Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: notsure on February 13, 2017, 05:52:PM
-
I am sure Adam will be quick to tell me there is already a thread on this topic but I dont have time to look for it so I thought I would start a new one.
On the CT website it is again throwing light on the undisclosed information.
What I don't understand is that if there is a court order for EP to disclose why do they keep making excuses about not being able to locate and ignoring the court order.
Surely this is illegal and if it is why don't they go down the legal route again. Surely they could take it to the highest court in the land. I know this costs money but wouldn't that save an awful lot of messing about. They say that withheld information would prove his innocence so surely they should get another court order and another and another until ep cough up.
This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me with EP. They are so sure he is guilty then what bloody difference would it make if they did give all the information over. Oh yes more for him to appeal against sloppy police work. but surely this should be given. IMO it is a disgrace that EP do not hand over ALL information and be done with it.
-
There have been 3 court orders in all,so EP obviously think that they are above the law. The longer they ignore these orders,the more you can guarantee there's something they don't want anyone to see/read or they'd have been shown at the original trial if they'd been in the prosecutions favour.
-
There have been 3 court orders in all,so EP obviously think that they are above the law. The longer they ignore these orders,the more you can guarantee there's something they don't want anyone to see/read or they'd have been shown at the original trial if they'd been in the prosecutions favour.
Jeremy has said to several different people on several different occasions that he has all the information he needs. If this is so, how can EP -or anyone else- produce something they don't have? MORE! How can they prove, if it doesn't exist, that they haven't got it?
-
Jeremy has said to several different people on several different occasions that he has all the information he needs. If this is so, how can EP -or anyone else- produce something they don't have? MORE! How can they prove, if it doesn't exist, that they haven't got it?
HE might have all the information that HE needs,but it's not to say that there isn't more.
All EP have to say is that they have no more info-------is that so difficult ? To continue ignoring everyone who's written to them speaks volumes to me.
-
HE might have all the information that HE needs,but it's not to say that there isn't more.
All EP have to say is that they have no more info-------is that so difficult ? To continue ignoring everyone who's written to them speaks volumes to me.
I don't follow your reasoning, Lookout. SURELY, if they'd been capable of the massive and deliberate lie you and Mike are accusing them of, they'd be unlikely to back away from a lesser lie which would give credence to the original one.
-
I don't follow your reasoning, Lookout. SURELY, if they'd been capable of the massive and deliberate lie you and Mike are accusing them of, they'd be unlikely to back away from a lesser lie which would give credence to the original one.
I'll put my " reasoning " in a more simplified manner :
If someone was writing to you and generally pestering you for something you KNEW that you hadn't got,would you ignore their requests or tell them all that you haven't got what they're asking for ?
-
I'll put my " reasoning " in a more simplified manner :
If someone was writing to you and generally pestering you for something you KNEW that you hadn't got,would you ignore their requests or tell them all that you haven't got what they're asking for ?
How do you know they haven't?
-
I am sure Adam will be quick to tell me there is already a thread on this topic but I dont have time to look for it so I thought I would start a new one.
On the CT website it is again throwing light on the undisclosed information.
What I don't understand is that if there is a court order for EP to disclose why do they keep making excuses about not being able to locate and ignoring the court order.
Surely this is illegal and if it is why don't they go down the legal route again. Surely they could take it to the highest court in the land. I know this costs money but wouldn't that save an awful lot of messing about. They say that withheld information would prove his innocence so surely they should get another court order and another and another until ep cough up.
This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me with EP. They are so sure he is guilty then what bloody difference would it make if they did give all the information over. Oh yes more for him to appeal against sloppy police work. but surely this should be given. IMO it is a disgrace that EP do not hand over ALL information and be done with it.
How do you know they haven't?
-
I'll put my " reasoning " in a more simplified manner :
If someone was writing to you and generally pestering you for something you KNEW that you hadn't got,would you ignore their requests or tell them all that you haven't got what they're asking for ?
Lookout, I ignore everything -addressed to me, personally- I don't want to respond to. One of the first rules in counselling is that the moment you respond, you've become involved. May I hazard a guess that if you received such a letter, you'd probably call them liars, because you'd rather believe that the information you're certain they're holding, is the key to Jeremy's release?
-
Jeremy has said to several different people on several different occasions that he has all the information he needs. If this is so, how can EP -or anyone else- produce something they don't have? MORE! How can they prove, if it doesn't exist, that they haven't got it?
Yes Jane he has as I understand it but as this is ongoing and millions of pages of documentation to look through its is developing all the time with references to docs that they don't have. So they didn't know these docs existed but now they do, plus there is all the original docs from initial investigation. Plus the stuff that ep say they can't locate.
I'm not sure why you are saying this stuff doesn't exist when it clearly does.
-
How do you know they haven't?
almost isn't everything anc more has come to light since he wrote that
-
almost isn't everything anc more has come to light since he wrote that
Of course it has. ;D
-
Lookout, I ignore everything -addressed to me, personally- I don't want to respond to. One of the first rules in counselling is that the moment you respond, you've become involved. May I hazard a guess that if you received such a letter, you'd probably call them liars, because you'd rather believe that the information you're certain they're holding, is the key to Jeremy's release?
but would you ignore it if there was a court order saying you should release it.
-
Yes Jane he has as I understand it but as this is ongoing and millions of pages of documentation to look through its is developing all the time with references to docs that they don't have. So they didn't know these docs existed but now they do, plus there is all the original docs from initial investigation. Plus the stuff that ep say they can't locate.
I'm not sure why you are saying this stuff doesn't exist when it clearly does.
How do you know it exists? Because the CT say so?
-
but would you ignore it if there was a court order saying you should release it.
I imagine that the Courts have more authority than do the police, and that by now, IF it's true that they've ignored the Court directive on THREE occasions, that Court would have resorted to something, which is always at their disposal, in order to gain that which they require.............they'd have instructed balifs.
-
How do you know it exists? Because the CT say so?
No,because EP won't say yay or nay. I wrote to them a couple of years back and they mailed me back with a list on what the costs are for searching----------so they're there alright.
Oh,and the excuse that they're not in the publics interest.
-
In this online magazine,https://casebookclassiccrime.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ccc_issue6.pdf (https://casebookclassiccrime.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ccc_issue6.pdf) it is claimed by Ben Johnson that PC Chaplin's kept two logs which have never been disclosed.
Well, he kept one and guess what? It's on this forum!
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8173.0;attach=47657)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8173.0;attach=47659)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8173.0;attach=47661)
-
No,because EP won't say yay or nay. I wrote to them a couple of years back and they mailed me back with a list on what the costs are for searching----------so they're there alright.
Oh,and the excuse that they're not in the publics interest.
NO!!! Firstly, what on earth makes you think that EP would disclose anything -one way or the other- to you? However, they did seek to remind you what the cost would be, to the public, should such a search been undertaken on your behalf.
-
NO!!! Firstly, what on earth makes you think that EP would disclose anything -one way or the other- to you? However, they did seek to remind you what the cost would be, to the public, should such a search been undertaken on your behalf.
One way or the other it told me that there were documents/files still in their possession,and that they could be acquired via a solicitor on my behalf. Of course I didn't expect such documents sent to me just like that,I knew that much.
-
One way or the other it told me that there were documents/files still in their possession,and that they could be acquired via a solicitor on my behalf. Of course I didn't expect such documents sent to me just like that,I knew that much.
Do you really believe that any police force would release, to an uninvolved, random member of Joe Public, details of a contentious case, however many solicitors were employed? They told you nothing, Lookout, other that that which you choose to believe.
-
The point is for good or ill Jeremy has run out of money and with that the fancy lawyers and the pretty birds have flown.
-
Do you really believe that any police force would release, to an uninvolved, random member of Joe Public, details of a contentious case, however many solicitors were employed? They told you nothing, Lookout, other that that which you choose to believe.
Like I said,I DIDN'T expect to be told anything,so stop your nonsense. What I did learn were all of the replies they wrote to this " random member of Joe Public " were more than the 3 court orders and requests that higher-up " members of Joe Public " received !!
-
Like I said,I DIDN'T expect to be told anything,so stop your nonsense. What I did learn were all of the replies they wrote to this " random member of Joe Public " were more than the 3 court orders and requests that higher-up " members of Joe Public " received !!
Are you telling me that, whilst denying you the information you requested, they were perfectly willing to share with you that they'd told you more than those of note, who they surely must have named or you wouldn't be relaying the information to us?
-
Are you telling me that, whilst denying you the information you requested, they were perfectly willing to share with you that they'd told you more than those of note, who they surely must have named or you wouldn't be relaying the information to us?
Just a minute-------stop your fabricating for a start. Can you not understand that I said I hadn't expected them to tell me anything ? What information have I relayed to you ? NONE ! Because I haven't got any and WASN'T expecting any. You don't know how I worded my letter so why are you speaking in such a tone ?
-
Just a minute-------stop your fabricating for a start. Can you not understand that I said I hadn't expected them to tell me anything ? What information have I relayed to you ? NONE ! Because I haven't got any and WASN'T expecting any. You don't know how I worded my letter so why are you speaking in such a tone ?
In your above post you indicated that they told you more than others? Very confused!! ???
Unless you meant that you didn't expect them to tell you more than they had told others and they didn't?
Although you did indicate that they told you more!
-
Like I said,I DIDN'T expect to be told anything,so stop your nonsense. What I did learn were all of the replies they wrote to this " random member of Joe Public " were more than the 3 court orders and requests that higher-up " members of Joe Public " received !!
Sorry for misinterpreting your words, but they appear to be saying that they told you more than they told others...............but how would you know what they'd told others? However, perhaps you meant that they told you exactly what you'd expected them to?
Yours, Very Confused :)
-
In your above post you indicated that they told you more than others? Very confused!! ???
Unless you meant that you didn't expect them to tell you more than they had told others and they didn't?
Although you did indicate that they told you more!
NO-------stop jumping the gun. I inferred that at least I got a REPLY which was more than others have got,for all their begging and court orders.
-
NO-------stop jumping the gun. I inferred that at least I got a REPLY which was more than others have got,for all their begging and court orders.
How do you know they didn't get a reply and actually you said they told you about files and documents. Why would they tell you and not offer this information after the receipt of a court order? Do you still have this letter Lookout?
-
I was acknowledged,which was MORE than the CT legal team have been------NOT--- I know more,sheesh,why don't you read things properly. ?
-
I am sure Adam will be quick to tell me there is already a thread on this topic but I dont have time to look for it so I thought I would start a new one.
On the CT website it is again throwing light on the undisclosed information.
What I don't understand is that if there is a court order for EP to disclose why do they keep making excuses about not being able to locate and ignoring the court order.
Surely this is illegal and if it is why don't they go down the legal route again. Surely they could take it to the highest court in the land. I know this costs money but wouldn't that save an awful lot of messing about. They say that withheld information would prove his innocence so surely they should get another court order and another and another until ep cough up.
This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me with EP. They are so sure he is guilty then what bloody difference would it make if they did give all the information over. Oh yes more for him to appeal against sloppy police work. but surely this should be given. IMO it is a disgrace that EP do not hand over ALL information and be done with it.
Yes there have been other threads on this. As you said you don't have the time to look.
Appreciate that if supporters cannot find any new evidence, they will bring this up.
-
Yes there have been other threads on this. As you said you don't have the time to look.
Appreciate that if supporters cannot find any new evidence, they will bring this up.
No need to be funny.Notsure is a comparatively new poster,whereas you're here all through the night,every night.
-
I am sure Adam will be quick to tell me there is already a thread on this topic but I dont have time to look for it so I thought I would start a new one.
On the CT website it is again throwing light on the undisclosed information.
What I don't understand is that if there is a court order for EP to disclose why do they keep making excuses about not being able to locate and ignoring the court order.
Surely this is illegal and if it is why don't they go down the legal route again. Surely they could take it to the highest court in the land. I know this costs money but wouldn't that save an awful lot of messing about. They say that withheld information would prove his innocence so surely they should get another court order and another and another until ep cough up.
This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me with EP. They are so sure he is guilty then what bloody difference would it make if they did give all the information over. Oh yes more for him to appeal against sloppy police work. but surely this should be given. IMO it is a disgrace that EP do not hand over ALL information and be done with it.
It is an affront to justice that EP have withheld documents,Notsure. As Lookout says, EP have ignored, repeatedly, orders to disclose information.
Viewed objectively it is difficult to see EP's actions as anything other than an attempt to obstruct justice. It is not in dispute that EP, with the connivance of DC Soames of Special Branch, destroyed all forensic evidence in 1996 after they were ordered by Judicial Review to disclose. From this action alone it is reasonable to infer that EP have something to hide.
