Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on December 21, 2010, 09:00:PM
-
Key Evidence which was Kept from Jeremy Bamber, his Legal team, and the court
What I am about to divulge, had the potential to alter the outcome of the juries verdict in this case -
(1) Essex police took a close Interest in a 12 bore shotgun, which they recovered from the gun cupboard in the downstairs office
Go to the following link to view the 12 bore shotgun which Essex police took a close interest in:-
(a) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5281345418/
(2) this 12 bore shotgun, was checked for fingerprints, and found to contain the fingerprints of Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell...
(3) Essex seized a spent RAKER 12 bore cartridge case from the scene
(4) A Local Resident, Mr Smith, told the police that on the evening before the shootings, that he had heard a shotgun blast come from the direction of whf
It now seems certain, that as part of the original investigation which was carried out under SC/688/85, Essex police were aware of a struggle which had taken place between, Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell, where the shotgun may have been discharged in the kitchen at whf, at sometime between 10:15 and 10:30pm, on the evening of 6th August, 1985...
An Officers Report, may exist that deals with this incident, in which the police officer concludes that this event was part of the build up, which led to the shootings of the five victims inside whf which unraveled during the morning of 7th August 1985...
Although the local resident, Mr Smith, made a witness statement, detailing that he had heard a shotgun blast come from the direction of the farm late on the evening of 6th August 1985, this statement was not disclosed to Jeremy Bamber, or his legal team, or brought to the attention of the jury at his trial...
-
It now seems certain, that as part of the original investigation which was carried out under SC/688/85, Essex police were aware of a struggle which had taken place between, Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell, where the shotgun may have been discharged in the kitchen at whf, at sometime between 10:15 and 10:30pm, on the evening of 6th August, 1985...
If a shotgun had been discharged in the kitchen then surely there would be clear material evidence to that effect - which would be amply clear on the photographs of the kitchen. I can't conceive of any way you could discharge a shotgun in my kitchen without doing a lot of obvious damage.
-
It now seems certain, that as part of the original investigation which was carried out under SC/688/85, Essex police were aware of a struggle which had taken place between, Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell, where the shotgun may have been discharged in the kitchen at whf, at sometime between 10:15 and 10:30pm, on the evening of 6th August, 1985...
If a shotgun had been discharged in the kitchen then surely there would be clear material evidence to that effect - which would be amply clear on the photographs of the kitchen. I can't conceive of any way you could discharge a shotgun in my kitchen without doing a lot of obvious damage.
+1 - see previous post of mine!
General case dicsussion / Re evidence
Sarann - Sleuthing for justice
CHRISTMAS LETTER FROM JEREMY
"...police received information from a local resident that they heard the sound of a shotgun blast come from the general vicinity of whf on the evening prior to the shootings, in particular, a local man by the surname of [my edit], reported that he heard a shotgun blast come from the direction of the farm, between 9:30pm and 10:15pm, on the evening of 6 August 1985..."
Hartley - Well you can't have it both ways. It's been stated that shots in the house would not have been heard outside, or even heard in the kitchen if shots were fired upstairs, this was stated because it suited the theory that Sheila was still alive when the police entered the house.
Now the shots can be heard outside? Could this loud bang be from another source? Farm machinery for example.
Newbury1 - The earlier alleged blast was from a shotgun, which is much louder than a .22 rifle, and was presumably let off outside as there would have been some pretty obvious damage if it was fired with a live cartridge inside.
-
Key Evidence which was Kept from Jeremy Bamber, his Legal team, and the court
What I am about to divulge, had the potential to alter the outcome of the juries verdict in this case -
(1) Essex police took a close Interest in a 12 bore shotgun, which they recovered from the gun cupboard in the downstairs office
Go to the following link to view the 12 bore shotgun which Essex police took a close interest in:-
(a) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5281345418/
(2) this 12 bore shotgun, was checked for fingerprints, and found to contain the fingerprints of Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell...
