopath and I believe the authorities know this. Therefore no technicality in law will release him. This is what I firmly believe. I understand however how a technicality in law can be frustrating and I'm well aware of the implications of this.
And as I've already stated I'm not particularly interested in David's findings.
Swinging from innocence to guilt does not mean someone is open minded. From my standpoint it suggests lack of knowledge in the case. If you can prove to me Bamber isn't a psychopath and is instead a victim I may re consider my stance.
From my observations Susan, you appeared to have gone from finally believing him guilty to innocent again after David's recent claims were announced. In fact your stance appeared to change within a blink of an eye. ;D is this because you are open minded or are you afraid of being wrong?
Threads on psychopathy;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6614.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7270.msg356132.html#msg356132
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5265.msg230202.html#msg230202
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6620.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7464.0.html
David1819 started this thread;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7203.0.html
And he made the following post which I disagree with
I have seem a televised debate with James McNeish and Joe Karam.
James McNeish puts far to much emphasis on the mental and phychological side of things and not so much on the forensics. Psychiatrist have to base themselves on the conviction as part of their analysis.
This is were you have a 50/50 situation with no grey area in the middle. A man could be truly innocent of the brutal crime hence his protests of innocence are convincing but you could always refute that by claiming he is a psychopathic master manipulator.
That's why I focus more on the forensic side instead of psychology side.
I've focused on both sides, in all areas. David suggests he hasn't.
And I can assure david1819 that my firm beliefs are not based on my imagination!!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7203.msg340767.html#msg340767
I believe David has approached his findings from his existing confirmation bias and his imagination ;D may well have found a new argument but nothing that will clear Bambers name.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7203.msg340828.html#msg340828
David sums up his own work in his own words rather well here ;D
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7203.msg340958.html#msg340958
-
Susan,we'll hear soon enough. I'm not in any hurry personally as I'm sure Jeremy isn't,being resigned to the fact that for the last 30 years things have moved in a snail-like way anyway,plus the knock-backs he's had.
I just hope that David hasn't been tempted to tell anyone other than those working for the team because as sure as Hell there'll be " others " working in the background putting the blockers on anything which constitutes a " new find " in the investigation.
I agree Lookout. Also Ngb has put so much time working with Jeremy on his case (unpaid) and given up a lot of time to run the forum he really deserves some good news at long last
-
Lookout very true words I have noticed that David's claim has been rubbished by some and that is their way of trying to get him to tell what it is. David is sensible enough to see this.
Hi Susan, I don't think they have been rubbished because it's hard to rubbish something you have not seen. The problem being, a lot of people have been on the forum a long time (my 6th year this year) I have some good friends and stay for that reason plus I am interested on new theories. How many times have you and I had our hopes built up only to be let down, the latest was the book The Deviant, it's a case of David coming out with the claims of new evidence and everyone going " here we go again" it's only natural. David went to the best person in NGB for advice, Neil is a little cautious he knows there has been a lot of ground covered by this case that cannot be used again, the bar has been raised high like Neil said and the CCRC and prosecution can counter a lot of evidence, look when we had the Kodak expert.
But the most important thing is that people who believe they are the victims of miscarriages of justice have somewhere to go: the CCRC." This never used to be the case before, although I think the CCRC are looking at something like 760 cases with 420 cases awaiting review so by the time Bambers case gets forwarded is anyone's guess? In 2014/15 the Commission referred 36 cases to the appeal courts. This means that we referred 2.2% of the 1,632 cases concluded in the year. In the previous year the referral rate was 2.7%, in 2012/13 1.6%, and in 2011/12 it was 2.5%. The Commission’s long-term referral rate now stands at 3.35%.
-
I have TRIED looking at both sides but sadly because there are so many cases of " mothers "neglecting/harming/murdering their children while under the influence of drugs, it's now becoming everyday news. While these so-called " mothers " are concentrating on their next fix,it's all about them and nobody else matters,their children are suffering badly.
Murder this week where a " mother " stamped on her baby,another thought about her own enjoyment and left the baby wedged between the bed and the wall to which ended in suffocation and one little mite was going through bins for something to eat. Tip of the iceberg,sadly !
If I remember rightly,the twins at aged 5/6 were having to get themselves ready for school because their mother was spaced out. They also had marks on their bodies of " unknown origin " as reported by Social Services. Nobody can take drugs AND look after children !!
Nobody knows how I feel about these hapless women !! MOTHERS WHO KILL.
-
Steph. As far as JB is concerned I spent years believing him innocent but of late I tend to think he is guilty but if evidence is found proving otherwise I will accept I was wrong. I could not care less about being right or wrong my knowledge on this case is very limited and most of my theories have been wrong and nobody on the forum takes any notice of my posts anyway :)) I must admit I am not adamant about any of my views I suppose I am quite fickle. Hartley changed my mind from innocent to guilty as I do not research and tend to agree with Maggie's posts (hahaha as pointed out by Mat) Jeremy could be everything you say he is I would not know but I am really looking forward to the evidence David has uncovered.
-
Hi Susan, I don't think they have been rubbished because it's hard to rubbish something you have not seen. The problem being, a lot of people have been on the forum a long time (my 6th year this year) I have some good friends and stay for that reason plus I am interested on new theories. How many times have you and I had our hopes built up only to be let down, the latest was the book The Deviant, it's a case of David coming out with the claims of new evidence and everyone going " here we go again" it's only natural. David went to the best person in NGB for advice, Neil is a little cautious he knows there has been a lot of ground covered by this case that cannot be used again, the bar has been raised high like Neil said and the CCRC and prosecution can counter a lot of evidence, look when we had the Kodak expert.
But the most important thing is that people who believe they are the victims of miscarriages of justice have somewhere to go: the CCRC." This never used to be the case before, although I think the CCRC are looking at something like 760 cases with 420 cases awaiting review so by the time Bambers case gets forwarded is anyone's guess?
Hi Justice
excellent post. Justice you are right we have had many highs and lows together I like you tend to hang around because of the good friends we have made over the years and we are eagerly awaiting for something new to come up because I honestly feel there is so much we do not know and I rack my brains trying to figure certain things out and cannot come up with the answers.