We know that JB and his legal team wanted full disclosure and that EP for some reason fought this. Despite losing the argument in court and being ordered to disclose, EP then had some contact with Special Branch which resulted in DC Soames and PC Whiddon gathering all of the evidence in a large room and disposing of, by incineration, all forensic exhibits.
Can this really be viewed as an honest mistake?
That they still withhold evidence to this day is not seriously in dispute.
-
It is an affront to justice that EP have withheld documents,Notsure. As Lookout says, EP have ignored, repeatedly, orders to disclose information.
Viewed objectively it is difficult to see EP's actions as anything other than an attempt to obstruct justice. It is not in dispute that EP, with the connivance of DC Soames of Special Branch, destroyed all forensic evidence in 1996 after they were ordered by Judicial Review to disclose. From this action alone it is reasonable to infer that EP have something to hide.
We know that JB and his legal team wanted full disclosure and that EP for some reason fought this. Despite losing the argument in court and being ordered to disclose, EP then had some contact with Special Branch which resulted in DC Soames and PC Whiddon gathering all of the evidence in a large room and disposing of, by incineration, all forensic exhibits.
Can this really be viewed as an honest mistake?
That they still withhold evidence to this day is not seriously in dispute.
Surely, before we accuse anyone of ANYthing, there has to be certain proof/evidence -as opposed to mere speculation- that they are guilty of what we're accusing them. It would seem beyond reason that ANYthing would be held which had the power to come back -at a future date- and bite.
-
Surely, before we accuse anyone of ANYthing, there has to be certain proof/evidence -as opposed to mere speculation- that they are guilty of what we're accusing them. It would seem beyond reason that ANYthing would be held which had the power to come back -at a future date- and bite.
Even Jeremy's own admission that he has almost everything withheld isn't enough. Perhaps he's only saying that because he's such a brave boy ::)
-
No need to be funny.Notsure is a comparatively new poster,whereas you're here all through the night,every night.
Yes I'm on here all through the night Lookout.
You spend more time online than me. Check the forum statistics.
-
Surely, before we accuse anyone of ANYthing, there has to be certain proof/evidence -as opposed to mere speculation- that they are guilty of what we're accusing them.
Rather ironic statement. Since you accuse Jeremy on far less than mere speculation.
-
Even Jeremy's own admission that he has almost everything withheld isn't enough. Perhaps he's only saying that because he's such a brave boy ::)
Perhaps that's because he IS brave ! While the likes of Bronson,Sutcliffe and Brady have been given air time recently for different reasons, and considering Jeremy has been classed on the same level as they,he's never been given a mention,even in a derogatory way given his time in prison----which I find strange.Are people scared to to say anything in case it will open up the can of worms waiting to explode ?
To me it's ironic that Sutcliffe is not only given priority while the NHS operate on his eye/s,but the cost to the NHS alone could be going towards the fund of JB's forensic team which is far more important. How many needy patients will have to wait longer while the monster/Sutcliffe jumps the queue ? I honestly give up on this country !!
-
Perhaps that's because he IS brave ! While the likes of Bronson,Sutcliffe and Brady have been given air time recently for different reasons, and considering Jeremy has been classed on the same level as they,he's never been given a mention,even in a derogatory way given his time in prison----which I find strange.Are people scared to to say anything in case it will open up the can of worms waiting to explode ?
To me it's ironic that Sutcliffe is not only given priority while the NHS operate on his eye/s,but the cost to the NHS alone could be going towards the fund of JB's forensic team which is far more important. How many needy patients will have to wait longer while the monster/Sutcliffe jumps the queue ? I honestly give up on this country !!
Rubbish! He's had numerous documentaries and a film made about him. He has a blog, his own website and has done interviews from prison. More than most prisoners EVER get!
-
Surely, before we accuse anyone of ANYthing, there has to be certain proof/evidence -as opposed to mere speculation- that they are guilty of what we're accusing them. It would seem beyond reason that ANYthing would be held which had the power to come back -at a future date- and bite.
It isn't speculation that EP have withheld documents and still do. Nor is it speculation that Soames and Whiddon sent all forensic evidence to be incinerated, after the court order.
The withheld items have all been referenced and listed so there is no serious debate about the existence of withheld documents.
The Kenneally Report, as one example, has not been disclosed unless you know otherwise.
I could go on but you all know perfectly well that much is still withheld and claiming that it is speculation doesn't make it so.
-
Rubbish! He's had numerous documentaries and a film made about him. He has a blog, his own website and has done interviews from prison. More than most prisoners EVER get!
Again,considering his time inside---30+ years,it's not much. Still,to be hoped that the recent forensic findings throw more light on his innocence once the media get involved.
-
It isn't speculation that EP have withheld documents and still do. Nor is it speculation that Soames and Whiddon sent all forensic evidence to be incinerated, after the court order.
The withheld items have all been referenced and listed so there is no serious debate about the existence of withheld documents.
The Kenneally Report, as one example, has not been disclosed unless you know otherwise.
I could go on but you all know perfectly well that much is still withheld and claiming that it is speculation doesn't make it so.
There was a time when I'd have taken as being correct, anything which was stated with, what appeared to be, a modicum of authority. Those days are long past, aided by the copious flow of myth, supposition, and word manipulation which have emanated from this forum, so I guess the answer is "NO", I don't "know" "that much is still withheld", firstly because I don't believe that ANYTHING incriminating would be kept, and secondly, I believe that the Court has the power to override the police, and if it was a certainty that material was being held, I believe the Court has the powers to retrieve it forcibly if it isn't offered voluntarily. Last, and by no means, least, I wonder how it would be possible for the police to prove they can't produce material they haven't got.
-
Jane,are you saying that because " nothing incriminating " would be kept that this material couldn't have been of use to the prosecution ? I beg to differ that if there'd been any hidden secrets about JB,or indeed something sinister,that it wouldn't have been used against him ?
So,that leaves us with the FACT that this paperwork ( original investigation ) must never see the light of day-----or else !
-
Jane,are you saying that because " nothing incriminating " would be kept that this material couldn't have been of use to the prosecution ? I beg to differ that if there'd been any hidden secrets about JB,or indeed something sinister,that it wouldn't have been used against him ?
So,that leaves us with the FACT that this paperwork ( original investigation ) must never see the light of day-----or else !
Take that thought a step further, Lookout. Doesn't it seem obvious that, HAD there been anything more -however small- that the prosecution could have used against Jeremy, bearing in mind that they and the police were part of the same team, ie seeking a guilty verdict, the police would have pulled out EVERY stop and used EVERYTHING at their disposal to assist the prosecution in their task. WHAT would have been the point of them doing otherwise? I remain perfectly certain that if -IF- there had EVER been the slightest thing which could have pointed to his innocence, it no longer exists. nor would it have done for some time. As the police often manage to convict on long hidden "trophies", I think it's reasonable to believe that they MAY have preempted a time when the tables would turn on them. As I said, I feel certain that it's within the Courts remit, to take by force, that which they have demanded, if it isn't given voluntarily. If it doesn't exist, all the demands in the kingdom, will be of no avail.
-
Take that thought a step further, Lookout. Doesn't it seem obvious that, HAD there been anything more -however small- that the prosecution could have used against Jeremy, bearing in mind that they and the police were part of the same team, ie seeking a guilty verdict, the police would have pulled out EVERY stop and used EVERYTHING at their disposal to assist the prosecution in their task. WHAT would have been the point of them doing otherwise? I remain perfectly certain that if -IF- there had EVER been the slightest thing which could have pointed to his innocence, it no longer exists. nor would it have done for some time. As the police often manage to convict on long hidden "trophies", I think it's reasonable to believe that they MAY have preempted a time when the tables would turn on them. As I said, I feel certain that it's within the Courts remit, to take by force, that which they have demanded, if it isn't given voluntarily. If it doesn't exist, all the demands in the kingdom, will be of no avail.
As things stood at the beginning of the investigation,EP were left scratching their heads and had to admit that " they had nothing on Jeremy ". I imagine that in the situation,it's absolutely crucial in the first 24hrs of a murder/s that the main aim of the investigation is to go through everything with a fine tooth-comb,left to a forensic team---------------------that didn't happen. Dozens of officers piled inside the farmhouse dashing any hope of picking up the tiniest piece of evidence,all because it was established as 4 murders and a suicide. It was STILL a murder scene but was NEVER treated as such.
Have we seen all paperwork of JM's since she attended 32 times ? The statements we've seen of hers don't state that JB committed the murders.What EP worked on was the lie that JM told about the " hitman " in which she'd said that JB had told her. This lie then reverted back to JB as being part of " a plan to kill his family " which EP would have used against him by way of JB having tried to use it ( the hitman ) as an excuse in blaming someone else instead of himself for murdering the family.
Apart from that lie which had been told,as well as the site break-in,there was nothing on Jeremy,it was that EP made it look that way. Everything else was cobbled up by the relatives since the police couldn't find anything.
-
As things stood at the beginning of the investigation,EP were left scratching their heads and had to admit that " they had nothing on Jeremy ". I imagine that in the situation,it's absolutely crucial in the first 24hrs of a murder/s that the main aim of the investigation is to go through everything with a fine tooth-comb,left to a forensic team---------------------that didn't happen. Dozens of officers piled inside the farmhouse dashing any hope of picking up the tiniest piece of evidence,all because it was established as 4 murders and a suicide. It was STILL a murder scene but was NEVER treated as such.
Have we seen all paperwork of JM's since she attended 32 times ? The statements we've seen of hers don't state that JB committed the murders.What EP worked on was the lie that JM told about the " hitman " in which she'd said that JB had told her. This lie then reverted back to JB as being part of " a plan to kill his family " which EP would have used against him by way of JB having tried to use it ( the hitman ) as an excuse in blaming someone else instead of himself for murdering the family.
Apart from that lie which had been told,as well as the site break-in,there was nothing on Jeremy,it was that EP made it look that way. Everything else was cobbled up by the relatives since the police couldn't find anything.
I totally concur with your first paragraph. "They had nothing on Jeremy" because Jeremy, by dint of alleged phone call allegedly implicating Sheila and being seen to arrive at WHF AFTER the police, had extricated himself from having at the scene since supper the previous evening.
You are also correct in saying Julie never told police that Jeremy had killed his family. As she was in London she wasn't there that night. Jeremy told Julie that he planned to. As Julie was never on trial, I don't feel it necessary to have her evidence in the public domain. I'll hazard a guess that if you thought Jeremy was guilty, you wouldn't be as interested in what she said. I wonder WHY it "has" to be a lie that Jeremy blamed a hit man?
-
I totally concur with your first paragraph. "They had nothing on Jeremy" because Jeremy, by dint of alleged phone call allegedly implicating Sheila and being seen to arrive at WHF AFTER the police, had extricated himself from having at the scene since supper the previous evening.
You are also correct in saying Julie never told police that Jeremy had killed his family. As she was in London she wasn't there that night. Jeremy told Julie that he planned to. As Julie was never on trial, I don't feel it necessary to have her evidence in the public domain. I'll hazard a guess that if you thought Jeremy was guilty, you wouldn't be as interested in what she said. I wonder WHY it "has" to be a lie that Jeremy blamed a hit man?
I would still question what JM had said in her statements whether I thought JB guilty or not,as I'm not on my own in saying that there was corroboration between her and the relatives,according to the scant notes in her new found " diary " which bear a similarity to what RWB had said.
Because JM had mentioned the hitman and got it wrong,the blame went to JB for telling her,which was probably in jest knowing his type of humour which she was seemingly used to,except when he was on the stand,then it was a different matter.
-
I would still question what JM had said in her statements whether I thought JB guilty or not,as I'm not on my own in saying that there was corroboration between her and the relatives,according to the scant notes in her new found " diary " which bear a similarity to what RWB had said.
Because JM had mentioned the hitman and got it wrong,the blame went to JB for telling her,which was probably in jest knowing his type of humour which she was seemingly used to,except when he was on the stand,then it was a different matter.
Whilst you may not be on your own in believing that there was corroboration it doesn't mean that there was any. I don't think the relatives would have formed much of a relationship with Julie and as, during the first month, she was actively supporting him, it's unlikely she'd have wanted to have much to do with them and their views. ESPECIALLY so if she knew they were right?!!!
The only reason Julie could have been wrong about the hit man was because Jeremy TOLD her it was the hit man who'd "done it" for £2000. As for what you seem to dismiss as his sense of humour, it's a very sick one that blames the slaughter of his family on an unsuspecting and innocent man. He'd have done better to stick to what Nevill had allegedly told him, ie Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun.