(3) Essex seized a spent RAKER 12 bore cartridge case from the scene
(4) A Local Resident, Mr Smith, told the police that on the evening before the shootings, that he had heard a shotgun blast come from the direction of whf
It now seems certain, that as part of the original investigation which was carried out under SC/688/85, Essex police were aware of a struggle which had taken place between, Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell, where the shotgun may have been discharged in the kitchen at whf, at sometime between 10:15 and 10:30pm, on the evening of 6th August, 1985...
An Officers Report, may exist that deals with this incident, in which the police officer concludes that this event was part of the build up, which led to the shootings of the five victims inside whf which unraveled during the morning of 7th August 1985...
Although the local resident, Mr Smith, made a witness statement, detailing that he had heard a shotgun blast come from the direction of the farm late on the evening of 6th August 1985, this statement was not disclosed to Jeremy Bamber, or his legal team, or brought to the attention of the jury at his trial...
Mike T,
Re (a) I get the message "this member is no longer active on Flickr"
re (3) the spent RAKER 12 bore cartridge case. Where from the "scene" - the kitchen?
Was/is there any photographic evidence of a shotgun cartridge discharge in the kitchen?
Is there any reference to the shotgun incident in any paper work you have that can support your statement?
-
Key Evidence which was Kept from Jeremy Bamber, his Legal team, and the court
What I am about to divulge, had the potential to alter the outcome of the juries verdict in this case -
(1) Essex police took a close Interest in a 12 bore shotgun, which they recovered from the gun cupboard in the downstairs office
Go to the following link to view the 12 bore shotgun which Essex police took a close interest in:-
(a) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5281345418/
(2) this 12 bore shotgun, was checked for fingerprints, and found to contain the fingerprints of Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell...
(3) Essex seized a spent RAKER 12 bore cartridge case from the scene
(4) A Local Resident, Mr Smith, told the police that on the evening before the shootings, that he had heard a shotgun blast come from the direction of whf
It now seems certain, that as part of the original investigation which was carried out under SC/688/85, Essex police were aware of a struggle which had taken place between, Ralph Bamber, and Sheila Caffell, where the shotgun may have been discharged in the kitchen at whf, at sometime between 10:15 and 10:30pm, on the evening of 6th August, 1985...
An Officers Report, may exist that deals with this incident, in which the police officer concludes that this event was part of the build up, which led to the shootings of the five victims inside whf which unraveled during the morning of 7th August 1985...
Although the local resident, Mr Smith, made a witness statement, detailing that he had heard a shotgun blast come from the direction of the farm late on the evening of 6th August 1985, this statement was not disclosed to Jeremy Bamber, or his legal team, or brought to the attention of the jury at his trial...
Mike T,
Re (a) I get the message "this member is no longer active on Flickr"
re (3) the spent RAKER 12 bore cartridge case. Where from the "scene" - the kitchen?
Was/is there any photographic evidence of a shotgun cartridge discharge in the kitchen?
Is there any reference to the shotgun incident in any paper work you have that can support your statement?
---------------------------------
-
Mike, Thanks for the picture.
Could you please answer the following -
Where was the Raker shotgun cartridge found by the police?
Was/is there any photographic evidence of a shotgun cartridge discharge in the kitchen?
Is there any reference to the shotgun incident in any paper work you have that can support your statement?
-
Nope, not here Patti.
-
Nope, not here Patti.
What you on about??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What you on about??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just been doing some stalking. :D
-
Just been doing some stalking. :D
Special Branch on the forum eh? Schhhhhhhhh ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I sometimes have the feeling that we're not seeing documents which had they been seen by a jury may well have swayed that one more crucial juror. It's not to say I believe Bamber innocent,just that as usual the Nanny state decides what it will and will not disclose at any given point in time.
-
I sometimes have the feeling that we're not seeing documents which had they been seen by a jury may well have swayed that one more crucial juror. It's not to say I believe Bamber innocent,just that as usual the Nanny state decides what it will and will not disclose at any given point in time.
I wish all the documents on here were filed Steve. I doubt I have seen them all and I am sure the jury only saw a few of them compared to how many they really are. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I sometimes have the feeling that we're not seeing documents which had they been seen by a jury may well have swayed that one more crucial juror. It's not to say I believe Bamber innocent,just that as usual the Nanny state decides what it will and will not disclose at any given point in time.