-
but I am really looking forward to the evidence David has uncovered.
Why?
-
Why?
Steph
Davids find may answer some of the questions I would like answering. Most people I have spoken with are curious if nothing else.
-
Found this really interesting
The Commission operates an advice call rota whereby applicants, potential applicants, their lawyers or supporters, can call the Commission and speak to one of our Case Review Managers about matters relating to a current or potential application. During 2014/15 we logged 839 such advice calls– a significant increase on the average of 650 a year in recent years.
Advice calls of this kind are often complicated and time consuming. While the advice rota represents a significant investment of casework resources, we view it as a valuable service which, among other things, helps potential applicants make the important and sometimes difficult decisions about how they should seek to progress their cases.
Maybe David could give them a call? They may be able to advise him?
-
I have locked this thread again.
Please stick to the subject and NOT make personal remarks about other posters.
-
I have locked this thread again.
Please stick to the subject and NOT make personal remarks about other posters.
Thread now open, I look forward to objective and impersonal argument :) :)
-
Thread now open, I look forward to objective and impersonal argument :) :)
I hope that includes Mike Tesko who continues to throw insults at every opportunity when he is losing an argument?
-
I hope that includes Mike Tesko who continues to throw insults at every opportunity when he is losing an argument?
It means everyone, John, including myself and the Archbishop of Canterbury. 8)
-
Sheila's body was here, there, and everywhere. The rifle was at the bedroom window, it was not at the bedroom window. The gun was on Sheila's body, it was not on Sheila's body. The gun was alongside Sheila's body, the gun was not alongside her body. The gun was resting between the bodies of June and Sheila on the bed, the gun was not resting between the bodies of June and Sheila on the bed. There is scientific evidence to prove Jeremy was the killer, there is no scientific evidence to prove Jeremy is the killer. All 25 bullets were fired from the same gun, all the bullets were not fired by the same gun. Sheila was alive when cops entered the farmhouse, Sheila was dead when cops entered the farmhouse. Her body was in the kitchen, her body was on the bed upstairs, her body was on the bedroom floor upstairs. Two bodies found downstairs, one body found downstairs. Three bodies found upstairs, four bodies found upstairs. First two bodies found were a murder, and a suicide first two bodies found were a murder and a murder. There was only one silencer, there were two silencers, Relatives only handed one silencer over to cops, relatives handed two silencers over to cops. Length of rifle with silencer fitted would have been too long, length of rifle with silencer attached would not have been too long. There was only ever one silencer held by cops during there investigation into these deaths, it had a variety of different exhibit references, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, it had different lab' item numbers at different times, first it was item 22, then it was item 23, then it got reverted back to 22. There was a grey hair attached to the silencer, there wasn't a grey hair attached to the silencer, there was an elongated shiny scratch along the outer casing of the silencer, there was not an elongated scratch mark on the silencer. The silencer was coated in harmful superglue fumes, the silencer was not coated in harmful superglue fumes. Bullets fired through the silencer were being damaged, bullets fired through the same silencer were not being damaged, you can't believe anything which formed part of the prosecutions case, unless your from the guilty camp, then of course you might tend to believe anything ...
-
Sums it all up very nicely mike.
-
It certainly does, and anyone who says that JB had a fair trial need their heads reading.
-
Another funny thing...
-
Another funny thing...
Scientifically, proven, scientifically, unproven - what weapons were used in the shootings by reference to tabloid reporting...
-
'Evening Standard', 7th August, 1985 - 'Woman member of family carried out the killings with a shotgun'...
-
'Evening Echo', 7th August, 1985 - 'all five bodies found with gunshot wounds'...
-
'Sun', 8th August, 1985 - ' Sheila shot herself with .22 Magazine loading weapon'...
-
'Daily Telegraph', 8th August, 1985 - The gun used was .22 Automatic target rifle with magazine containing about 20 rounds'...
-
'Evening Echo', 8th August, 1985 - 'Sheila used her fathers gun'...
-
'The Star', 8th August, 1985 - 'Sheila blasted her family to death with a .22 automatic Rifle. Shot sons first then her mother before going downstairs to her father, then she shot herself under the chin into brain'...
-
'Evening Gazette', 8th August 1985, - ' Sheila ran amok with her father's automatic .22 Rifle. Jeremy warned police of collection of 10 Firearms including shotguns at the house'...
-
'East Anglican Daily Times', 8th August, 1985, - 'Sheila turned .22 automatic Rifle on herself. Rifle found lying between Sheila and Mrs Bamber'...
-
'Essex Chronical', 9th August, 1985, - ' Mr Bamber kept several guns. Sheila pumped .22 bullets into her family'...
-
'Daily Mail', 9th August 1985, - '.22 automatic Rifle lay beside Sheila's body'...
-
'Essex County Standard', 9th August, 1985, - 'Sheila ran amok with .22 Rifle. Jeremy warned police of collection of 10 firearms in house including shotguns'...
-
'East Anglican Daily Times', 9th August, 1985, - 'Rifle found between Mrs Bamber and Sheila'...
-
'Daily Mirror', 9th August, 1985 - ' Sheila shot the sleeping twins with a target rifle'...
-
' Evening Gazette', 9th August, 1985, - 'Sheila used .22 rifle'...
-
'Daily Telegraph', 9th August, 1985, - 'Family had been shot with .22 automatic rifle'...
-
'East Anglican Daily Times', 10th August, 1985, - 'Rifle found between the bodies of Sheila and Mrs Bamber. .22 automatic rifle used'...
-
' Witham and Braintree Times', 15th August, 1985, - 'Police warned by Jeremy of 10 Firearms in house, including shotguns'...
-
'Maldon & Burnham Standard', 15th August, 1985, ' 20 shot automatic rifle near Sheila'...
-
'Essex Chronical (Woodham & Wickford), 16th August, 1985, - ' In the telephone call Mr. Bamber expressed fears about there being guns in the house. Sheila had pumped bullets into her family from .22 Rifle'...