-
The only reason Julie could have been wrong about the hit man was because Jeremy TOLD her it was the hit man who'd "done it" for £2000.
Wrong.
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
-
Most miscarriages of justice happen because ofwithheld information. That's not a myth it's a fact. People spend years inside then Whoopi do the withheld docs comes to light and proves they weren't responsible.
Whilst I appreciate Jane and Caroline believe jb to be guilty I can't quite get my head around why they are arguing this point. There is withheld information as EP state they couldn't locate stuff and the first investigation notes haven't been seen, certainly there would be many more interviews with jb that we haven't seen etc .
It is a disgrace that they won't disclose, but I'm still not sure why the CT don't take more legal action as I believe that is the only way to get it. All this putting out stuff to say that they have ignored court orders to me is a waste of time.
start raising money to go down the legal route again. I'd certainly contribute just to blooming well know one way or another.
Caroline what date did jb write that where he says he has nearly all the stuff.
-
Whilst you may not be on your own in believing that there was corroboration it doesn't mean that there was any. I don't think the relatives would have formed much of a relationship with Julie and as, during the first month, she was actively supporting him, it's unlikely she'd have wanted to have much to do with them and their views. ESPECIALLY so if she knew they were right?!!!
The only reason Julie could have been wrong about the hit man was because Jeremy TOLD her it was the hit man who'd "done it" for £2000. As for what you seem to dismiss as his sense of humour, it's a very sick one that blames the slaughter of his family on an unsuspecting and innocent man. He'd have done better to stick to what Nevill had allegedly told him, ie Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun.
You know Jane I was just thinking that Julie didn't seem to me to be a "silly" person if you know what I mean: people cracking jokes or liking the sound of their own voice or living in their own little world as I think Sheila may have been wont to do. It's for this reason that I don't think she made up any stories. It's testament to the power of love that she couldn't see through Jeremy until it was too late. I think she did try and reason in her own mind, the mind that later wrote a Maths textbook for Canadian schoolchildren and a mind focussed on the logic of reasonable people she had known heretofore in England and not the mind of someone like Jeremy Bamber, psychopath or not.
-
Whilst you may not be on your own in believing that there was corroboration it doesn't mean that there was any. I don't think the relatives would have formed much of a relationship with Julie and as, during the first month, she was actively supporting him, it's unlikely she'd have wanted to have much to do with them and their views. ESPECIALLY so if she knew they were right?!!!
The only reason Julie could have been wrong about the hit man was because Jeremy TOLD her it was the hit man who'd "done it" for £2000. As for what you seem to dismiss as his sense of humour, it's a very sick one that blames the slaughter of his family on an unsuspecting and innocent man. He'd have done better to stick to what Nevill had allegedly told him, ie Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun.
I agree, Julie didn't had no reason to make up the hitman story.
-
Most miscarriages of justice happen because ofwithheld information. That's not a myth it's a fact. People spend years inside then Whoopi do the withheld docs comes to light and proves they weren't responsible.
Whilst I appreciate Jane and Caroline believe jb to be guilty I can't quite get my head around why they are arguing this point. There is withheld information as EP state they couldn't locate stuff and the first investigation notes haven't been seen, certainly there would be many more interviews with jb that we haven't seen etc .
It is a disgrace that they won't disclose, but I'm still not sure why the CT don't take more legal action as I believe that is the only way to get it. All this putting out stuff to say that they have ignored court orders to me is a waste of time.
start raising money to go down the legal route again. I'd certainly contribute just to blooming well know one way or another.
Caroline what date did jb write that where he says he has nearly all the stuff.
There seems to be a wealth of word manipulation that we're being asked to swallow. Just because Rivlin gave various of his opinions to the jury, doesn't mean they can be taken as being definitively correct. I don't believe he proved untrue anything Julie said and the verdict given by the jury seems to validate the belief.
I would like to know exactly WHY some people believe the police are deliberately holding information. Who told them? From WHERE did this information come? Saying information can't be located isn't saying they have the information secreted away. Perhaps it can't be located because it isn't there? HOWEVER, I DO appreciate that chanting the mantra "Information is being withheld" gives supporters something to cling to and hope for.
-
I agree, Julie didn't had no reason to make up the hitman story.
No,she could have come right out with it and said it was Jeremy------------but she didn't did she ?
-
You know Jane I was just thinking that Julie didn't seem to me to be a "silly" person if you know what I mean: people cracking jokes or liking the sound of their own voice or living in their own little world as I think Sheila may have been wont to do. It's for this reason that I don't think she made up any stories. It's testament to the power of love that she couldn't see through Jeremy until it was too late. I think she did try and reason in her own mind, the mind that later wrote a Maths textbook for Canadian schoolchildren and a mind focussed on the logic of reasonable people she had known heretofore in England and not the mind of someone like Jeremy Bamber, psychopath or not.
Steve, I don't believe that Julie's background was conducive to the production of a naturally frivolous and vapid character. I don't think things had come easily, to Julie, as they had to Sheila and Jeremy. She'd had to work for what she achieved. For this reason I feel that being with Jeremy gave her a taste -for a while- of the sort of life she'd only ever dreamed of and for a time she was swept away by it............until she started to question it.
-
No,she could have come right out with it and said it was Jeremy------------but she didn't did she ?
How could she, Lookout? To do that WOULD have been a lie. Jeremy didn't tell her he'd done it. He told her previously that he planned to do it. He told her he'd hired a hit man.
-
Steve, I don't believe that Julie's background was conducive to the production of a naturally frivolous and vapid character. I don't think things had come easily, to Julie, as they had to Sheila and Jeremy. She'd had to work for what she achieved. For this reason I feel that being with Jeremy gave her a taste -for a while- of the sort of life she'd only ever dreamed of and for a time she was swept away by it............until she started to question it.
..and by that time it was too late and the tragedy had occurred.
-
No,she could have come right out with it and said it was Jeremy------------but she didn't did she ?
She could but she didn't but that doesn't make her a liar.
-
How could she, Lookout? To do that WOULD have been a lie. Jeremy didn't tell her he'd done it. He told her previously that he planned to do it. He told her he'd hired a hit man.
Easily.The lies rolled off her tongue.
Bit of a difference in " being told " that he planned to do it--------and doing it. If only life was that easy that decisions were made for you.
He'd planned it,so he must have done it. Dear me.
-
Easily.The lies rolled off her tongue.
Bit of a difference in " being told " that he planned to do it--------and doing it. If only life was that easy that decisions were made for you.
He'd planned it,so he must have done it. Dear me.
He planned it, it happened and you think it;s a stretch to think he might be guilty? ;D
-
Most miscarriages of justice happen because ofwithheld information. That's not a myth it's a fact. People spend years inside then Whoopi do the withheld docs comes to light and proves they weren't responsible.
Whilst I appreciate Jane and Caroline believe jb to be guilty I can't quite get my head around why they are arguing this point. There is withheld information as EP state they couldn't locate stuff and the first investigation notes haven't been seen, certainly there would be many more interviews with jb that we haven't seen etc .
It is a disgrace that they won't disclose, but I'm still not sure why the CT don't take more legal action as I believe that is the only way to get it. All this putting out stuff to say that they have ignored court orders to me is a waste of time.
start raising money to go down the legal route again. I'd certainly contribute just to blooming well know one way or another.
Caroline what date did jb write that where he says he has nearly all the stuff.
28th January 2015
-
Easily.The lies rolled off her tongue.
Bit of a difference in " being told " that he planned to do it--------and doing it. If only life was that easy that decisions were made for you.
He'd planned it,so he must have done it. Dear me.
And how was Julie suppose to know the difference between the plan and the action?
-
He planned it, it happened and you think it;s a stretch to think he might be guilty? ;D
Sorry,it's just not possible. To go around telling of what your plans are as well as telling RWB what you could easily do ( kill parents ) then the daft beggar rings the police ::) Who was mentally ill here,JB or his sister ?
-
Sorry,it's just not possible. To go around telling of what your plans are as well as telling RWB what you could easily do ( kill parents ) then the daft beggar rings the police ::) Who was mentally ill here,JB or his sister ?
It is possible because it happened and he only called the police as an alibi and to blame his sister. Not mentally ill, just an arrogant psychopath.
-
Sorry,it's just not possible. To go around telling of what your plans are as well as telling RWB what you could easily do ( kill parents ) then the daft beggar rings the police ::) Who was mentally ill here,JB or his sister ?
Can you explain WHY you believe "it's just not possible" Lookout? It's not as if he said all these things within a few days, nor do I suspect he said them on a daily basis. I would remind you that there is a vast difference between mental illness and personality disorder.
-
Can you explain WHY you believe "it's just not possible" Lookout? It's not as if he said all these things within a few days, nor do I suspect he said them on a daily basis. I would remind you that there is a vast difference between mental illness and personality disorder.
Personality disorder comes under the umbrella of mental illnesses. Look it up.
Jeremy has been found not to suffer from any impairment of his mental state. In 30 years there's NEVER been any report of depression least of all psychopathy.
-
Personality disorder comes under the umbrella of mental illnesses. Look it up.
Jeremy has been found not to suffer from any impairment of his mental state. In 30 years there's NEVER been any report of depression least of all psychopathy.
Let's be straight, shall we, Lookout? You can twist this anyway you want, but personality disorder is not -I repeat NOT- a mental illness whether you put it under an umbrella or a parasol. I will accept that Jeremy doesn't have mental impairment, but it doesn't mean he's not a psychopath, NOR do depression and psychopathy have any commonalities. Is there a list -for public consumption- of every prisoner who is also a psychopath? WHY would it be of any importance? Why would Jeremy's psychopathy be of any more interest than any other prisoner?
-
Let's be straight, shall we, Lookout? You can twist this anyway you want, but personality disorder is not -I repeat NOT- a mental illness whether you put it under an umbrella or a parasol. I will accept that Jeremy doesn't have mental impairment, but it doesn't mean he's not a psychopath, NOR do depression and psychopathy have any commonalities. Is there a list -for public consumption- of every prisoner who is also a psychopath? WHY would it be of any importance? Why would Jeremy's psychopathy be of any more interest than any other prisoner?
Having a personality disorder is tantamount to being schizophrenic because instead of a person being themselves,they emulate someone else--------split personality ( schizophrenia ) Mental illness. Having two minds. Having a personality disorder can be dangerous because it's what I'd class as a devious illness.
-
Personality disorder comes under the umbrella of mental illnesses. Look it up.
Jeremy has been found not to suffer from any impairment of his mental state. In 30 years there's NEVER been any report of depression least of all psychopathy.
Personality disorder is classed as a 'mental disorder' not a mental illness. Depression and psycopathy are two VERY DIFFERENT things!
-
Having a personality disorder is tantamount to being schizophrenic because instead of a person being themselves,they emulate someone else--------split personality ( schizophrenia ) Mental illness. Having two minds. Having a personality disorder can be dangerous because it's what I'd class as a devious illness.
Dissociative identity disorder -what you call split personality- and schizophrenia may appear similar but they are very different. DID is a very serious MENTAL disorder. Schizophrenia can be easily managed with medication.
So are you saying that every personality disorder is just another way of saying schizophrenia?
YOU may class as dangerous/devious -SOME?- personality disorders but the chances are on a scale of 1-10, we ALL fall between 2-4 of one or another of them. They are not illnesses. Unless there is an underlying mental illness which will respond to drug therapy, personality disorders alone do not respond to medications.
-
Personality disorder is classed as a 'mental disorder' not a mental illness. Depression and psycopathy are two VERY DIFFERENT things!
Mental disorder,mental illness--------same difference,just different wording,that's all. It's just your way of evading the fact that it's still a mental illness. So to cover that you throw in depression and psychopathy both of which I know are different ::) And you tell me I twist things !
-
Mental disorder,mental illness--------same difference,just different wording,that's all. It's just your way of evading the fact that it's still a mental illness. So to cover that you throw in depression and psychopathy both of which I know are different ::) And you tell me I twist things !
No, it's not the same at all - you should know better but clearly you don't. Psychopathy is a mindset, it can't be treated with medication, schizophrenia (on the other hand) is an illness and can be treated with medication. It could be argued (I suppose) that because both are considered abnormalities, that they should be classed as illnesses. The law does not class psychopathy as an illness and can't be used under the banner of diminished responsibility.
-
Mental disorder,mental illness--------same difference,just different wording,that's all. It's just your way of evading the fact that it's still a mental illness. So to cover that you throw in depression and psychopathy both of which I know are different ::) And you tell me I twist things !