If you are referring to Mike's silly shotgun claims you are way off the mark. It appears he made up the claim that Sheila's prints were found on it as well as a spent casing being found period let alone in a shotgun at WHF.
The notion an alleged shotgun heard in a field somewhere hours before the murders doesn't have any bearing on the murder case.
-
I wish all the documents on here were filed Steve. I doubt I have seen them all and I am sure the jury only saw a few of them compared to how many they really are. ;D ;D ;D ;D
A lot of the documents being complained about were created after the trial so how could they have been shown to the jury?
In the meantime it is the burden of the defense attorneys to raise things to the jury that are deem relevant and important. that is the whole point of an adversarial system.
Most of the things raised by Jeremy supporters here only sway other Jeremy supporters and that is because they are preaching to the choir. When one objectively looks at Mike's claims they often end up falling apart and even those claims actually true turn out to be totally irrelevant.
-
I knew there was more to this than met the eye.
-
I knew there was more to this than met the eye.
Except that once again, there is no supporting official documentation. Seems like Sheila's prints on the shot gun might be another myth.
-
Except that once again, there is no supporting official documentation. Seems like Sheila's prints on the shot gun might be another myth.
Yeh!! Just like the claim that Big Ears was a paedophile who groomed poor Noddy. THERE'S NO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION!!!!!....................but it makes a damn good story for those who want to believe it.
-
Scott Lomax writes 'during their investigations the police examined the murder weapon, the Anchultz rifle, but they also examined the numerous other firearms in the building. A twelve bore shotgun revealed findings of interest to the defence, which could have assisted them at trial if they had been aware of the relevant information. Quite simply the shotgun had Sheila Caffell's fingerprints upon it.'
I am not sure if Wilkes alao mentions this and have leant the book to someone so cannot check at the moment. It would be interesting to email Scott Lomax and ask him if he saw any documentation which upholds this claim?
-
Scott Lomax writes 'during their investigations the police examined the murder weapon, the Anchultz rifle, but they also examined the numerous other firearms in the building. A twelve bore shotgun revealed findings of interest to the defence, which could have assisted them at trial if they had been aware of the relevant information. Quite simply the shotgun had Sheila Caffell's fingerprints upon it.'
I am not sure if Wilkes alao mentions this and have leant the book to someone so cannot check at the moment. It would be interesting to email Scott Lomax and ask him if he saw any documentation which upholds this claim?
Done!
-
Done!
Good, was going to do it, you beat me to it but that doesn't matter as the answer is the important thing. I know Scott Lomax wrote his book much later than Wilkes and had access to many more documents which had come into the public arena by then. We shall see!!
-
Good, was going to do it, you beat me to it but that doesn't matter as the answer is the important thing. I know Scott Lomax wrote his book much later than Wilkes and had access to many more documents which had come into the public arena by then. We shall see!!
The claim APPEARS to be that the defense learned after the trial that the 12 bore had Sheila's prints on it. So one would assume his source for the claim was someone involved with the defense.
-
Both Sheila's and Neville's fingerprints were found on the shotgun.
This could be " the gun " in which Neville referred to in his phone-call to Jeremy." Sheila has one of my guns " ( shotgun ) as opposed to " my rifle ".
-
Both Sheila's and Neville's fingerprints were found on the shotgun.
This could be " the gun " in which Neville referred to in his phone-call to Jeremy." Sheila has one of my guns " ( shotgun ) as opposed to " my rifle ".
All my friends use the generic "GUN." They don't load a "rifle" and they don't keep firearms in a "rifle" cupboard, and those who attend Shoots are referred to as "guns."
-
Something odd is that the most important part of the Dickinson report is missing. No doubt it is part the defense went over very carefully so might not have provided at the time as the rest but still by this point it should have been able to have been obtianed. The section on the re-investigation isn't here.
-
All my friends use the generic "GUN." They don't load a "rifle" and they don't keep firearms in a "rifle" cupboard, and those who attend Shoots are referred to as "guns."
Neville may have been making comparisons.
-
Both Sheila's and Neville's fingerprints were found on the shotgun.