-
'Yellow Advertiser', 16th August, 1985, - 'Sheila apparently killed her family with one of her father's shooting rifles'...
-
'Daily Mail', 17th August, 1985, - ' all shot with .22 automatic rifle from Mr. Bambers collection'...
-
'Sun', 20th August, 1985, - ' Sheila's use of automatic weapon found near bodies of two women''...
-
I bet Jeremy must be very frustrated. All this evidence which shows he's innocent.
Hopefully David's forensic breakthough will get Jeremy released.
-
'Daily Express', 20th August, 1985, - ' Sheila blasted family with .22 Rifle'...
-
'Essex Chronical', 23rd August, 1985, - 'Sheila shot them all with an automatic .22 Air Rifle'...
-
'Daily Mirror', 10th September, 1/985, - ' .22 Rifle found beside Sheila's body'...
-
'Evening Echo', 10th September, 1985, - 'Weapon used was .22 automatic rifle part of Mr. Bambers own collection'...
-
'The Star'', 11th September, 1985, - 'Family shot by .22 rifle. Gun lying near Sheila's body'...
-
'Daily Mirror', 12th August, 1985, - 'all family killed by .22 rifle lying beside Sheila's body'...
-
'East Anglican Daily Times', 12th September, 1985, - 'Sheila shot family with .22 automatic rifle'...
-
'Evening Gazette', 12th September, 1985, - 'all had been shot with .22 automatic rifle which was near to Sheila's body'...
-
'Sunday Express', 15th September, 1985, - 'Five members of Bamber family shot dead by .22 automatic rifle, the time 3.30am...
-
'Evening Gazette', 17th September, 1985, ' all killed with .22 automatic rifle found in house'...
-
'Daily Mirror', 17th August, 1985, - '.22 rifle found by Sheila's body'...
-
'Evening Gazette', 18th September, 1985, - 'The .22 rifle may have been reloaded'...
-
' Daily Telegraph', 18th September, 1985, - ' the weapon involved was .22 automatic rifle '...
-
'Maldon & Burnham Standard', 19th September, 1985, ' mention of .22 rifle and it was reloaded during the shooting'...
-
' Evening Gazette', 19th September, 1985, - 'Five victims had been shot with Mr. Bambers .22 automatic rifle'...
-
' Evening Standard', 19th September, 1985, - 'Jeremy Bamber told police house contained at least 10 guns'...
-
' Witham & Braintree Times', 19th September, 1985, -' Police initially thought Sheila had run amok with .22 automatic rifle'...
-
' Witham & Braintree Times', 26th September, 1985, ' Five victims had been shot with Mr. Bambers .22 automatic rifle'...
-
'Sun', 30th September, 1985, ' all 5 victims shot with Mr. Banners .22 automatic rifle'...
-
Sheila's body was here, there, and everywhere. The rifle was at the bedroom window, it was not at the bedroom window. The gun was on Sheila's body, it was not on Sheila's body. The gun was alongside Sheila's body, the gun was not alongside her body. The gun was resting between the bodies of June and Sheila on the bed, the gun was not resting between the bodies of June and Sheila on the bed. There is scientific evidence to prove Jeremy was the killer, there is no scientific evidence to prove Jeremy is the killer. All 25 bullets were fired from the same gun, all the bullets were not fired by the same gun. Sheila was alive when cops entered the farmhouse, Sheila was dead when cops entered the farmhouse. Her body was in the kitchen, her body was on the bed upstairs, her body was on the bedroom floor upstairs. Two bodies found downstairs, one body found downstairs. Three bodies found upstairs, four bodies found upstairs. First two bodies found were a murder, and a suicide first two bodies found were a murder and a murder. There was only one silencer, there were two silencers, Relatives only handed one silencer over to cops, relatives handed two silencers over to cops. Length of rifle with silencer fitted would have been too long, length of rifle with silencer attached would not have been too long. There was only ever one silencer held by cops during there investigation into these deaths, it had a variety of different exhibit references, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, it had different lab' item numbers at different times, first it was item 22, then it was item 23, then it got reverted back to 22. There was a grey hair attached to the silencer, there wasn't a grey hair attached to the silencer, there was an elongated shiny scratch along the outer casing of the silencer, there was not an elongated scratch mark on the silencer. The silencer was coated in harmful superglue fumes, the silencer was not coated in harmful superglue fumes. Bullets fired through the silencer were being damaged, bullets fired through the same silencer were not being damaged, you can't believe anything which formed part of the prosecutions case, unless your from the guilty camp, then of course you might tend to believe anything ...
The evidence in the case is crystal clear, only you are attempting to muddy the waters.
-
There can be no doubt whatsoever, that Jeremy Bamber has been framed for these murders. I have seen many examples of 'a fit up', in my life, as a serving prisoner and since. Without question, Banners is the worst example of them all, that I have witnessed. In most of the other cases which I am referring to, most of these cases were returned to a higher court, and the convictions quashed. What strikes me about the so called ' Bamber case', is that the powers that be, simply do not want to entertain anything which in any other case would be sufficient to get a conviction quashed. Therefore, we have to conclude that the case of Jeremy Bamber has something about out, that the powers that be, are frightened of having to act upon it, through fear or a realisation that should Bambers convictions be quashed, it will set into motion another million pound plkus, investigation into what went wring?
-
So is it the gunshot residue on the hands theory? Or am I wrong?
I was close ;D
-
I was close ;D
It's related to that too.
-
The evidence in the case is crystal clear, only you are attempting to muddy the waters.
Remind me---------what evidence ?
-
Remind me---------what evidence ?
With a silly response like that, no wonder you still don't understand why Bamber is guilty. Wishing him to be innocent just doesn't cut the mustard lookout.
-
With a silly response like that, no wonder you still don't understand why Bamber is guilty. Wishing him to be innocent just doesn't cut the mustard lookout.
Ah well I suppose a sillier answer from yourself equals the " silly response " from me.
-
Ah well I suppose a sillier answer from yourself equals the " silly response " from me.