It is NOT, Lookout, and I don't know a psychiatrist or psychologist who'd agree with you, but you seem to think you know better than those who've spent years training to be both.
-
I think Sheila's illness has been magnified by the Defence: some sincerely believed she had the capacity to kill through genuine motives but others are using it as a smokescreen for Jeremy's atrocities. All the evidence was that when she was on medication her illness, though serious, was manageable and enabled her to lead some kind of life, though not independent in the full sense of the word.
-
I think Sheila's illness has been magnified by the Defence: some sincerely believed she had the capacity to kill through genuine motives but others are using it as a smokescreen for Jeremy's atrocities. All the evidence was that when she was on medication her illness, though serious, was manageable and enabled her to lead some kind of life, though not independent in the full sense of the word.
That's exactly right, Steve. Sheila's mental illness was emblazoned and festooned across every red top within hours of the murders. OK, it may have come from the police, but from whom did they receive it? It's perfectly true that once on stable meds, schizophrenia can be managed successfully. The chances are, that had Sheila agreed to stay in St Andrews for the extra week, the meds which were causing her problems may have been adjusted.
-
Doctor Ferguson was not happy at Sheila leaving the clinic when she did. We'll never know why now,I don't suppose.
One thing I do know is that if she was admitted under section 3,that she'd have been deemed a danger to herself and others. Is this the reason that we haven't seen her medical reports ??
-
Doctor Ferguson was not happy at Sheila leaving the clinic when she did. We'll never know why now,I don't suppose.
One thing I do know is that if she was admitted under section 3,that she'd have been deemed a danger to herself and others. Is this the reason that we haven't seen her medical reports ??
I would have thought, as it was an emergency admission, s4 might have been more applicable. Dr Ferguson wasn't happy about her early departure but seemed not to have the authority to countermand it. As Sheila was never on trial, it seems reasonable that her personal reports haven't been released.
-
I would have thought, as it was an emergency admission, s4 might have been more applicable. Dr Ferguson wasn't happy about her early departure but seemed not to have the authority to countermand it. As Sheila was never on trial, it seems reasonable that her personal reports haven't been released.
I'm aware that Sheila wasn't on trial but it would have assisted all round if her state of mind leading up to the murders,had been as sound as people imagined that it had been.
To have withheld this sort of information made the trial even more unfair than it already was.
Not forgetting that this wasn't Sheila's first admission !
-
I'm aware that Sheila wasn't on trial
She was. Its a trial within a trial.
-
She was. Its a trial within a trial.
Well,yes,I see your meaning and I was slightly hesitant when I wrote it as I thought about it afterwards.
-
I think she did try and reason in her own mind, the mind that later wrote a Maths textbook for Canadian schoolchildren
She didn't write a mathematics textbook for Canadian schoolchildren.
-
She didn't write a mathematics textbook for Canadian schoolchildren.
Yes she did https://www.amazon.co.uk/Learning-Pathway-Mathematics-Instruction-Assessment/dp/1553793587
-
No, she didn't. That's not a mathematics textbook (it's about the teaching and assessment of mathematics) and it's for teachers, not children.
-
No, she didn't. That's not a mathematics textbook (it's about the teaching and assessment of mathematics) and it's for teachers, not children.
I think you're splitting hairs really. The point I was trying to make with it was that Julie had a logical type brain and not the Mills and Boon type mind which might well have been capable of fabricating stories.
-
How mathematics is taught has been a hot topic for a long time, so Julie would have had no trouble finding opinions on the matter. She could also use her own experiences as a child. However, that doesn't imply that she had a logical mind, just an interest in improving the education of children.
-
I think you're splitting hairs really. The point I was trying to make with it was that Julie had a logical type brain and not the Mills and Boon type mind which might well have been capable of fabricating stories.
She had a female type brain.
"Naturally, manipulation with and without its sexual connotation is the predominant purview of the feminine. Some men blindly dabble in Machiavellianism out of anger, frustration or a lust for power, but fewer yet vocationally refine their Machiavellian capacity to a degree beyond woman’s ability. Indeed, much the scope of Illimitable Men is aiding one in this endeavour. You see, the majority of men are effectively clueless in matters of Machiavellianism. Women on the other hand are Machiavellian as water is wet. You’d be hard pressed to find a woman who isn’t Machiavellian, female autists come to mind as a possible exception.
The idiotic man is limited most by morality, the intelligent man, by rationalism, and the woman, neither. For women Machiavellianism is the de facto status quo, her natural way of both conscious and subconscious interaction with the world. Things don’t have to “be logically or morally right” for women to believe in an idea or exhibit specific behaviour. Women have been observed to make noble, moral arguments, whilst surreptitiously behaving contrary to the repute of said opinion.
It is in all the “glory” of dissociation that women can easily manipulate themselves into believing falsehoods via pseudo-rationalisation. This makes them incredibly compelling, as it grants them the capacity to bear-faced lie with a seemingly pure conviction; this is something typical of the feminine, but deemed psychopathic in nature when depicted by the masculine".
-
No, she didn't. That's not a mathematics textbook (it's about the teaching and assessment of mathematics) and it's for teachers, not children.
It's ultimately for children's education as such, it's for children. It seems your earlier comment to Steve was just to contradict. There is being pedantic and there is Reader!
-
Steve_uk suggested that Julie tried to reason in her own mind. She could hardly reason in anyone else's mind. To suggest she was good at reasoning, he then mentioned that she (her mind) had written a mathematics textbook for Canadian schoolchildren. Very little reasoning ability (and probably no mathematical reasoning ability) is needed to write a book that proposes particular methods of teaching and assessing mathematics.
-
Steve_uk suggested that Julie tried to reason in her own mind. She could hardly reason in anyone else's mind. To suggest she was good at reasoning, he then mentioned that she (her mind) had written a mathematics textbook for Canadian schoolchildren. Very little reasoning ability (and probably no mathematical reasoning ability) is needed to write a book that proposes particular methods of teaching and assessing mathematics.
Have you written one?
-
No, I find writing rather tedious. I learnt how to do précis writing at school, but don't remember much else in relation to writing.
-
Does anyone know what is alleged to have written in PC Nicholas Milbank's pocketbook(page 16 of 34)?
http://simplebooklet.com/disclosurebookletjeremybamber#page=15
-
Like most material which would have assisted the defence,it probably went up in smoke. Appalling !
-
Like most material which would have assisted the defence,it probably went up in smoke. Appalling !
And I'll hazard a guess that there won't be any documentation to suggest it ever existed.
-
And I'll hazard a guess that there won't be any documentation to suggest it ever existed.
Yes,and how easy is it to say " we haven't got it ",while scratching each others backs. People like that DO exist to save their own skins,jobs and pensions.
Would you risk a highly-paid job as a whistle-blower ?
-
Yes,and how easy is it to say " we haven't got it ",while scratching each others backs. People like that DO exist to save their own skins,jobs and pensions.
Would you risk a highly-paid job as a whistle-blower ?
As I've never had to make that decision, I can't give you the answer, but it brings to mind the terrible dilemma some must have suffered during the war re collaboration I don't believe these things to be undertaken lightly, ie would YOU sacrifice your and your family's security for someone you had no emotional attachment to?
-
As I've never had to make that decision, I can't give you the answer, but it brings to mind the terrible dilemma some must have suffered during the war re collaboration I don't believe these things to be undertaken lightly, ie would YOU sacrifice your and your family's security for someone you had no emotional attachment to?
It's not a case of sacrificing lives, or emotional detachment/attachment,it's a matter of principle,doing what you think is the right thing and above all, being honest with yourself as well as towards others. People are different and have different values in life . I've ALWAYS " listened to myself ", never others.
-
It's not a case of sacrificing lives, or emotional detachment/attachment,it's a matter of principle,doing what you think is the right thing and above all, being honest with yourself as well as towards others. People are different and have different values in life . I've ALWAYS " listened to myself ", never others.
Fine. Great. High minded. Laudable....................if you're so isolated physically and emotionally that you only have yourself to consider, otherwise our actions have a knock-on effect on others. It often becomes a question of balance. Maintaining that balance -unless one is totally self absorbed- can be challenging.
-
I would expect the pocketbook to exist, but contain nothing useful.
-
Columbo is on TV now.
Captain Kirk ( William Shatner) rang his victim while in the house with him. Then shot him. The conversation & shot were recorded. Captain Kirk pretending he was at his own house when making the call & hearing the gun shot.
He then went home and rang the police to report a possible shooting. He arrived at the murder scene after the police (A bit like Bamber did).
Columbo is already suspicious.
-
Except that JB hadn't reported a shooting scene-----someone else within WHF had !! While JB was outside,hence the armed police showing up. But we know nothing of the conversation that had gone on within,do we ? Or who it was who'd reported the shooting.
-
Except that JB hadn't reported a shooting scene-----someone else within WHF had !! While JB was outside,hence the armed police showing up. But we know nothing of the conversation that had gone on within,do we ? Or who it was who'd reported the shooting.
No call and no conversation. Bews called the armed police, it had nothing to do with any call from WHF.
-
No call and no conversation. Bews called the armed police, it had nothing to do with any call from WHF.
And you would know that for sure ?
-
And you would know that for sure ?
Yes, because there is no evidence to the contrary.
-
And you would know that for sure ?
I imagine with as much surety as your own belief in the first thing which came to mind in your attempt to defend Jeremy. Please enlighten me as on whose authority armed police were called out from inside WHF.
-
Yes, because there is no evidence to the contrary.
Well seeing that you always believed the word of mouth of JM and the relatives,I will also reiterrate that I " know what I know " by word of mouth and would also swear on oath !
-
Well seeing that you always believed the word of mouth of JM and the relatives,I will also reiterrate that I " know what I know " by word of mouth and would also swear on oath !
I feel certain you know, withOUT being reminded, that those words are a blatant lie. You KNOW that both Caroline and I once believed in Jeremy's innocence, and thus, all the cant aimed at others' feet, and the total lack of logical thinking attached to it.
-
I feel certain you know, withOUT being reminded, that those words are a blatant lie. You KNOW that both Caroline and I once believed in Jeremy's innocence, and thus, all the cant aimed at others' feet, and the total lack of logical thinking attached to it.
Come off it. It's no lie. You know full well that JM,the PRIME prosecution witness,along with the relatives helped put JB behind bars with their hearsay. So therefore you go along with all that they had to say because there's nothing else to go on.
Where would EP have been without them ? What did EP have on JB,except for USING the previous theft at Osea site ? Thieving doesn't amount to murdering.
Why weren't the jury shown JM's convictions ? Because EP were hard-up for a witness for the prosecution and if I remember rightly,a court won't entertain a person in the jury who's got/had convictions.
-
Well seeing that you always believed the word of mouth of JM and the relatives,I will also reiterrate that I " know what I know " by word of mouth and would also swear on oath !
I always believed the relatives and Julie? Did I?
Lookout, I'm not interested in what you say or think you know. Funny your should mention 'swearing' - this place makes me swear a lot too! ;) ;D
-
Come off it. It's no lie. You know full well that JM,the PRIME prosecution witness,along with the relatives helped put JB behind bars with their hearsay. So therefore you go along with all that they had to say because there's nothing else to go on.
Where would EP have been without them ? What did EP have on JB,except for USING the previous theft at Osea site ? Thieving doesn't amount to murdering.
Why weren't the jury shown JM's convictions ? Because EP were hard-up for a witness for the prosecution and if I remember rightly,a court won't entertain a person in the jury who's got/had convictions.
I'll ignore your little rant at the beginning of your post. It's just sill nonsense.
Thieving doesn't amount to murdering but greed can and often does.
What convictions? I believe that Julie's life of crime was mentioned. The defense knew all about her involvement in the caravan park robbery and the bank fraud. They would also have known about her selling drugs for Jeremy.
-
Well seeing that you always believed the word of mouth of JM and the relatives,I will also reiterrate that I " know what I know " by word of mouth and would also swear on oath !
Come off it. It's no lie. You know full well that JM,the PRIME prosecution witness,along with the relatives helped put JB behind bars with their hearsay. So therefore you go along with all that they had to say because there's nothing else to go on.
Where would EP have been without them ? What did EP have on JB,except for USING the previous theft at Osea site ? Thieving doesn't amount to murdering.
Why weren't the jury shown JM's convictions ? Because EP were hard-up for a witness for the prosecution and if I remember rightly,a court won't entertain a person in the jury who's got/had convictions.
Lookout, the moment you believe you're being called a liar, you bristle and whinge, yet you CANNOT expect that what you have said of Caroline and me to be accepted without comment. We both stood with you in accusing Julie and the family of having agendas and ulterior motives, yet here you are throwing wild and untrue accusations at us. THINK before you speak may prevent such 'accidents'?