This could be " the gun " in which Neville referred to in his phone-call to Jeremy." Sheila has one of my guns " ( shotgun ) as opposed to " my rifle ".
Sheila clearly had no gun. There was no evidence she loaded a gun or fired one period let alone shot any of the victims, nor any evidence she beat Nevill and it was impossible for her to have shot herself, someone had to have done it.
-
Neville may have been making comparisons.
Plus he may have rescued it from her,hence both prints.I also think his prints were on the rifle too as the prints of " an unknown male " if he was trying to wrestle that from her too.
I reckon that the short respite between Neville having taken the shotgun from Sheila would have been the chance that Neville had to phone Jeremy- " has one of my guns ".
-
Under the heading " this shotgun was normally kept loaded under ralph bambers bed ",you'll find a set of questions asked of PE about the shotgun ( which had both prints of father and daughter as well as red paint on its barrel ) where he'd put it back into its case,contaminated as it was,and took it home.
-
Something odd is that the most important part of the Dickinson report is missing. No doubt it is part the defense went over very carefully so might not have provided at the time as the rest but still by this point it should have been able to have been obtianed. The section on the re-investigation isn't here.
The Dickinson Report was posted by me, I forget where it came from now, it may have been the old 'Sleuthing for Justice' forum. Only paragraphs up to 304 were posted.
I later found some more pages, but as you say, there is a gap for the re-investigation and the trial that I haven't been able to source.
-
The Dickinson Report was posted by me, I forget where it came from now, it may have been the old 'Sleuthing for Justice' forum. Only paragraphs up to 304 were posted.
I later found some more pages, but as you say, there is a gap for the re-investigation and the trial that I haven't been able to source.
If one is a conspiracy theorist then they might suggest the re-investigation section was intentionally missing because it contains harmful information to the defense.
The less sinister explanation is the one I mentioned, the defense was busy combing over the section so failed to provide it to the people who posted the rest of it.
At this point though the defense counsel should be done with it so that the re-investigation section could be scanned and posted by someone with access to the defense documents such as Mike.
-
Under the heading " this shotgun was normally kept loaded under ralph bambers bed ",you'll find a set of questions asked of PE about the shotgun ( which had both prints of father and daughter as well as red paint on its barrel ) where he'd put it back into its case,contaminated as it was,and took it home.
A thread full of distortions. You still refuse to face that allegations by Mike are not reliable evidence of anything. Mike made up the claim a spent shotgun shell was found in the shotgun, made up the claim that the shotgun was normally kept loaded under Nevill's bed and is trying to suggest the family put the gun in its case before the murders.
The actual testimony was that police found the shotgun in the cupboard and removed it and left it against the wall as shown in the photos they did that to be able to take a photo of it. They left it there and never put it away so when the family was allowed in they found the gun out. PE said it didn't belong out so he put it in its case. They subsequently took all weapons and all the weapons related materials away for safe keeping until turned over to police.
-
Safe-keeping ? In an empty farmhouse ? A bit late for that,wasn't it ?
-
Safe-keeping ? In an empty farmhouse ? A bit late for that,wasn't it ?
They took them to their own house.
-
They took them to their own house.
For what reason ? They had no right removing items from a crime scene.
-
For what reason ? They had no right removing items from a crime scene.
This comment demonstrates yet again you know nothing about this case. The police FINISHED processing it as a crime scene, took away the evidence the police decided they wanted and thus turned the house over to the relatives. It would have been turned over the the deceased had they not been killed.
Basil Cock had no license to possess firearms. He had the Eatons hold them. The Eatons notified police about them and turned them over to police when police were willing to get them. Police initially only cared about the moderator. Later they took the guns, ammo and scope.
-
For what reason ? They had no right removing items from a crime scene.
How long do you think it should have remained a crime scene when they 'thought' the perpetrator had shot herself? They 'thought' Sheila was responsible - what would they be waiting for after collecting the evidence they thought relevant at 'that point'?
-
How long do you think it should have remained a crime scene when they 'thought' the perpetrator had shot herself? They 'thought' Sheila was responsible - what would they be waiting for after collecting the evidence they thought relevant at 'that point'?
Well they certainly all knew what " thought " did,didn't they ?