You have had various posters remind you of the evidence against Bamber in this case lookout ad nauseam yet you still drag out the same uninformed response. When are you going to admit your mistake and accept that Bamber must be GUILTY?
-
You have had various posters remind you of the evidence against Bamber in this case lookout ad nauseam yet you still drag out the same uninformed response. When are you going to admit your mistake and accept that Bamber must be GUILTY?
Wrong. Various posters have skirted around my question just like you've done.
-
Wrong. Various posters have skirted around my question just like you've done.
If you still don't know what evidence convicted Bamber, go and read the 2002 rejection, there is a lot of information in there. But members have listed the evidence to you before now, John is correct. Not agreeing with the evidence is different than not knowing what the evidence is. Don't know how you, or anyone can say the evidence is wrong when they are constantly asking what the evidence is.
-
Wrong. Various posters have skirted around my question just like you've done.
You have been told at great length what the evidence is, evidence which implicates Bamber by default because Sheila could never have done what is claimed and ended up in the way she did.
You're probably one of these folk who think Julie Mugford made it all up. (http://images.zaazu.com/img/waiting-bored-waiting-boy-smiley-emoticon-000413-medium.gif)
-
Forensic ? Don't all shout at once.
-
Forensic ? Don't all shout at once.
BULLETS
BLOOD
FINGER PRINTS
STAINING
SPATTER
GSR
AUTOPSY
-
BULLETS
BLOOD
FINGER PRINTS
STAINING
SPATTER
GSR
AUTOPSY
Where do they fit in with Jeremy ?
-
Where do they fit in with Jeremy ?
They rule out Sheila. Who does that leave?
-
They rule out Sheila. Who does that leave?
They all involve Sheila,so get out of that one.
-
BULLETS
BLOOD
FINGER PRINTS
STAINING
SPATTER
GSR
AUTOPSY
You have personally on the phone said to me JB might not be guilty
True or false ?
-
In the event that we are unlikely for any of Sheila's accomplices coming forward, we have to proceeded on the basis that Sheila played a significant role in the deaths, of the others...
-
The CPS know that Jeremy is innocent, but they are more concerned with trying to protect the image of Essex police...
-
You have personally on the phone said to me JB might not be guilty
True or false ?
He might not but he most likely is by all the evidence. I still put it at 99% to 1%.
Cheers!
-
The CPS know that Jeremy is innocent, but they are more concerned with trying to protect the image of Essex police...
You do post some rubbish, was that one of Ali Bongo's theories? :o
-
He might not but he most likely is by all the evidence. I still put it at 99% to 1%.
Cheers!
If we had the death penalty,you'd have to be 100% certain--------no " might be's ".
As it is,JB has got a " death sentence " because the verdict was " either/or " ! ( Sheila or Jeremy )
-
If we had the death penalty,you'd have to be 100% certain--------no " might be's ".
As it is,JB has got a " death sentence " because the verdict was " either/or " ! ( Sheila or Jeremy )
Thank you Lookout
-
Hi Lookout, imo the problem is, in whose eyes would he be 100% guilty before being hanged? In the eyes of the law he is 100% guilty however much he may protest and I don't doubt he would have hung if we still had the death penalty.
It may be the law could demand a 100% verdict by the jury for the death penalty but that is not particularly reassuring imo.
I agree if JB is innocent he is condemned to a living death, no doubt about that. Taking away of liberty and a life and his children's lives is a crime if he is innocent but the taking away of an innocent life or in my opinion any life by the state is murder.
-
Hi Maggie,you're right about the jury,but because of the final vote in this case ( 10-2 ) he wouldn't have been hanged.
Presently,because of the number of MOJ's within the system and considering the advanced technoloy of DNA testing,obviously the death penalty would be the last form of punishment meted out. There were very few MOJ's pre-mid 60's,so what does that tell you about our advanced technology-DNA ?
I suppose what we have here is the equivalent to Death Row in the States,in which case you may as well be dead anyway, while awaiting any outcome,be it a MOJ or the electric chair.
It's the jury who give the final verdict in any case and to my mind anyone chosen for jury service should be given an intelligence test of sorts being that it's their final word that counts and they're not even trained or legally-minded ?
-
Hi Maggie,you're right about the jury,but because of the final vote in this case ( 10-2 ) he wouldn't have been hanged.
Presently,because of the number of MOJ's within the system and considering the advanced technoloy of DNA testing,obviously the death penalty would be the last form of punishment meted out. There were very few MOJ's pre-mid 60's,so what does that tell you about our advanced technology-DNA ?
I suppose what we have here is the equivalent to Death Row in the States,in which case you may as well be dead anyway, while awaiting any outcome,be it a MOJ or the electric chair.
It's the jury who give the final verdict in any case and to my mind anyone chosen for jury service should be given an intelligence test of sorts being that it's their final word that counts and they're not even trained or legally-minded ?
I know he didn't have a majority verdict but it could possibly have been 'arranged' if it was really needed.
As for choosing jurors? I am not convinced, intelligence in one area doesn't guarantee life experience, human understanding etc. If Jeremy Bamber is innocent at least he is alive and able to fight another day. :-\
-
I know he didn't have a majority verdict but it could possibly have been 'arranged' if it was really needed.
As for choosing jurors? I am not convinced, intelligence in one area doesn't guarantee life experience, human understanding etc. If Jeremy Bamber is innocent at least he is alive and able to fight another day. :-\
Indeed Maggie,you've said it-------human understanding.
You have to ask yourself if the jury knew enough about mental health issues and its reasons in committing familicide,and what could have been the dominant factor regarding the murders of the whole family.
Access to guns.
Threats--------which Sheila had told Ferguson regarding the twins.
Mental health and substance abuse.
-
He is contact with JBs current legal team and is interested in what I have. Also his legal team will take it more seriously if he presents it and not me.
Have you had a response from Andrew Hunter regarding this as yet, David?
-
If we had the death penalty,you'd have to be 100% certain--------no " might be's ".