-
I'll ignore your little rant at the beginning of your post. It's just sill nonsense.
Thieving doesn't amount to murdering but greed can and often does.
What convictions? I believe that Julie's life of crime was mentioned. The defense knew all about her involvement in the caravan park robbery and the bank fraud. They would also have known about her selling drugs for Jeremy.
EP knew about JM's crime,but neither the court,nor the jury knew or else why was she given immunity before the trial ?? So that she could be used by EP ! I bet even the relatives weren't best pleased when they first found that out,although would it have mattered to them ? No.
What would you think if drug-dealers/drug smugglers/cheque-fraudsters and thieves were all given immunity ?
You believe in JB's guilt,you should also believe that JM acted as accessory !!
Judging by " Matters of the Estate ",it certainly wasn't Jeremy who was greedy !
-
I'll ignore your little rant at the beginning of your post. It's just sill nonsense.
Thieving doesn't amount to murdering but greed can and often does.
What convictions? I believe that Julie's life of crime was mentioned. The defense knew all about her involvement in the caravan park robbery and the bank fraud. They would also have known about her selling drugs for Jeremy.
EP knew about JM's crime,but neither the court,nor the jury knew or else why was she given immunity before the trial ?? So that she could be used by EP ! I bet even the relatives weren't best pleased when they first found that out,although would it have mattered to them ? No.
What would you think if drug-dealers/drug smugglers/cheque-fraudsters and thieves were all given immunity ?
You believe in JB's guilt,you should also believe that JM acted as accessory !!
Judging by " Matters of the Estate ",it certainly wasn't Jeremy who was greedy !
-
EP knew about JM's crime,but neither the court,nor the jury knew or else why was she given immunity before the trial ?? So that she could be used by EP ! I bet even the relatives weren't best pleased when they first found that out,although would it have mattered to them ? No.
What would you think if drug-dealers/drug smugglers/cheque-fraudsters and thieves were all given immunity ?
You believe in JB's guilt,you should also believe that JM acted as accessory !!
Judging by " Matters of the Estate ",it certainly wasn't Jeremy who was greedy !
Would you be turning a hair about any of this if you thought Jeremy was guilty? OR would you be prepared to let a murderer/guilty person walk free because evidence given, by those you believe to be on the wrong side of the law, had helped convict them?
-
Would you be turning a hair about any of this if you thought Jeremy was guilty? OR would you be prepared to let a murderer/guilty person walk free because evidence given, by those you believe to be on the wrong side of the law, had helped convict them?
I neither think nor believe that Jeremy's guilty,so your question doesn't apply.
-
I neither think nor believe that Jeremy's guilty,so your question doesn't apply.
As I wasn't actually referring to Jeremy's crime in particular, but crimes -and whose/what evidence, as I feel certain you were aware, helps to convict- in general, your avoidance of the question/refusal to answer speaks volumes.
-
As I wasn't actually referring to Jeremy's crime in particular, but crimes -and whose/what evidence, as I feel certain you were aware, helps to convict- in general, your avoidance of the question/refusal to answer speaks volumes.
You asked " if I thought Jeremy was guilty "----------so I answered.
-
You asked " if I thought Jeremy was guilty "----------so I answered.
But as I referred to "A" -not "THE"- murderer/guilty person, you'd have known the question WASN'T Jeremy specific.
-
Would you be turning a hair about any of this if you thought Jeremy was guilty? OR would you be prepared to let a murderer/guilty person walk free because evidence given, by those you believe to be on the wrong side of the law, had helped convict them?
I wouldn't even be discussing a TRUE murderer !! If my thoughts were yours,I'm afraid I'd have better things to do.
-
I wouldn't even be discussing a TRUE murderer !! If my thoughts were yours,I'm afraid I'd have better things to do.
Keep it going. ANYTHING to avoid giving a straight answer, eh, Lookout? WHAT is it, I wonder, that you're to scared to admit?
-
I would expect the pocketbook to exist, but contain nothing useful.
The point is: do the Campaign Team know what they need, are they flailing around in the dark or are there documents there which they don't know they need but do exist?
-
EP knew about JM's crime,but neither the court,nor the jury knew or else why was she given immunity before the trial ?? So that she could be used by EP ! I bet even the relatives weren't best pleased when they first found that out,although would it have mattered to them ? No.
What would you think if drug-dealers/drug smugglers/cheque-fraudsters and thieves were all given immunity ?
You believe in JB's guilt,you should also believe that JM acted as accessory !!
Judging by " Matters of the Estate ",it certainly wasn't Jeremy who was greedy !
You are wrong, it just shows how LITTLE you do know, the cheque book fraud and her part in the Osea road robbery were discussed in court.
-
You are wrong, it just shows how LITTLE you do know, the cheque boor fraud and her part in the Osea road robbery were discussed in court.
And the drugs ?
-
And the drugs ?
Drugs were discussed also. So you're wrong. Something else reported that the court and the jury were never told, turns out, they were!
-
And the drugs ?
Well, given that Jeremy didn't that Jeremy wasn't exactly Mr Big in the chain of drug suppliers, it suggests that the amount Julie could have sold was extremely limited, and Yes, you HAVE told us how, prior to knowing Jeremy, Julie -allegedly- flew out to Canada and bought drugs back, but left out the fact that as she had to work to pay her way through college, a flight to Canada, at around 19 years of age was probably a little beyond her means.
-
Well, given that Jeremy didn't that Jeremy wasn't exactly Mr Big in the chain of drug suppliers, it suggests that the amount Julie could have sold was extremely limited, and Yes, you HAVE told us how, prior to knowing Jeremy, Julie -allegedly- flew out to Canada and bought drugs back, but left out the fact that as she had to work to pay her way through college, a flight to Canada, at around 19 years of age was probably a little beyond her means.
I bet no evidence of it was posted alongside? ;) ;D
-
I bet no evidence of it was posted alongside? ;) ;D
Just like there was no evidence that Julie's -allegedly- soon to be, EX husband had -allegedly- corresponded with someone connected to this site to say he was divorcing Julie because he'd discovered that she'd lied in court!!!!!!.....................some 3 or 4 years before they ever met!!!! I think the lesson here is as follows:- IF IT AIN'T THE TRUTH OR THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT, DON'T POST IT.
-
Just like there was no evidence that Julie's -allegedly- soon to be, EX husband had -allegedly- corresponded with someone connected to this site to say he was divorcing Julie because he'd discovered that she'd lied in court!!!!!!.....................some 3 or 4 years before they ever met!!!! I think the lesson here is as follows:- IF IT AIN'T THE TRUTH OR THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT, DON'T POST IT.
Yep, another gem that turned out to be just gossip.
-
Tracked it down - the Canada drugs claim is from the OS (posted below), they make reference to a COLP document BUT haven't posted it. Again, it's who do you believe and without evidence to back it up, it's just words. Canada isn't a usual place to smuggle drugs from and having worked there for quite some time, I know that they have a strict drugs security at the airports and everyone gets to meet the sniffer dogs! Although they may not do so at EVERY airport and of course it may have been less secure in 1985.
"Back in 1991 the City of London Police had investigated Essex Police they detailed a list of crimes which Julie had confessed to carrying out undetected These included, taking cannabis, selling cannabis, accessory to burglary at the caravan park, smuggling drugs back into the UK from Canada, and cheque book fraud. (11) Julie Mugford was never charged with any of these offences officially, but documents newly surfaced show that she was charged with burglary and this was withdrawn with permission from the DPP’s office, in the same document Julie is also advised she will be called as a prosecution witness. At the 2002 appeal the Defence put forward the suggestion that Julie Mugford and her friend and co-fraudster Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution as a trade off for Julie’s testimony against Jeremy Bamber but the documents relating to this were under Public Interest Immunity. (12)"
-
Tracked it down - the Canada drugs claim is from the OS (posted below), they make reference to a COLP document BUT haven't posted it. Again, it's who do you believe and without evidence to back it up, it's just words. Canada isn't a usual place to smuggle drugs from and having worked there for quite some time, I know that they have a strict drugs security at the airports and everyone gets to meet the sniffer dogs! Although they may not do so at EVERY airport and of course it may have been less secure in 1985.
"Back in 1991 the City of London Police had investigated Essex Police they detailed a list of crimes which Julie had confessed to carrying out undetected These included, taking cannabis, selling cannabis, accessory to burglary at the caravan park, smuggling drugs back into the UK from Canada, and cheque book fraud. (11) Julie Mugford was never charged with any of these offences officially, but documents newly surfaced show that she was charged with burglary and this was withdrawn with permission from the DPP’s office, in the same document Julie is also advised she will be called as a prosecution witness. At the 2002 appeal the Defence put forward the suggestion that Julie Mugford and her friend and co-fraudster Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution as a trade off for Julie’s testimony against Jeremy Bamber but the documents relating to this were under Public Interest Immunity. (12)"
And would Canada not have seemed a rather expensive trip to take -for a penniless student- when Holland is much closer and their drug laws somewhat looser?
-
And would Canada not have seemed a rather expensive trip to take -for a penniless student- when Holland is much closer and their drug laws somewhat looser?
I'd have said so.
-
Come off it. It's no lie. You know full well that JM,the PRIME prosecution witness,along with the relatives helped put JB behind bars with their hearsay. So therefore you go along with all that they had to say because there's nothing else to go on.
Where would EP have been without them ? What did EP have on JB,except for USING the previous theft at Osea site ? Thieving doesn't amount to murdering.
Why weren't the jury shown JM's convictions ? Because EP were hard-up for a witness for the prosecution and if I remember rightly,a court won't entertain a person in the jury who's got/had convictions.
The jury were told about Julie's cheque book fraud.
All the relatives did was hand over a silencer. The suggestion that RB knew he had similar blood to Sheila and shot himself to expertly put back splatter blood into the silencer, has been dismissed.
The conviction was due to the forensic evidence. A lot of which is in the library. Together with the equally important circumstantial evidence.
-
No call and no conversation. Bews called the armed police, it had nothing to do with any call from WHF.
According to logs:
04.02 Recce of the farmhouse from the exterior commenced
04.04 Preparation for armed police and the standing down of FSU in Colchester commenced.
04.09 The two officers and Jeremy are recorded as backing away from the premises (towards CA7).
04:11 Request for firearms from CA7 is noted.
04:16 Harris is recorded as providing authority.
Preparations for armed police began prior to any situation report from Bews.
-
According to logs:
04.02 Recce of the farmhouse from the exterior commenced
04.04 Preparation for armed police and the standing down of FSU in Colchester commenced.
04.09 The two officers and Jeremy are recorded as backing away from the premises (towards CA7).
04:11 Request for firearms from CA7 is noted.
04:16 Harris is recorded as providing authority.
Preparations for armed police began prior to any situation report from Bews.
So nothing to do with seeing someone at a window then.
-
So nothing to do with seeing someone at a window then.
Do you mean Bews' request or the commencement of preparations?
The three are described in one statement as having ran back to CA7. Jeremy has also written of Bews scarpering, leaving him and Myall looking at each other in surprise, before following Bews.
One other thing to consider is whether there was more than one recce.
-
Do you mean Bews' request or the commencement of preparations?
The three are described in one statement as having ran back to CA7. Jeremy has also written of Bews scarpering, leaving him and Myall looking at each other in surprise, before following Bews.
One other thing to consider is whether there was more than one recce.
Yes, Jeremy has written a lot of things but given his position - I don't think his word can be relied upon.
-
Yes, Jeremy has written a lot of things but given his position - I don't think his word can be relied upon.
To be fair though - you have relied upon it yourself (if I am not mistaken). He confirmed about the panic alarm. He may have genuinely helped to confirm other aspects for you as well (I'm guessing).
Facts come from all people and all walks of life, imho.
-
To be fair though - you have relied upon it yourself (if I am not mistaken). He confirmed about the panic alarm. He may have genuinely helped to confirm other aspects for you as well (I'm guessing).
Facts come from all people and all walks of life, imho.
He told me there was no panic button but it wasn't until Vidvic had it confirmed by AE that it was accepted.
Maybe you didn't understand what I meant, I think a certain level of caution should be used when quoting Jeremy. It's in HIS best interest to have people believe there was a figure at the window so if guilty, he'll play on that. The panic alarm is benign - but don't forget how long he avoided answering about wallet. I also asked him about selling pictures of Sheila - I'm still waiting for a reply to that.
-
He told me there was no panic button but it wasn't until Vidvic had it confirmed by AE that it was accepted.