-
How long do you think it should have remained a crime scene when they 'thought' the perpetrator had shot herself? They 'thought' Sheila was responsible - what would they be waiting for after collecting the evidence they thought relevant at 'that point'?
They should have performed the correct procedures and they failed to do so. Cook himself says the case was handled badly.
It did not matter what they thought at the time, they should have followed the correct procedures.
What they thought is a lame excuse.
-
They should have performed the correct procedures and they failed to do so. Cook himself says the case was handled badly.
It did not matter what they thought at the time, they should have followed the correct procedures.
What they thought is a lame excuse.
Well, either way, they got there in the end.
-
They should have performed the correct procedures and they failed to do so. Cook himself says the case was handled badly.
It did not matter what they thought at the time, they should have followed the correct procedures.
What they thought is a lame excuse.
They SHOULD have said/NOT said this/done that/NOT done that. The bottom line is what they did/didn't do/say is 30 years past and can't be rerun/undone.
We keep being told, with TOTAL conviction, by those who have never even met him, that Jeremy would NEVER do/say this/that or the other. Now I see that Colin said Sheila would NEVER allow the boys to have toy guns, ergo it's IMPOSSIBLE that they would have played with them..................IMO, this is all RUBBISH!!!! NEVER is a huge, expansively exaggerating term which can't be 100% applied to ANYONE.
Colin didn't live with Sheila. He probably had little concept of how difficult she found mothering at times and would therefore have had little knowledge of how she may lower previously held standards in order to keep the boys happy. Also, it MAY be that it was Colin who was the pacifist and MAY have been he who wouldn't allow the boys to play with toy guns, Sheila being as compliant with some of his wishes as she appears to have been with some of June's.
NONE of us know who Sheila and Jeremy really were -it's looking likely that they didn't have much idea, either- so they have become the people we WANT them to be and at times they seem little more than puppets dancing to the string we pull.
-
They should have performed the correct procedures and they failed to do so. Cook himself says the case was handled badly.
It did not matter what they thought at the time, they should have followed the correct procedures.
What they thought is a lame excuse.
1) The failure to do a more thorough investigation initially is exactly what Jeremy hoped to acocmplish with his lies and efforts and he is the one who profited from it. Jeremy supporters keep complaining about things that were favorable to Jeremy and thus there is no way to suggest such things hurt him.
2) Lookout attacked the family for doing nothing wrong. She said who does the family thing they are to go to a crime scene and take items. She didn't criticize the police for failing to take the items from the outset, she attacked the family as if the family broke into a crime scene before police finished processing it and stole things. This false characterization is what is being addressed by myself and others.
Cock told the family to take the firearms and related items rather than leave them there in an unoccupied house. The family didn't simply take them and then hide them away, the family told police they thought police should investigate these items. The police took the moderator right away upon hearing it appeared to have blood in it because if true that means somebody was shot with it. Since the only known shootings of humans was the murder that means it could be relevant to the murders. They saw no potential relevance to anything else at the time so didn't take anything else. Later on they decided to take and process all firearms related items just in case.
The failure to initially look at this evidence favored Jeremy so there is no way to argue the ineptitude hurt Jeremy or that the police intentionally didn't process things in an effort to harm Jeremy.
-
Evidence such as I mentioned earlier about Sheila saying that " All people are bad and should be killed ".
This remark was known by both AE and BW, who,one of them then told S.Jones. He probably told them " you didn't hear it ",like some of the exhibits that " you didn't see ".
-
Evidence such as I mentioned earlier about Sheila saying that " All people are bad and should be killed ".
This remark was known by both AE and BW, who,one of them then told S.Jones. He probably told them " you didn't hear it ",like some of the exhibits that " you didn't see ".
You have no idea if Sheila actually said that or not it is hearsay only, and whether she said it or not has no bearing on the evidence that proves she didn't commit the murders.
-
1) The failure to do a more thorough investigation initially is exactly what Jeremy hoped to acocmplish with his lies and efforts and he is the one who profited from it. Jeremy supporters keep complaining about things that were favorable to Jeremy and thus there is no way to suggest such things hurt him.