As it is,JB has got a " death sentence " because the verdict was " either/or " ! ( Sheila or Jeremy )
I congratulate you lookout, finally you have grasped the nettle.
-
It's the jury who give the final verdict in any case and to my mind anyone chosen for jury service should be given an intelligence test of sorts being that it's their final word that counts and they're not even trained or legally-minded ?
I couldn't agree more. In complicated financial cases most jurors are completely out of their depth.
-
I couldn't agree more. In complicated financial cases most jurors are completely out of their depth.
They certainly were in the JB case,as well as others of course.
-
Have you had a response from Andrew Hunter regarding this as yet, David?
He has but it won't be posted on here as it will give 'the crown more time to prepare'.
-
Good. I wonder if there'll be fireworks soon.
-
Good. I wonder if there'll be fireworks soon.
On bonfire night. But only if the crown have no time to prepare.
-
I congratulate you lookout, finally you have grasped the nettle.
I wonder if the Jury would still have convicted him if the death penalty was still around? it would have raised the bar in the jurors minds for the state to make its case.
-
Not sure if it had to be a majority verdict,as it was then,before you could hang someone.12/12.
-
I wonder if the Jury would still have convicted him if the death penalty was still around? it would have raised the bar in the jurors minds for the state to make its case.
The death penalty has no relevance whatsoever to this case or any other in the UK. The death penalty was abolished in 1965, so not sure what point you are trying to make?
-
Very predictably there's " dirty work at the crossroads " concerning this " forensic breakthrough ".
Would you be bothered ? ::) ::)-----------Hapana Asanti.
-
I am sure I never said the words highlighted in blue Hartley. I agree that I believed that the submissions made by Simon McKay had a good chance of success but the CCRC decided otherwise. I am generally cautious in my predictions, particularly in this case.
Hi Neil, is Simon McKay a Barrister now.
-
According to " The Justice Gap " Simon is a barrister.
-
This next appeal now depends on the advanced techniques of up to date forensic science, some of which wasn't available in 1985/6,and sadly accounted for those whose innocence couldn't be proved.
With different procedures of forensic science now in place, important discoveries have been found in the detection of criminals as well as proving someone's innocence.
It all rests on this and not " he said,she said,etc ".
-
Hi Neil, is Simon McKay a Barrister now.
Yes he is.
-
Yes he is.
Thanks Neil
-
Yeah I kinda get all of that, people certainly can't comment on something that they haven't seen, well at least not with any authority.
NGB's view on something is perhaps of interest but hardly anything more, he doesn't have a good track record in this case of his belief of 'grounds for appeal' coming to fruition.
The 2012 submission was a strong case, compelling, almost a dead cert. In fact it wasn't going to go to another appeal, the charges were simply going to be dismissed. The CCRC decided otherwise and NGB then declared that the tests were incomplete. Clearly it was the CCRC's fault for dictating a deadline.
I don't actually believe NGB thinks Jeremy is innocent but rather he thinks there is a legal argument against his convictions.
I'm certainly not calling NGB out in any way or asking him to explain his position, nor indeed do I have any intention of being derisive towards him and I hope this isn't taken as such. We all have our opinions, I'm sure he'd be the first to agree. :-\
Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.
I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?
I believe that this will all amount to nothing, time will tell, but how long do we give it.
Can somebody remind me in a years time and we'll reassess.
Nobody reminded me! >:(
-
Nobody reminded me! >:(
You are a month overdue Hartley, we have to give him time, look how long Walt Disney took to create his Fantasy Cartoons?
-
You are a month overdue Hartley, we have to give him time, look how long Walt Disney took to create his Fantasy Cartoons?
No need to wait. Just refer Hartley to your wedding tipster. Knows all you need to know. ::)
-
No need to wait. Just refer Hartley to your wedding tipster. Knows all you need to know. ::)
No, Hartley is not in need of therapy
-
Don't knock David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' just because the CT have not mentioned it.
David's had apparently had meeting/s with Bamber's lawyers. What's been said in these meetings has not been disclosed on here. Probably because it will give the crown more time to prepare.
-
What's been said in these meetings has not been disclosed on here. Probably because it will give the crown more time to prepare.
Perhaps The Crown might decline to contest the appeal. Is there any precedent for this?
-
I have previously asked David what was said in his meeting/s with Bamber's lawyers. The forum will find it interesting.
Hopefully he will now tell us or say why it can't be disclosed.
-
I would rather not know until all other relevant information becomes available,as every little " breakthrough " is ripped to shreds.
-
I would rather not know until all other relevant information becomes available,as every little " breakthrough " is ripped to shreds.
Hopefully David will give some basic information on his meeting/s with Bamber's lawyers.
It doesn't have to be the minutes of his meetings. But what approach they are taking & if there will ever be another CCRC application will be interesting.
It will be a pity if he uses the same tactic as his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which was to make a broad & major annoncement but then not give any further information.
-
Hopefully David will give some basic information on his meetings with Bamber's lawyers.
It doesn't have to be the minutes of his meetings. But what approach they are taking & if there will ever be another CCRC application will be interesting.
It will be a pity if he uses the same tactic as his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which was to make a broad & major annoncement but then not give any further information.
It's clearly bothering you more than it is me. Why the impatience ??
-
It's clearly bothering you more than it is me. Why the impatience ??
Well I did first ask David in March 2017.
-
Well I did first ask David in March 2017.
I recommend you ask Justice to ask his allusive wedding tipster. It's a mystery man that knows his stuff. A bit like Mikes "informant Z" ::)
-
I recommend you ask Justice to ask his allusive wedding tipster. It's a mystery man that knows his stuff. A bit like Mikes "informant Z" ::)
Ask Justice to ask his wedding tipster what Bamber's lawyers said to you in you're meeting/s with them ?
I'm sorry I don't quite follow.
-
Well I did first ask David in March 2017.
So ? Be patient and wait. It's not as though you're supporting the man and awaiting good news is it ?
-
Ask Justice to ask his wedding tipster what Bamber's lawyers said to you in you're meeting/s with them ?
I'm sorry I don't quite follow.