Maybe you didn't understand what I meant, I think a certain level of caution should be used when quoting Jeremy. It's in HIS best interest to have people believe there was a figure at the window so if guilty, he'll play on that. The panic alarm is benign - but don't forget how long he avoided answering about wallet. I also asked him about selling pictures of Sheila - I'm still waiting for a reply to that.
Fair points. Though with regard to the wallet - I did kind of empathise with his reasons for the delay.
-
Fair points. Though with regard to the wallet - I did kind of empathise with his reasons for the delay.
Roch
IMO if JB did try and sell nude pictures of his sister this does not make him a murderer from the start Vic said the farmhouse did have a panic button but then he apologised and corrected himself to saying no panic button and I thought Jeremy had said this too.
-
Roch
IMO if JB did try and sell nude pictures of his sister this does not make him a murderer from the start Vic said the farmhouse did have a panic button but then he apologised and corrected himself to saying no panic button and I thought Jeremy had said this too.
Bamber sold everything he could from Sheila's flat. While Colin Caffell was not around. He told CC he needed the money.
-
He told me there was no panic button but it wasn't until Vidvic had it confirmed by AE that it was accepted.
Maybe you didn't understand what I meant, I think a certain level of caution should be used when quoting Jeremy. It's in HIS best interest to have people believe there was a figure at the window so if guilty, he'll play on that. The panic alarm is benign - but don't forget how long he avoided answering about wallet. I also asked him about selling pictures of Sheila - I'm still waiting for a reply to that.
No you didn't
-
Bamber sold everything he could from Sheila's flat. While Colin Caffell was not around. He told CC he needed the money.
Yes-----he needed the money to pay for the £hundreds in death duties and funerals.
-
It's pretty obvious the one piece of evidence Roch says he has but won't divulge, is to do with forgery & framing. Both within & outside of EP.
There is no way one piece of evidence from Roch can negate the 200+ pieces of incriminating evidence that has already been published & submitted at trial & at appeals. Unless it shows deliberate forgery.
-
Yes-----he needed the money to pay for the £hundreds in death duties and funerals.
Is that why he bought a consignment of cannabis in Amsterdam as well. Or was that for his jolly ups ?
-
Is that why he bought a consignment of cannabis in Amsterdam as well. Or was that for his jolly ups ?
What " consignment " was that then.? Holidays don't have anything to do with it,he had a couple of thousand of his own,so that's nobody's business.
-
Bamber sold everything he could from Sheila's flat. While Colin Caffell was not around. He told CC he needed the money.
Adam
I know he sold stuff from Sheila's flat does that mean he murdered his family. No.
-
Adam
I know he sold stuff from Sheila's flat does that mean he murdered his family. No.
What about the forensic & circumstantial evidence ?
Or do you prefer to focus on Julie identifying the twins.
-
No you didn't
"No you didn't"? Are we to understand, from that, that you're saying Caroline is a liar?
-
It's pretty obvious the one piece of evidence Roch says he has but won't divulge, is to do with forgery & framing. Both within & outside of EP.
There is no way one piece of evidence from Roch can negate the 200+ pieces of incriminating evidence that has already been published & submitted at trial & at appeals. Unless it shows deliberate forgery.
Adam what you have posted is incorrect Roch has never said he had evidence he stated he had seen it and was not allowed to share with us as the evidence was not his to share. You cannot make sweeping statements like this you nor I have a clue what evidence Roch has seen it could blow all of yours out the water and you may have to start again making new threads
-
Yes-----he needed the money to pay for the £hundreds in death duties and funerals.
Neither of which was required imminently. He could have paid for the funerals from his own money had it been necessary for him to do so. Death duties would have been paid from monies left by his parents. There was absolutely NO need for him to scrape funds together for either.
-
Adam what you have posted is incorrect Roch has never said he had evidence he stated he had seen it and was not allowed to share with us as the evidence was not his to share. You cannot make sweeping statements like this you nor I have a clue what evidence Roch has seen it could blow all of yours out the water and you may have to start again making new threads
One piece of evidence can't blow 200+ pieces out of the water.
He would have to have seen something that showed there was large scale forgery & fabrication taking place to create all the evidence that convicted Bamber.
-
What about the forensic & circumstantial evidence ?
Or do you prefer to focus on Julie identifying the twins.
Adam
let me make this clear Julie identifying the twins is not one of my reasons for thinking Sheila murdered her family what difference does it make who identified the twins it seems to mean so much to you and you alone
-
One piece of evidence can't blow 200+ pieces out of the water.
He would have to have seen something that showed there was large scale forgery & fabrication taking place to create all the evidence that convicted Bamber.
Adam you will have to wait and see then make up your mind you may change to thinking Jeremy is guilty
-
Adam
let me make this clear Julie identifying the twins is not one of my reasons for thinking Sheila murdered her family what difference does it make who identified the twins it seems to mean so much to you and you alone
You have previously said Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins. As you believe you would have acted differently at her age & in her situation.
Do you think the forensic & circumstantial evidence shows Bamber is innocent ?
-
Adam you will have to wait and see then make up your mind you may change to thinking Jeremy is guilty
Maybe there will be a 4x whammy. With Roch, David, JackieD & Mike releasing their withheld evidence at the same time.
-
Neither of which was required imminently. He could have paid for the funerals from his own money had it been necessary for him to do so. Death duties would have been paid from monies left by his parents. There was absolutely NO need for him to scrape funds together for either.
Whatever he sold was his own to sell at the time.
I understand that JM gave him a helping hand bring home the tonnes of cannabis from Amsterdam ?
She obviously showed no objection to going on a drug trip then ?
-
One piece of evidence can't blow 200+ pieces out of the water.
It was 100 last week now it's back to 200?
One piece of evidence can blow 200+ pieces of bullshit someone pulls out their backside any day.
-
Whatever he sold was his own to sell at the time.
I understand that JM gave him a helping hand bring home the tonnes of cannabis from Amsterdam ?
She obviously showed no objection to going on a drug trip then ?
Well, actually, it wasn't. Not until it had gone through probate. It might have been permissible had he handed the monies accrued to the accountant, but I don't recall that as having happened. I have NO idea why you keep dragging Julie into this -after all, wasn't Brett there, too- she wasn't suspected of murder and she wasn't a family member. If she showed no objection to going on what you refer to as a drug trip, so what? However, whilst she may have gone there with him, she's never said how she felt about it. It may simply have been that whilst she was out of England she wouldn't have to answer questions. I don't know the answer to that. Unlike you, I'm not jumping to conclusions.
-
It was 100 last week now it's back to 200?
One piece of evidence can blow 200+ pieces of bullshit someone pulls out their backside any day.
You keep saying the same thing. And I keep giving the same answer.
It's 50+ pieces of forensic evidence. Perhaps up to a hundred. I've recently posted a long list of published forensic evidence which was submitted to trial & appeals.
Then you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Which is just as important.
Anyway, Roch's one piece of evidence he says he has seen, won't negate the incriminating evidence. Unless it proves deliberate wide scale forgery, perjury & a framing attempt.
-
Maybe there will be a 4x whammy. With Roch, David, JackieD & Mike releasing their withheld evidence at the same time.
Adam I did not know Jackie and Mike had any new evidence as well wow that is excellent.
-
Adam I did not know Jackie and Mike had any new evidence as well wow that is excellent.
Mike said several years ago he has a picture of Sheila on the bed. David said he had made a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' over a year ago but Andrew Hunter told him to not say what it was. JackieD said she has new information but won't say what it is
All the published evidence shows guilt.
-
Mike said several years ago he has a picture of Sheila on the bed. David said he had made a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' over a year ago but Andrew Hunter told him to not say what it was. JackieD said she has new information but won't say what it is
All the published evidence shows guilt.
This site does suffer when members hold their cards too close to their chest.
-
"No you didn't"? Are we to understand, from that, that you're saying Caroline is a liar?
I asked Caroline that question weeks ago and she posted she hadn't asked him
-
I asked Caroline that question weeks ago and she posted she hadn't asked him
I think I'll wait to hear that from Caroline before drawing conclusions.
-
No you didn't
Yes I did - find my post where I said I hadn't asked him?
-
I think I'll wait to hear that from Caroline before drawing conclusions.
She'll be able to find the post where I said I didn't ask him then.
-
I think I'll wait to hear that from Caroline before drawing conclusions.
You carry on drawing your conclusions 24/7 because nobody takes you seriously anyway
-
You carry on drawing your conclusions 24/7 because nobody takes you seriously anyway
Where is the post where I said I didn't ask Jeremy about The Sun?
You think people take you seriously?
-
This site does suffer when members hold their cards too close to their chest.
Mike has been open about the evidence he has had for several years - a photo of Sheila on the bed. He said a few ago that this had been passed to his legal advisors.
David created a thread over a year ago called 'forensic evidence breakthrough' & asked NGB to say it was 'well written' to create an interest. Then would not say what it was although it seems to be to do with fingerprints on the bible.
Roch's withheld piece of evidence he has seen but can't disclose apparently shows 'Sheila is definately the killer'. This must show high level forgery, corruption & framing. Otherwise it will not negate the already published mass of incriminating evidence & will be dismissed.
JackieD said she has been given new information, perhaps during her research for her 6 part documentary. But said will not disclose it on here.
-
This site does suffer when members hold their cards too close to their chest.
I wonder why,Steve ?
-
Roch's withheld piece of evidence he has seen but can't disclose apparently shows 'Sheila is definately the killer'. This must show high level forgery, corruption & framing. Otherwise it will not negate the already published mass of incriminating evidence & will be dismissed.
The mass of published 'evidence' about Jeremy isn't very high grade though is it?
He rang police saying his father had rang him - but police couldn't prove whether the call did or didn't take place... he smirked... he dyed his hair black... he emptied a flat... his attitude was callous... he never showed any remorse... he was acting... he told Ann that him and her would be in charge of something within a relatively short period of time... he couldn't put one foot in front of the other.. he was profligate with money... he planned to sell everything... he wore make-up... he made his dad cry... he put his feet up on the desk... he said he hated his parents... he said he could easily shoot his parents... he was a druggy who bought & sold drugs... he put live rats in his mam's pockets... he was a petty criminal etc etc.... he treated a police officer with disrespect over the phone by using their surname only...
-
The mass of published 'evidence' about Jeremy isn't very high grade though is it?
He rang police saying his father had rang him - but police couldn't prove whether the call did or didn't take place... he smirked... he dyed his hair black... he emptied a flat... his attitude was callous... he never showed any remorse... he was acting... he told Ann that him and her would be in charge of something within a relatively short period of time... he couldn't put one foot in front of the other.. he was profligate with money... he planned to sell everything... he wore make-up... he made his dad cry... he put his feet up on the desk... he said he hated his parents... he said he could easily shoot his parents... he was a druggy who bought & sold drugs... he put live rats in his mam's pockets... he was a petty criminal etc etc.... he treated a police officer with disrespect over the phone by using their surname only...
You must have missed my recent thread. Here is a percentage of the published forensic evidence. The circumstantial evidence will need a separate library -
Perfectly clean hands on Sheila.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.
Well manicured nails on Sheila.
No broken nails.
Nails in tact.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers.
No blood on finger tips.
No dirt on finger tips.
No powder on finger tips.
No trace of any lead dust coating.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice.
Very clean feet.
Feet free from significant blood staining.
No debris such as sugar on feet.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself.
Nevill being bare footed in pyjamas.
Sheila being bare footed in pyjamas.
Paint in silencer.
Aga scratch's.
Blood in silencer.
No blood in the rifle end.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre.
Sheila under sedation.
Easy window entrance into WHF.
Shutting kitchen window from outside.
Murder weapon options.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell.
Items around the kitchen window being moved after housekeeper had left.
Bike route to WHF.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre.
June not waking/getting shot in bed.
Nevill's back burns.
2012 CCRC court judgement.
The twins not waking.
Bamber's call to the police.
Nevill's injuries
Sheila's time limits.
No valid Sheila scenario.
-
All the 200+ published pieces of forensic & circumstantial evidence shows Bamber is 'definately the killer'.
The piece of evidence you said you have seen must show wide scale forgery, perjury & corruption with the deliberate goal being to frame Bamber.
You have never said the piece of evidence you have seen shows this.
-
You must have missed my recent thread. Here is a percentage of the published forensic evidence. The circumstantial evidence will need a separate library -
Perfectly clean hands on Sheila.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.
Well manicured nails on Sheila.
No broken nails.
Nails in tact.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers.
No blood on finger tips.
No dirt on finger tips.
No powder on finger tips.