2) Lookout attacked the family for doing nothing wrong. She said who does the family thing they are to go to a crime scene and take items. She didn't criticize the police for failing to take the items from the outset, she attacked the family as if the family broke into a crime scene before police finished processing it and stole things. This false characterization is what is being addressed by myself and others.
Cock told the family to take the firearms and related items rather than leave them there in an unoccupied house. The family didn't simply take them and then hide them away, the family told police they thought police should investigate these items. The police took the moderator right away upon hearing it appeared to have blood in it because if true that means somebody was shot with it. Since the only known shootings of humans was the murder that means it could be relevant to the murders. They saw no potential relevance to anything else at the time so didn't take anything else. Later on they decided to take and process all firearms related items just in case.
The failure to initially look at this evidence favored Jeremy so there is no way to argue the ineptitude hurt Jeremy or that the police intentionally didn't process things in an effort to harm Jeremy.
Isn't it rather misleading to state that the Police took the moderator right away.. It shows you haven't done as much research or read many of Mike's posts on the subject.
-
By the way wasn't that rather an exclusive election at the start of this thread? From what I can make out only one person voted..
-
Isn't it rather misleading to state that the Police took the moderator right away.. It shows you haven't done as much research or read many of Mike's posts on the subject.
No not misleading at all. Police were notified by the family that they had the items. Police went and got the moderator on August 12 but didn't take the remaining items until September.
-
By the way wasn't that rather an exclusive election at the start of this thread? From what I can make out only one person voted..
Mike voted then closed the vote on purposes to prevent us from spoiling his poll.
-
You have no idea if Sheila actually said that or not it is hearsay only, and whether she said it or not has no bearing on the evidence that proves she didn't commit the murders.
Sheila said it alright. It's just that you and others would rather not admit that it came from the two most truthful women ( guilters words ) involved in the case---------Ann Eaton and Barbara Wilson.
-
Sheila said it alright. It's just that you and others would rather not admit that it came from the two most truthful women ( guilters words ) involved in the case---------Ann Eaton and Barbara Wilson.
The key to the"mystery" MAY lay in WHEN the words were said, ie: Where they said after her FIRST hospitalization or her SECOND?
-
The key to the"mystery" MAY lay in WHEN the words were said, ie: Where they said after her FIRST hospitalization or her SECOND?
All the more reason it SHOULD have been given an airing in court,whenever it was said. We at least know it wasn't AFTER the event when diaries were scurriedly written.
-
All the more reason it SHOULD have been given an airing in court,whenever it was said. We at least know it wasn't AFTER the event when diaries were scurriedly written.
Surely such would be tantamount to the revealing someone's previous crimes in court prior to the jury's decision. It would be thought to be prejudicial.
-
Surely such would be tantamount to the revealing someone's previous crimes in court prior to the jury's decision. It would be thought to be prejudicial.
So ? It should have been disclosed to the defence and the jury,whether the person was deceased or not.It should have been made part of the case.
-
So ? It should have been disclosed to the defence and the jury,whether the person was deceased or not.It should have been made part of the case.
As I said, It goes back to WHEN it was said. IF it was said between hospitalizations, it could have been deemed that Sheila was still unwell because ANOTHER hospitalization was required, following which, well OR NOT, she was deemed to be such, and such a remark would have been seen as a throw away remark.
-
Speaking of prejudice,what about EP going around knocking on doors telling neighbours that Jeremy had murdered 2 little boys ? This was BEFORE the trial ! If this wasn't swaying public support,I don't know what was.
This was all part of EP's way of securing a conviction. Even the judge,Arlidge,used the same tactic to sway the jury.
Character references about Jeremy,were ignored. Prejudiced ? I'd say so.
-
Speaking of prejudice,what about EP going around knocking on doors telling neighbours that Jeremy had murdered 2 little boys ? This was BEFORE the trial ! If this wasn't swaying public support,I don't know what was.
This was all part of EP's way of securing a conviction. Even the judge,Arlidge,used the same tactic to sway the jury.
Character references about Jeremy,were ignored. Prejudiced ? I'd say so.
Can it be proved? Is it positive fact or hearsay?
-
Can it be proved? Is it positive fact or hearsay?