You have got to give Walt time Adam, he has to go back to the drawing board each time his fantasies are rubbished, it must be a full time job making cartoons and I am glad to help and divert his fixation from certain posters. (water of a ducks back springs to mind)
-
I recommend you ask Justice to ask his allusive wedding tipster. It's a mystery man that knows his stuff. A bit like Mikes "informant Z" ::)
Dont tell me Z wasn't real oh no, what is the world coming to
-
So ? Be patient and wait. It's not as though you're supporting the man and awaiting good news is it ?
Always patient with David.
Been waiting 5 months for his latest 'Sheila scenario' & he wouldn't divulge his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Now I've been waiting two months for feedback from his meeting/s with Bamber's lawyers.
-
Always patient with David.
Been waiting 5 months for his latest 'Sheila scenario' & he wouldn't divulge his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Now I've been waiting two months for feedback from his meeting/s with Bamber's lawyers.
Well isn't there anything else you could be doing instead of waiting the months you're busy moaning about ? If you're that desperate,get to the source of the matter--------the CT legal team !
-
Ask Justice to ask his wedding tipster what Bamber's lawyers said to you in you're meeting/s with them ?
I'm sorry I don't quite follow.
Well. After a short conversation with his wedding tipster. Justice was left in "No doubt whatsoever" that Bamber was guilty. ::) Thou the details of this conversation has never been revealed. ::)
There is no point wasting your time asking me. I'm just pointing you to a more reliable source of information. ::)
-
Well. After a short conversation with his wedding tipster. Justice was left in "No doubt whatsoever" that Bamber was guilty. ::) Thou the details of this conversation has never been revealed. ::)
There is no point wasting your time asking me. I'm just pointing you to a more reliable source of information. ::)
I asked you because you claimed you met Bamber's legal team. After you sent them you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
But as you said, asking you what was said in the alleged meeting/s is wasting time.
-
I can only conclude David didn't meet Bamber's lawyers.
I don't see why the lawyers would need to meet him when they already had his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' & can discuss it with Bamber or other experts. Or they can ignore the 'forensic evidence breakthough', which was just a palm print on the bible.
David said he met the lawyers in reply 482 of the 'Letter Trail' thread, but didn't answer my question in reply 489. Or today.
-
I can only conclude David didn't meet Bamber's lawyers.
I don't see why the lawyers would need to meet him when they already had his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' & can discuss it with Bamber or other experts. Or they can ignore the 'forensic evidence breakthough', which was just a palm print on the bible.
David said he met the lawyers in reply 482 of the 'Letter Trail' thread, but didn't answer my question in reply 489. Or today.
Nice try Adam. But I will not be giving you any details.
If they already had my 'forensic evidence breakthrough' Jeremy would not have asked me to go and show them. See the letter I posted a while ago.
Furthermore, If such meeting never took place, I would never have got this either.
-
Nice try Adam. But I will not be giving you any details.
If they already had my 'forensic evidence breakthrough' Jeremy would not have asked me to go and show them. See the letter I posted a while ago.
Furthermore, If such meeting never took place, I would never have got this either.
Thanks for responding to my post after 3 hours. Not sure what you're picture is supposed to be saying.
Why didn't Bamber give you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'/palm print to his lawyers himself ? You had already sent it to him.
And why the secrecy regarding what was said in you're meeting with Bamber's lawyers. After annoncing on here you had met them ? Don't tell me it's to 'prevent the crown from having more time to prepare'. Again.
-
Thanks for responding to my post after 3 hours. Not sure what you're picture is supposed to be saying.
Your welcome. Better late than never.
Why didn't Bamber give you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'/palm print to his lawyers himself ? You had already sent it to him.
I didn't/couldn't send it to him. I explained to him what it was via writing.
And why the secrecy regarding what was said in you're meeting with Bamber's lawyers. After annoncing on here you had met them ? Don't tell me it's to 'prevent the crown from having more time to prepare'. Again.
This has already been explained to you. See NGBs post and see AHs Email.
-
Your welcome. Better late than never.
I didn't/couldn't send it to him. I explained to him what it was via writing.
This has already been explained to you. See NGBs post and see AHs Email.
So what was Bamber thanking you for in his letter which you posted on here ?
Can't see a problem in you sending it straight to Bamber. You sent it to NGB & AH. Both of whom could have also passed it on.
Anyway it seems you met Bamber's legal team to hand deliver the documents yourself. Hope they bought you a coffee after you're efforts.
-
So what was Bamber thanking you for in his letter which you posted on here ?
Can't see a problem in you sending it straight to Bamber. You sent it to NGB & AH. Both of whom could have also passed it on.
Anyway it seems you met Bamber's legal team to hand deliver the documents yourself. Hope they bought you a coffee after you're efforts.
You cannot email stuff like that to a prisoner at wakefield. Furthermore, the mail gets vetted.
-
You cannot email stuff like that to a prisoner at wakefield. Furthermore, the mail gets vetted.
Bamber's letter dated 6th April 2016 asked you to send on you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which I assummed you did as well as give it to NGB & AH.
A year later on 17th March 2017 you said you had met with Bamber's lawyers. So I assummed this was on other issues which is why I asked what was discussed. Sadly being stone walled.
But it seems you're post dated 17th March 2017 was referring to when you hand deliveried the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' from a year earlier.
Where did you travel from/to in order to hand deliver you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal team ?
-
I fully understand why the defence want to keep the new evidence under wraps.
The problem is that I don't think the ccrc will refer because it will undermine the publics faith in the justice system. What a pay out the public purse would have to pay JB.
If by some chance they did refer then the prosecution would be told the reason for allowing an appeal.
This would give them ample time to counter the evidence.
Even if JB was cleared the guilters would then think it was a miscarriage of justice. [boot on the other foot].
No one will ever convince that all was clear in this case, and it never convinced at least two of the jury.
I wonder how many of the remainder of the jury were a 100%, or coerced by the foreman.
-
I fully understand why the defence want to keep the new evidence under wraps.
The problem is that I don't think the ccrc will refer because it will undermine the publics faith in the justice system. What a pay out the public purse would have to pay JB.