No trace of any lead dust coating.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice.
Very clean feet.
Feet free from significant blood staining.
No debris such as sugar on feet.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself.
Nevill being bare footed in pyjamas.
Sheila being bare footed in pyjamas.
Paint in silencer.
Aga scratch's.
Blood in silencer.
No blood in the rifle end.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre.
Sheila under sedation.
Easy window entrance into WHF.
Shutting kitchen window from outside.
Murder weapon options.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell.
Items around the kitchen window being moved after housekeeper had left.
Bike route to WHF.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre.
June not waking/getting shot in bed.
Nevill's back burns.
2012 CCRC court judgement.
The twins not waking.
Bamber's call to the police.
Nevill's injuries
Sheila's time limits.
No valid Sheila scenario.
Pretty damning stuff eh...
Except it's largely a load of pap, based on dodgy prosecution evidence (or misrepresented by your self). Those boys really were desperate. If you think Pinocchio and Gonzo have big noses - you should see the size of Ainsley's!
-
Pretty damning stuff eh...
Except it's largely a load of pap, based on dodgy prosecution evidence (or misrepresented by your self). Those boys really were desperate. If you think Pinocchio and Gonzo have big noses - you should see the size of Ainsley's!
All this is published evidence. A lot agreed with or not disputed by Bamber. The exception being the silencer which Bamber started focusing on in the mid 90's.
I did create a recent thread on how the 6 week industrial scale operation to create so much false evidence was carried out, prior to the police's successful submission to the DPP. But got no answers. Feel free to give an answer.
-
All the 200+ published pieces of forensic & circumstantial evidence shows Bamber is 'definately the killer'.
The piece of evidence you said you have seen must show wide scale forgery, perjury & corruption with the deliberate goal being to frame Bamber.
You have never said the piece of evidence you have seen shows this.
Well firstly, I cant relate to your first sentence. I doubt many forum members can either.
Secondly, I think I have been pretty clear regarding the implications of the evidence I saw.
It means that the relatives and press were given the right information from the very beginning (regarding Sheila having been responsible for the killings).
Incidentally, what the relatives should have done - was to accept* that Sheila was responsible - but question police as to whether Jeremy may have had some hand in matters - by way of assistance, foreknowledge, influence etc.
This would have allowed police to do two things.
(1) Correctly hold Sheila as responsible (as per their original conclusions).
(2) Investigate any potential role Jeremy had - but in a far less pressurised environment.
*remember that two to three relatives did at various stages concede that she may have been responsible - including Colin
-
Well firstly, I cant relate to your first sentence. I doubt many forum members can either.
Secondly, I think I have been pretty clear regarding the implications of the evidence I saw.
It means that the relatives and press were given the right information from the very beginning (regarding Sheila having been responsible for the killings).
Incidentally, what the relatives should have done - was to accept* that Sheila was responsible - but question police as to whether Jeremy may have had some hand in matters - by way of assistance, foreknowledge, influence etc.
This would have allowed police to do two things.
(1) Correctly hold Sheila as responsible (as per their original conclusions).
(2) Investigate any potential role Jeremy had - but in a far less pressurised environment.
*remember that two to three relatives did at various stages concede that she may have been responsible - including Colin
So how was so much forged incriminating evidence created by late September 1985 for the DPP. A lot of it created covertly behind Taff Jone's back ?
And why after 32 years has it never been proven that any of these 200+ pieces of incriminating evidence were forged ?
-
Pretty damning stuff eh...
Except it's largely a load of pap, based on dodgy prosecution evidence (or misrepresented by your self). Those boys really were desperate. If you think Pinocchio and Gonzo have big noses - you should see the size of Ainsley's!
The CT aren't much better Roch.
-
So how was so much forged incriminating evidence created by late September 1985 for the DPP. A lot of it created covertly behind Taff Jone's back ?
And why after 32 years has it never been proven that any of this evidence is forged ?
The case didn't go to trial until October 1986. Police had ample time to conceal, omit, destroy, manipulate etc. They had time to sift through statements and ditch the ones that weren't helpful 'you wont be required to give evidence on this occasion'. They had time to prep legal - to ask loaded questions to the prepped prosecution witnesses during the trial.
Some people on your own side don't even believe a silencer was used :)) Let alone a one with a label bearing case number that hadn't even yet come in to existence.
Whether much of the case evidence is proven to be forged seems to be subjective. It's either fishy to people or its not. For example - if there is alleged pocket book mishandling - people either take it in to account or overlook it - depending upon their view.
-
The CT aren't much better Roch.
I think they are a bit gung-ho, slack and closed-minded, as opposed to being cautious, diligent and open- minded. I don't think they are deliberately dishonest.
-
The case didn't go to trial until October 1986. Police had ample time to conceal, omit, destroy, manipulate etc. They had time to sift through statements and ditch the ones that weren't helpful ;you wont be required to give evidence on this occasion'. They had time to prep legal to ask loaded questions to prepped prosecution witnesses during the trial.
Some people on your own side don't even believe a silencer was used :)) Let alone a one with a label bearing case number that hadn't even yet come in to existence.
Whether much of the case evidence is proven to be forged seems to be subjective. It's either fishy to people or its not. For example - if there is alleged pocket book mishandling - people either take it in to account or overlook it - depending upon their view.
Any prosecution would go through statements and omit those that aren't helpful. The defence aren't benign in this process Roch and they had just as much time to prepare.
I don't believe the stuff about pocket books going missing or lofts being burgled etc.
-
I think they are a bit gung-ho, slack and closed-minded, as opposed to being cautious, diligent and open- minded. I don't think they are deliberately dishonest.
They don't correct things that are wrong - like the information on the so call 'missing log'. Their information on this was so confusing that many here and a national newspaper thought it was the 'Nevill log' that was recently discovered (their claim, not mine). However, this claim is actually associated with the Jeremy phone call log. There is a link to a newspaper article on the OS where the newspaper clearly gets it wrong.
They also could have checked out the phone call tones and found out they were the samme, instead, they claim they were different which proves Sheila was alive - BS!
-
Any prosecution would go through statements and omit those that aren't helpful. The defence aren't benign in this process Roch and they had just as much time to prepare.
I don't believe the stuff about pocket books going missing or lofts being burgled etc.
In my opinion the defence had time to prepare - but were blind / hamstrung / chasing their tails etc. It was an uneven fight.
I would hate to think that DCI Jones' family are liars. However I have not directly communicated with them myself. Regarding pocket books - I had in mind Mike's assertions regarding the pocket book of DS Stan Jones.
-
The case didn't go to trial until October 1986. Police had ample time to conceal, omit, destroy, manipulate etc. They had time to sift through statements and ditch the ones that weren't helpful ;you wont be required to give evidence on this occasion'. They had time to prep legal to ask loaded questions to prepped prosecution witnesses during the trial.
Some people on your own side don't even believe a silencer was used :)) Let alone a one with a label bearing case number that hadn't even yet come in to existence.
Whether much of the case evidence is proven to be forged seems to be subjective. It's either fishy to people or its not. For example - if there is alleged pocket book mishandling - people either take it in to account or overlook it - depending upon their view.
You didn't answer my question.
How did the police (without Taff), experts, blood testers, professors & relatives all work together to create a huge amount of incriminating evidence for the DPP. Which was by late September 1985 ?
The DPP would not have accepted the police's submission for a trial unless the police had a strong case.
You believe after September 1985, dozens or hundreds of people inside & outside of EP spent a year fine tuning 200+ pieces of false evidence and destroying other evidence. I would have preferred them to do the jobs they were paid to do.
-
At least Roch is agreeing all the published evidence shows Bamber is guilty. This goes without saying as Bamber was convicted 32 years ago & everything on my list is very damning.
However he believes all the evidence was created through forgery & disposal on an unprecedented scale.
-
You didn't answer my question.
How did the police (without Taff), experts, blood testers, professors & relatives all work together to create a huge amount of incriminating evidence for the DPP. Which was by late September 1985 ?
The DPP would not have accepted the police's submission for a trial unless the police had a strong case.
The police didn't have to do the above. There is a letter on here from the DPP or CPS or whatever the agency was called. It gives the go-ahead and lists the reasons why. I don't think the list is massive.
-
In my opinion the defence had time to prepare - but were blind / hamstrung / chasing their tails etc. It was an uneven fight.
I would hate to think that DCI Jones' family are liars. However I have not directly communicated with them myself. Regarding pocket books - I had in mind Mike's assertions regarding the pocket book of DS Stan Jones.
And in there lays the problem.
-
And in there lays the problem.
Not really.
I believe Mike Tesko is capable of being accurate as well as misleading.
It comes down to a matter of sifting through what is claimed. Sorting the wheat from the chaff.
-
Ah but the brains behind the CT are those working in the background of the case,page by page. A fresh outlook on a 30 year old case can throw up all kinds of" nasties" that occurred during the investigation and trial." Nasties" that wouldn't be accepted in todays courts of law.
I can only hope that the QC who is helping with this case is Michael Mansfield,not just because of his vast experience in his working life,but also the very sad experience he had with a daughter,Anna, who suffered mental health issues and committed suicide a couple of years ago after having made other attempts. It's not something anyone expects will happen as these things happen quickly and unexpectedly when they do.
I've just been reading about a man who killed his two children out of revenge because of a divorce (todays Mail ) This practically happens on a daily basis. Sheila had far more on her plate !! Years of a controlling mother takes its toll alone besides other huge issues which were going on in her life,and had gone on.
This murder was never about money as none was taken and there was a safe full of it-----workers wages,etc.
When was it last known that relatives took centre stage in an investigation, for starters ? Who did more than " assist ",but bought goodies for those officers who they befriended,then threw a party for all the hangers-on after all their Birthdays and Christmas's came at once ? Money being no object because it wasn't theirs ! Money that had belonged to a hard-working man who'd built-up his business through sheer hard graft.
I just think it's disgraceful that all anyone thought about was the money and nothing else. They all had their noses in the trough.
Neville would definitely turn in his grave at this outcome,but somehow I get the feeling that it wouldn't have surprised him either,as there was little love lost between the families.
-
The police didn't have to do the above. There is a letter on here from the DPP or CPS or whatever the agency was called. It gives the go-ahead and lists the reasons why. I don't think the list is massive.
Can you supply that list ?
Anyway over 200 pieces of published evidence show Bamber was 'definately the killer'.
Proof that one piece was forged may result in Bamber getting off on a technicality.
Proof that there was a tight knit, huge, multi organisational & efficient operation to create a mass of false evidence to frame Bamber, will show he was innocent.
After 32 years, neither has been found.
-
Ah but the brains behind the CT are those working in the background of the case,page by page. A fresh outlook on a 30 year old case can throw up all kinds of" nasties" that occurred during the investigation and trial." Nasties" that wouldn't be accepted in todays courts of law.
I can only hope that the QC who is helping with this case is Michael Mansfield,not just because of his vast experience in his working life,but also the very sad experience he had with a daughter,Anna, who suffered mental health issues and committed suicide a couple of years ago after having made other attempts. It's not something anyone expects will happen as these things happen quickly and unexpectedly when they do.
I've just been reading about a man who killed his two children out of revenge because of a divorce (todays Mail ) This practically happens on a daily basis. Sheila had far more on her plate !! Years of a controlling mother takes its toll alone besides other huge issues which were going on in her life,and had gone on.
This murder was never about money as none was taken and there was a safe full of it-----workers wages,etc.
When was it last known that relatives took centre stage in an investigation, for starters ? Who did more than " assist ",but bought goodies for those officers who they befriended,then threw a party for all the hangers-on after all their Birthdays and Christmas's came at once ? Money being no object because it wasn't theirs ! Money that had belonged to a hard-working man who'd built-up his business through sheer hard graft.
I just think it's disgraceful that all anyone thought about was the money and nothing else. They all had their noses in the trough.
Neville would definitely turn in his grave at this outcome,but somehow I get the feeling that it wouldn't have surprised him either,as there was little love lost between the families.
The you'd have though they would get it write then!
-
Not really.
I believe Mike Tesko is capable of being accurate as well as misleading.
It comes down to a matter of sifting through what is claimed. Sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Too much Chaff
-
The you'd have though they would get it write then!
Give them chance.When there are thousands of files/docs in no particular order,etc then it takes time,as well as trying to decipher some of the scrawl/edits/crossings-out and lack of legal aid ! They WILL get it right.
-
Give them chance.When there are thousands of files/docs in no particular order,etc then it takes time,as well as trying to decipher some of the scrawl/edits/crossings-out and lack of legal aid ! They WILL get it right.
Then they should make claims until they have it right.