I know it's not hearsay,that it is indeed a positive fact which I thought I might find in AE's statements,to which I'm scouring at the moment. I know for certain that both women's names were mentioned when this was mentioned. It's not on BW's statement as I've looked.
What I have noticed,again,is during cross-examination,AE was adamant that both Sheila and June were found on June's bed,gun by Sheila's side and the Bible on her chest.
-
Can it be proved? Is it positive fact or hearsay?
You repeated these words in 2013 on the thread " All people are bad and should be killed ". Notes written by S Jones,so yes,it would appear to be a positive fact rather than hearsay,coming from AE and BW. :o
-
You repeated these words in 2013 on the thread " All people are bad and should be killed ". Notes written by S Jones,so yes,it would appear to be a positive fact rather than hearsay,coming from AE and BW. :o
Sounds to me as if I may have been guilty of what MANY others have, that is, quoting the words as if they's been said within 24 hours of the murders, NOT, as they MAY have been, two years prior.
-
Sheila said it alright. It's just that you and others would rather not admit that it came from the two most truthful women ( guilters words ) involved in the case---------Ann Eaton and Barbara Wilson.
No we don't know that Sheila said such. You have failed to competently respond to the points I made.
1) We have never been shown the document which supposedly is in Jones' handwriting which notes this. Thus we have no way to know if this document actually does claim what Jeremy supporters claim and no way to assess if it might be a forgery. It might not exist since it has not been publicly released it could simply be made up.
2) The claim is that AE told Jones that BW told her that Sheila once told her all people are bad and should be killed. Even if AE did tell Jones this it is possible that AE misunderstood BW. It is possible that BW misunderstood Sheila as well and incorrectly was recounting what she had been told by Sheila. Hearsay is not admissible precisely because of all these problems.
3) Even if Sheila did say it we have no idea when or what the context was. Regardless of the context even if she did say it, it has no bearing on the case. Jeremy was convicted because of evidence that proved Sheila didn't load the gun, fire the gun, beat anyone, or kill anyone but rather that Jeremy did so and tried to frame her. She could have told people a million people that all people are bad and should be killed and that still would not in any way refute the evidence that proves she didn't kill anyone.
You have decided Sheila definitely said these words because of your bias. You decided long ago that only a crazy person would kill the victims. you decided Jeremy so would never harm his family and Sheila was crazy so did it. You didn't decide the case based on the actual objective evidence of the case rather your own subjective concepts of who did it. You ignore all evidence that proves your subjective beliefs to be wrong but believe anything you hear (and elevate such claims to the Gospel truth) if you think such points to Sheila's guilt.
This describes you in a nutshell.
-
Whatever you've regurgitated I won't even bother reading.
-
Whatever you've regurgitated I won't even bother reading.
Neither will I. The man is wasting his time. He is so rude that people can´t stand reading what he vomits up.
-
Whatever you've regurgitated I won't even bother reading.
That in a nutshell explains your defense of Jeremy. While totally ignorant of the facts and evidence that established Jeremy's guilt you decided Jeremy was innocent. You want to remain in that uninformed position because ignorance is bliss. Anytime someone points out the evidence and explains it you close your eyes and ears and just dismiss it rather than face the evidence and attempt to refute it. You do this because if you can't refute it then you would have to admit to yourself that your beliefs are untenable.
-
That in a nutshell explains your defense of Jeremy. While totally ignorant of the facts and evidence that established Jeremy's guilt you decided Jeremy was innocent. You want to remain in that uninformed position because ignorance is bliss. Anytime someone points out the evidence and explains it you close your eyes and ears and just dismiss it rather than face the evidence and attempt to refute it. You do this because if you can't refute it then you would have to admit to yourself that your beliefs are untenable.
We all think you have made your opinion quite clear. We get it. You don't have to keep on repeating it just to have a go at a poster. There is no need. It is in itself rude and ignorant.
-
We all think you have made your opinion quite clear. We get it. You don't have to keep on repeating it just to have a go at a poster. There is no need. It is in itself rude and ignorant.
Nothing but a personal attack, but skippy can´t see that, in his over-inflated self opinion he can do no wrong.