If by some chance they did refer then the prosecution would be told the reason for allowing an appeal.
This would give them ample time to counter the evidence.
Even if JB was cleared the guilters would then think it was a miscarriage of justice. [boot on the other foot].
No one will ever convince that all was clear in this case, and it never convinced at least two of the jury.
I wonder how many of the remainder of the jury were a 100%, or coerced by the foreman.
Guess Bamber should have 'lobbed Julie overboard'.
What new evidence ? I thought EP were withholding documents. The last appeal for money from 360 was to go over all existing evidence. Again.
The CT haven't kept quiet about alledged new evidence before. Such as Sheila's feet & Nevill's phone call to the fifth furthest away police station.
How will the CCRC referring to the COA undermine the publics faith in the justice system ? It's what the CCRC are supposed to do if they are given compelling new evidence.
What prosecution ? The CCRC & COA are independent bodies. If it goes to retrial, there will be a defence & prosecution. Which is standard procedure.
Why would the foreman coerce the other jurors ? Is there any evidence this happened in this case ?
-
Bamber's letter dated 6th April 2016 asked you to send on you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which I assummed you did as well as give it to NGB & AH.
A year later on 17th March 2017 you said you had met with Bamber's lawyers. So I assummed this was on other issues which is why I asked what was discussed. Sadly being stone walled.
But it seems you're post dated 17th March 2017 was referring to when you hand deliveried the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' from a year earlier.
Where did you travel from/to in order to hand deliver you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal team ?
David can you answer my question about where you travelled from/to in order to hand you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal advisors.
If it was hundreds or thousands of miles away everyone will applaud you're dedication. It will also be disappointing that the CT didn't praise you. Unless they have not been made aware.
-
Must admit I'm surprised Bamber couldn't receive David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' via post.
His prison cell is apparently full with millions of case documents & he receives letters from supporters regulary.
-
Must admit I'm surprised Bamber couldn't receive David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' via post.
His prison cell is apparently full with millions of case documents & he receives letters from supporters regulary.
He could.
-
He could.
It was eventually established that the meeting with Bamber's legal team, David mentioned in March 2017, was actually just hand delivering his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to them. A year earlier.
However if he had to travel thousands of miles & get ships, trains or planes to hand this over, everyone will rise to applaud him.
All will be revealed soon.
-
It was eventually established that the meeting with Bamber's legal team, David mentioned in March 2017, was actually just hand delivering his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to them. A year earlier.
However if he had to travel thousands of miles & get ships, trains or planes to hand this over, everyone will rise to applaud him.
All will be revealed soon.
Nope. Over 16,000 posts you still haven't established a single fact. However its clear your desperate to find out what the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' is.
-
Nope. Over 16,000 posts you still haven't established a single fact. However its clear your desperate to find out what the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' is.
I know you're 'forensic evidence nreakthrough' is a palm print on the bible.
Where did you travel from, & where to. When you hand delivered it to Bamber's legal team ?
Third request.
-
I know you're 'forensic evidence nreakthrough' is a palm print on the bible.
Where did you travel from & where to when you hand delivered it to Bamber's legal team.
Third request.
If you believe you know what it is then why are you asking me questions? ::)
-
If you believe you know what it is then why are you asking me questions? ::)
I'm just asking one simple question. Where did you travel from & to when delivering you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal team.
Forth request.
If you have never met Bamber's legal team & just said you did in March 2017 to try to give yourself some gravitas, just say.
-
I'm just asking one simple question. Where did you travel from & to when delivering you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal team.
Forth request.
If you have never met Bamber's legal team & just said it in March 2017 to try to give yourself some gravitas, just say.
Nice try. But you wont be getting any more info.
Last night I uploaded a photo of a business card that was given to me that had the name and address of the place on it. Shame you were too thick to work that out.
Not sure what you're picture is supposed to be saying.
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/lol_ricky_gervais.gif)
-
Yes the picture was in reply 551. Although you've since removed it. A lot of it was crossed out.
You have not said where you travelled from & to after 4 requests from me.
I can only conclude that you didn't travel hundreds or thousands of miles by planes, trains, ships or cars. Just to give Bamber's legal team you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. A year ago.
You just said you had met Bamber's legal team two months ago to try to give yourself more gravitas.
-
Yes the picture was in reply 551. Although you've since removed it. A lot of it was crossed out.
You have not said where you travelled from & to after 4 requests from me.
I have answered.
The details were all on that card (Including the address). All that was crossed out was the telephone numbers, email addresses and fax numbers.
I left it up long enough to serve its purpose. The answer was right in front of you. But you could not work out what it was.
You just said you had met Bamber's legal team two months ago to try to give yourself more gravitas.
I never said I had met Bamber's legal team two months ago. Once again you are putting words in my mouth because you have no valid argument.
-
I have answered.
The details were all on that card (Including the address). All that was crossed out was the telephone numbers, email addresses and fax numbers.
I left it up long enough to serve its purpose. The answer was right in front of you. But you could not work out what it was.
I never said I had met Bamber's legal team two months ago. Once again you are putting words in my mouth because you have no valid argument.
Reply 482 of the 'Letter Trail' thread you said you met with Bamber's legal team. The reply was dated March 17th 2017.
Why didn't you keep the photo up ? There is no reason to put it up for a few hours & then take it down. You had crossed out what you believed necessary.
Anyway I'm not asking for postcodes. If you travelled from New York to London, or Machester to Brighton to hand deliver you're 'forensic evidence' breakthrough to Bamber's legal team, just say. Other posters may even praise you're efforts.
Fifth request.
-
David's still not answered my simple question of where he travelled from/to in order to hand in his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal team. After my 5 requests.
Me & other posters believe he could have posted or emailed it to Bamber or his legal team. As was done to AH & NGB. However this was apparently not done.
It's doubtful Bamber's legal team lived next door to David so it can only be assumed that he had to travel hundreds or thousands of miles over hours or days to meet them. Costing a lot of money in travel. This will be a bit embarressing as it's since not been mentioned by anyone outside forums in the last 12 months.