-
At least Roch is agreeing all the published evidence shows Bamber is guilty. This goes without saying as Bamber was convicted 32 years ago & everything on my list is very damning.
However he believes all the evidence was created through forgery & disposal on an unprecedented scale.
Well the legal team behind the CT have to prove him innocent,don't they ? A much tougher job !!
-
Then they should make claims until they have it right.
It's called drip-feeding.
-
It's called drip-feeding.
When it's wrong it's call bollox.
-
When it's wrong it's call bollox.
It's not surprising.Your answer to everything.
-
It's not surprising.Your answer to everything.
Where necessary.
-
Tracked it down - the Canada drugs claim is from the OS (posted below), they make reference to a COLP document BUT haven't posted it. Again, it's who do you believe and without evidence to back it up, it's just words. Canada isn't a usual place to smuggle drugs from and having worked there for quite some time, I know that they have a strict drugs security at the airports and everyone gets to meet the sniffer dogs! Although they may not do so at EVERY airport and of course it may have been less secure in 1985.
"Back in 1991 the City of London Police had investigated Essex Police they detailed a list of crimes which Julie had confessed to carrying out undetected These included, taking cannabis, selling cannabis, accessory to burglary at the caravan park, smuggling drugs back into the UK from Canada, and cheque book fraud. (11) Julie Mugford was never charged with any of these offences officially, but documents newly surfaced show that she was charged with burglary and this was withdrawn with permission from the DPP’s office, in the same document Julie is also advised she will be called as a prosecution witness. At the 2002 appeal the Defence put forward the suggestion that Julie Mugford and her friend and co-fraudster Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution as a trade off for Julie’s testimony against Jeremy Bamber but the documents relating to this were under Public Interest Immunity. (12)"
Is this what you are talking about Lookout? Have you seen the COLP document or are you just parroting that lot?
-
I might have seen the said document.
-
Is this what you are talking about Lookout? Have you seen the COLP document or are you just parroting that lot?
Oh so it’s from the OS then Caroline, says it all now, I’ve just wasted precious time looking for it. I don’t think anyone should accuse without posting evidence.
-
I might have seen the said document.
Then you should be able to find it.
-
When it's wrong it's call bollox.
:)) :)) :))
-
Oh so it’s from the OS then Caroline, says it all now, I’ve just wasted precious time looking for it. I don’t think anyone should accuse without posting evidence.
And they should know the difference -before they make erroneous claims- between a document and a report of what someone says is in a document.
-
Not really.
I believe Mike Tesko is capable of being accurate as well as misleading.
It comes down to a matter of sifting through what is claimed. Sorting the wheat from the chaff.
good on you roch ive been trying to sort the wheat from chaff from mike's posts since i joined and i still have not mastered it ;)
-
Then you should be able to find it.
Have you tried Poppy Millers blog? That's where a lot of the bollox comes from - especially with regard to COLP interviews.
And aliens.
-
Have you tried Poppy Millers blog? That's where a lot of the bollox comes from - especially with regard to COLP interviews.
And aliens.
No, I'm not in the market for a conspiracy theory today - maybe tomorrow? ;D ;D
-
No, I'm not in the market for a conspiracy theory today - maybe tomorrow? ;D ;D
;D
-
Have you tried Poppy Millers blog? That's where a lot of the bollox comes from - especially with regard to COLP interviews.
And aliens.
:)) :)) :))
-
Depends who the teacher was.
-
Many have done it to me !! Strewth.
Only when you claim not to have said something. I fuly admit I used to support Bamber - bit ashamed of it really. But what I thought back then and what I believe now, are miles apart - really not sure what he thinks he can achieve by posting old posts - I am not denying having supported Bamber and all the other bollox that goes with it.
-
More history ::)
-
Only when you claim not to have said something. I fuly admit I used to support Bamber - bit ashamed of it really. But what I thought back then and what I believe now, are miles apart - really not sure what he thinks he can achieve by posting old posts - I am not denying having supported Bamber and all the other bollox that goes with it.
Where's the crime in changing one's mind, for God's sake? It's shows an ability to think/question.
-
Neither is it a hanging offence to support JB either !!
-
Neither is it a hanging offence to support JB either !!
Who said it was? Nor is it a hanging offence to believe he's guilty
-
I'd rather put my trust in the likes of Lady Waterlow,Andrew Hunter and the QC working on behalf of JB,than PH and his mob. There's no comparison.
-
I can't stand ditherers like Woffinden either. First he said innocent,then guilty and to date a MOJ ::) ???
-
I'd rather put my trust in the likes of Lady Waterlow,Andrew Hunter and the QC working on behalf of JB,than PH and his mob. There's no comparison.
You don't need to polarize it. There's plenty of space for opinion in the centre of the spectrum.
-
Where's the crime in changing one's mind, for God's sake? It's shows an ability to think/question.
absolutely jane,i personally have a lot of respect for these people .they have seen the case from both sides and it takes courage to admit one was wrong.(remember taff jones didnt have that trait)jb is a manipulator many people that have kind hearts and are genuine. have given him the benefit of doubt only to find out they have made a mistake.no crime against doing that
-
Does anyone know what is alleged to have written in PC Nicholas Milbank's pocketbook(page 16 of 34)?
http://simplebooklet.com/disclosurebookletjeremybamber#page=15
Probably relates to his time on duty when the 999 call is supposed to have taken place?
-
Yes Jane he has as I understand it but as this is ongoing and millions of pages of documentation to look through its is developing all the time with references to docs that they don't have. So they didn't know these docs existed but now they do, plus there is all the original docs from initial investigation. Plus the stuff that ep say they can't locate.
I'm not sure why you are saying this stuff doesn't exist when it clearly does.
How can there possibly be millions of pages of documentation?
That would be around 10,000 pages per day, every day, between him being charged and the trial.
-
How can there possibly be millions of pages of documentation?
That would be around 10,000 pages per day, every day, between him being charged and the trial.
A lot of documents have been produced post trial.
-
A lot of documents have been produced post trial.
Surely impossible to study or even know what's in these docs!!
-
Surely impossible to study or even know what's in these docs!!
I've gone through at least 10k pages of material.
-
I've gone through at least 10k pages of material.
And found nothing.
-
David, what are you hoping to discover or deduce from your efforts?
-
I've gone through at least 10k pages of material.
About 1%.
Did you find anything juicy?
-
I think the main issue is the sharing of documents with Bamber.
He should have a right to see them. It should be a right afforded to everyone who is a UK citizen.
-
I think the main issue is the sharing of documents with Bamber.
He should have a right to see them. It should be a right afforded to everyone who is a UK citizen.
I was given to understand he'd never actually been denied access. All he had to do was name those he wanted.
-
I was given to understand he'd never actually been denied access. All he had to do was name those he wanted.
Doesn't seem feasible that to me. Not saying it's not the case. Just doesn't make sense.
-
There are no hidden documents.
After 39 years, 3 CCRC applications, 2 COA applications, a trial & Stokechurch.
There are thousands of documents online, some of them Mike posted years ago.
Bamber says he has millions in his cell & has his own campaign team. David claims he has gone through at least 10,000.
The CCRC & COA have the power to get whatever documents they want.
But appreciate 'withheld documents' will always be the mantra from supporters as the released documents have not got him anywhere.
-
There are no hidden documents.
After 39 years, 3 CCRC applications, 2 COA applications, a trial & Stokechurch.
There are thousands of documents online, some of them Mike posted years ago.
Bamber says he has millions in his cell & has his own campaign team. David claims he has gone through at least 10,000.
The CCRC & COA have the power to get whatever documents they want.
But appreciate 'withheld documents' will always be the mantra from supporters as the released documents have not got him anywhere.
Well it's not mantra from supporters. It's mantra from Jeremy Bamber himself. It's his case and he's the one serving a life sentence for it.
He doesn't have millions of documents in his cell. He will have so many. He then will have to put in a app for the others. Which are stored in the jail.
-
Well it's not mantra from supporters. It's mantra from Jeremy Bamber himself. It's his case and he's the one serving a life sentence for it.
He doesn't have millions of documents in his cell. He will have so many. He then will have to put in a app for the others. Which are stored in the jail.
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/public-interest-immunity
The mantra will always be the police are withholding documents.
Not sure why. If there was an industrial frame, any documents showing innocence would have been destroyed.
If there was no industrial frame, then no documents will show innocence.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/public-interest-immunity
The mantra will always be the police are withholding documents.
Not sure why. If there was an industrial frame, any documents showing innocence would have been destroyed.
If there was no industrial frame, then no documents will show innocence.
Then the mantra is true as the chef constable of Essex police confirmed in a letter to Peter Thatchell in 2021https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/essex-police-admit-suppressing-jeremy-bamber-evidence/
Not saying the documents prove his innocence. It's just he has a right to see them. Which we all should be afforded.
-
Then the mantra is true as the chef constable of Essex police confirmed in a letter to Peter Thatchell in 2021https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/essex-police-admit-suppressing-jeremy-bamber-evidence/
Not saying the documents prove his innocence. It's just he has a right to see them. Which we all should be afforded.
Essex police made no admission.
-
Essex police made no admission.
It was in their wording. That is to say, they accidentally implied that there was further evidence to disclose.
-
There is a very detailed document from 2021, about non-disclosed evidence, stemming from BR's research. I will post up within next 24 hrs.
-
Essex police made no admission.
It is from a chief constable.....
" Not willing to disclose it at this time "
It's in black and white
-
I was given to understand he'd never actually been denied access. All he had to do was name those he wanted.
How can you name documents that you don't know exist but should have been disclosed?
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/public-interest-immunity
The mantra will always be the police are withholding documents.
Not sure why. If there was an industrial frame, any documents showing innocence would have been destroyed.
If there was no industrial frame, then no documents will show innocence.
It has that's why Sheila's dress was destroyed, and a certain dodgy cop took documents home and destroyed them.
-
How can you name documents that you don't know exist but should have been disclosed?
If such can't be named, how is it certain they ever existed? It is claimed that whatever he puts a name to will be released to him. He's been playing this game for a very long time.
-
If such can't be named, how is it certain they ever existed? It is claimed that whatever he puts a name to will be released to him. He's been playing this game for a very long time.
I will be posting up a meticulously researched document about statements and evidence. Jane you really sound like you have been brainwashed at times.
-
I will be posting up a meticulously researched document about statements and evidence. Jane you really sound like you have been brainwashed at times.
The question the Bamberettes have to ask themselves is why at such an early stage in the investigation there was a cover up when the head honcho of the investigation, DCI Taff Jones, was perfectly content with the four murders and a suicide scenario.
-
The question the Bamberettes have to ask themselves is why at such an early stage in the investigation there was a cover up when the head honcho of the investigation, DCI Taff Jones, was perfectly content with the four murders and a suicide scenario.
No, that's a question the police and prosecuting authorities need to answer, by releasing all evidence.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible&ved=2ahUKEwjunIrEo_GHAxVGYEEAHfTEE0gQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2MY8-65pJV3KmMnQiMA5_6
At least the OS are saying 3.5 million documents were disclosed at a certain time previously.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/24/jeremy-bamber-waits-evidence-clear-name-essex-police&ved=2ahUKEwj7kdOwpPGHAxWiUkEAHQQTKScQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2z0IrYE2NWTKMDV2vWUYYs
This says Bamber has looked through millions of documents.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/30/jeremy-bamber-lawyers-seek-review-of-cps-refusal-to-disclose-evidence&ved=2ahUKEwibwtqRpfGHAxXpQEEAHcwtHoQQFnoECBYQBQ&usg=AOvVaw06en1ciT_RqmXfo1nJ3luo
'Because the files in the Holmes boxes are all numbered, he believes certain files have not been disclosed'.
----------
Bit optimistic.
-
There is a very detailed document from 2021, about non-disclosed evidence, stemming from BR's research. I will post up within next 24 hrs.
Just to confirm, I will not be posting up this document. I have discovered that the work is by another researcher, not BR, and the content is likely to be out of date. I am therefore unable to make the document public.
-
Just to confirm, I will not be posting up this document. I have discovered that the work is by another researcher, not BR, and the content is likely to be out of date. I am therefore unable to make the document public.
Why does that mean you cannot make the document public ??
-
Why does that mean you cannot make the document public ??
I don't have the author's permission. The author is not somebody I am in touch with either.
-
I don't have the author's permission. The author is not somebody I am in touch with either.
Who is the author?
-
Why does that mean you cannot make the document public ??
Because he does not want it plastered over social media I would garner.
Maybe also respecting Jeremy's wishes.
-
Who is the author?
Sarah Hanover.