However whether a supporter or guilter, everyone will rise to applaud his dedication of travelling across the country or the world, if my question is ever answered.
-
David's still not answered my simple question of where he travelled from/to in order to hand in his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal team. After my 5 requests.
Me & other posters believe he could have posted or emailed it to Bamber or his legal team. As was done to AH & NGB. However this was apparently not done.
It's doubtful Bamber's legal team lived next door to David so it can only be assumed that he had to travel hundreds or thousands of miles over hours or days to meet them. Costing a lot of money in travel. This will be a bit embarressing as it's since not been mentioned by anyone outside forums in the last 12 months.
However whether a supporter or guilter, everyone will rise to applaud his dedication of travelling across the country or the world, if my question is ever answered.
I have answered. The business card had the exact location and address of the office staring you in the face. Its not my fault you cant see past your own nose.
-
I have answered. The business card had the exact location and address of the office staring you in the face. Its not my fault you cant see past your own nose.
Can you post the business card again.
Where did you travel from ?
Don't worry, if you spent days travelling to hand you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's lawyers, everyone will applaud you.
Sixth request.
-
I have answered. The business card had the exact location and address of the office staring you in the face. Its not my fault you cant see past your own nose.
David,say no more for goodness sake-------he must be attached to a journo and we all know what they're like for spin and fake news.
-
David,say no more for goodness sake-------he must be attached to a journo and we all know what they're like for spin and fake news.
David's already said he met Bamber's legal team to hand in his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Can't see a problem in him saying where he travelled from/to so he could do this.
-
Can you post the business card again.
Nah. ;D
Where did you travel from ?
My front door.
Don't worry, if you spent days travelling to hand you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's lawyers, everyone will applaud you.
Sixth request.
I don't need any applause. But thanks for the offer.
-
David's already said he met Bamber's legal team to hand in his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Can't see a problem in him saying where he travelled from/to so he could do this.
This has been known for over a year now. Why are you suddenly desperate to find out where I live?
-
Well I intially wanted to know what was said in the meeting you had with Bamber's lawyers. You posted on the 17th March 2017 you had attended a meeting with Bamber's legal team.
After some stone walling it was revealed you were referring to handing in you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to them a year earlier. Which Bamber or his lawyers can't receive by post or email for some reason.
I've since asked the simple question 6 times of what towns you travelled from/to in order to hand deliver this.
-
David's already said he met Bamber's legal team to hand in his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Can't see a problem in him saying where he travelled from/to so he could do this.
That's enough said,isn't it ? Your desperation is suspicious to say the least.
-
Well I intially wanted to know what was said in the meeting you had with Bamber's lawyers. You posted on the 17th March 2017 you had attended a meeting with Bamber's legal team.
After some stone walling it was revealed you were referring to handing in you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to them a year earlier. Which Bamber or his lawyers can't receive by post or email for some reason.
I've since asked the simple question 6 times of what towns you travelled from/to in order to hand deliver this.
I was told several things In confidence and I'm under no obligation to tell you. And don't waste your time saying "I can only assume nothing happened" because I still won't tell you. 8)
PS. I don't stonewall you. Allot of the time I simply don't bother reading your posts.
-
I was told several things In confidence and I'm under no obligation to tell you. And don't waste your time saying "I can only assume nothing happened" because I still won't tell you. 8)
PS. I don't stonewall you. Allot of the time I simply don't bother reading your posts.
I wasn't asking what you were told.
I know you just met them to hand in you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. I just asked what towns/countries you travelled from/to in order to do give them this.
I've already posted on here which city I live in, which I'm proud of. So will travel from here to meet Bamber's legal team in the event of finding a 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
-
I wasn't asking what you were told.
I know you just met them to hand in you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. I just asked what towns/countries you travelled from/to in order to do give them this.
I've already posted on here which city I live in, which I'm proud of. So will travel from here to meet Bamber's legal team in the event of finding a 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
ESSEX
-
I wasn't asking what you were told.
I know you just met them to hand in you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. I just asked what towns/countries you travelled from/to in order to do give them this.
I've already posted on here which city I live in, which I'm proud of. So will travel from here to meet Bamber's legal team in the event of finding a 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Adam why is this so important to you
-
That's enough said,isn't it ? Your desperation is suspicious to say the least.
Hahaha lookout maybe Adam is wondering if David is a neighbour. Where does Adam live by the way?
-
This has been known for over a year now. Why are you suddenly desperate to find out where I live?
David think Adam is wondering if he could have you round for afternoon tea then you will be tortured to reveal your secrets hahaha
-
Nah. ;D
My front door.
I don't need any applause. But thanks for the offer.
David did you travel by air sea road or just walked or maybe all modes of travel were involved in your quest to meet with JB's Legal Team hehehe
-
Hahaha lookout maybe Adam is wondering if David is a neighbour. Where does Adam live by the way?
Mmm,Susan I notice he hasn't said anything about himself and WON'T acknowledge hints either.
-
David did you travel by air sea road or just walked or maybe all modes of travel were involved in your quest to meet with JB's Legal Team hehehe
It took me under 45 minutes to get there. ^-^
-
It took me under 45 minutes to get there. ^-^
David hahaha on a bike with all your evidence in a saddle bag :)) :)) :))
-
David hahaha on a bike with all your evidence in a saddle bag :)) :)) :))
Just a USB.
Talking of bikes. Did you ever see my 3D reconstruction of Jeremy on his way?
-
Just a USB.
Talking of bikes. Did you ever see my 3D reconstruction of Jeremy on his way?
Hello David I missed your 3D reconstruction of Jeremy on his way. I would like to see it :)
-
Adam why is this so important to you
Well I only found out that David hand delivered his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' a couple of days ago. After asking him what was said in a meeting he said he had with Bamber's lawyers in his March 2017 post.
I asked what towns he travelled from/to in order to deliver this. But as usual got no straight reply.
-
It took me under 45 minutes to get there. ^-^
That was lucky. Did you stop off for a coffee half way there ?