Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on May 13, 2017, 11:11:AM
-
Why did Julie turn down June's offer of a flat in London, if she was just with Bamber for his future inheritance ?
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.itv.com/news/london/2014-07-15/the-rise-and-rise-of-london-house-prices-1986-to-2014/&ved=0ahUKEwiHwKDf1ezTAhXKDcAKHcNhAlsQFggnMAA&usg=AFQjCNGH3-V_t39YoG8oedy3hptcWGmy7g
Average flat prices in London in the mid 80's were £55,000p. Which is £116,000 today.
Which would have been good work for a teenage student. She could leave Bamber after getting the flat. Or stay with him & wait for the next 20 years hoping to be a part of a future inheritance.
She did neither.
-
Why did Julie turn down June's offer of a flat in London, if she was just with Bamber for his future inheritance ?
Obviously June hated her
Simple
Why do you think Julie carried out the cheque frauds?
I believe she probably put the idea into Jeremy's head how easy it would be to rob the caravan park
Maybe you could remind me of the dates of the cheque fraud and the caravan robbery
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.itv.com/news/london/2014-07-15/the-rise-and-rise-of-london-house-prices-1986-to-2014/&ved=0ahUKEwiHwKDf1ezTAhXKDcAKHcNhAlsQFggnMAA&usg=AFQjCNGH3-V_t39YoG8oedy3hptcWGmy7g
Average flat prices in London in the mid 80's were £55,000p. Which is £116,000 today.
Which would have been good work for a teenage student. She could leave Bamber after getting the flat. Or stay with him & wait for the next 20 years hoping to be a part of a future inheritance.
She did neither.
Julie was greedy
Fact
-
Obviously June hated her
Simple
Why do you think Julie carried out the cheque frauds?
I believe she probably put the idea into Jeremy's head how easy it would be to rob the caravan park
Maybe you could remind me of the dates of the cheque fraud and the caravan robbery
You didn't answer the question -
Why did Julie turn down £55,000/£116,000 from June, if she was just with Bamber to be part of a possible future inheritance ?
-
Because June was trying to separate JB from her,JM, as she hadn't liked her,so " buying her off " was favourite rather than losing her son to her. The offer wasn't exactly walking distance away,was it ?
June had been against co-habiting and all that it stood for,which is why both Sheila and Colin agreed that June was a " religious monster ",their words,not mine. His words had upset AE !!
-
Why did Julie turn down June's offer of a flat in London, if she was just with Bamber for his future inheritance ?
Hi Adam can I have a source for this please. If June offered to buy in flat in London she probably would have kept it in her own name not Julie's and if this is true she wanted Julie away from her area as it would be such an embarrassment to her Julie staying in the cottage with Jeremy she would not approve of this at all. IMO she would not have paid out such a large sum of money and not kept control of the property.
-
You didn't answer the question -
Why did Julie turn down £55,000/£116,000 from June, if she was just with Bamber to be part of a possible future inheritance ?
I did read my post
Mugford knew June hated her
Simple
-
Hi Adam can I have a source for this please. If June offered to buy in flat in London she probably would have kept it in her own name not Julie's and if this is true she wanted Julie away from her area as it would be such an embarrassment to her Julie staying in the cottage with Jeremy she would not approve of this at all. IMO she would not have paid out such a large sum of money and not kept control of the property.
Of course Susan, I would like to see the source too
Could you post that up in your next reply
-
I did read my post
Mugford knew June hated her
Simple
You said June hated Julie.
That does not explain why Julie turned down June's huge financial offer.
-
Of course Susan, I would like to see the source too
Could you post that up in your next reply
I've already supplied two sources this week.
Julie's WS & Bamber's police interviews.
Please keep up.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647
Page 2.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
Page 14.
-
You said June hated Julie.
That does not explain why Julie turned down June's huge financial offer.
Whomsoever allegedly said it, I think "hate" is FAR to strong a word to be applied to a devoutly Christian woman. Is there not something in the Bible about hating the wrong, NOT the wrongdoer. If we're discussing premarital sex, Jeremy was a more than willing participant. IF "hate" is applied to Julie, ergo, for the same reason, it must be applied to Jeremy.
-
Has Bamber ever said June hated Julie ? The first I've heard of this is today.
Jackie answering my question on why an apparent greedy Julie turned down £116,000 of today's money because.....June hated Julie ? !
-
Has Bamber ever said June hated Julie ? The first I've heard of this is today.
Jackie answering my question on why an apparent greedy Julie turned down £116,000 of today's money because.....June hated Julie ?
I don't think Julie would have felt one thing in particular when June made the offer. If she was the gold digger she's being painted as being, surely her first reaction would surely have been along the lines of "Goody, goody, I'm rich. I can live in it, sell it, or let it. I wonder which will give me the best return"!!!!! She was a 20 year old student, NOT a seasoned business woman. Of course, she may have felt insulted by the offer. Humiliated, even. MAYBE she'd been bought up never to accept gifts from strangers? Whatever, I think it has to be accepted that it was never likely that she'd get her hands on it. June could have put it in trust for the twins. I very much doubt she'd have countenanced Julie walking away with the money for it.
-
There'd have been a clause,June wasn't stupid. Controlling people usually have everything worked out to their advantage.
-
Her main objective would have been that both JB and JM would tire of tooing and froing,thus either one would have found someone else at closer quarters.
-
Her main objective would have been that both JB and JM would tire of tooing and froing,thus either one would have found someone else at closer quarters.
That might make sense, but wasn't Julie already living in London?
-
Her main objective would have been that both JB and JM would tire of tooing and froing,thus either one would have found someone else at closer quarters.
There'd have been a clause,June wasn't stupid. Controlling people usually have everything worked out to their advantage.
Are you saying you'd have been prepared to GIVE, a house/flat, lock, stock and free/leasehold, to an offspring's partner, risk the relationship breaking up and the ex walking away with the money you'd paid, all because you wouldn't have them sleeping together? I see NOTHING wrong in June wishing to maintain control of it. I concur that she hoped the distance would break them up.
-
Whomsoever allegedly said it, I think "hate" is FAR to strong a word to be applied to a devoutly Christian woman. Is there not something in the Bible about hating the wrong, NOT the wrongdoer. If we're discussing premarital sex, Jeremy was a more than willing participant. IF "hate" is applied to Julie, ergo, for the same reason, it must be applied to Jeremy.
Hate is used freely on this forum about Jeremy
Jeremy hated farming
Jeremy hated Sheila
Jeremy hated June
None of which is true
So I am not going to get pulled up saying June hated Mugford
June adored Jeremy and probably saw right through Julie
Julie was a nasty piece of work which ever way you look at it
-
That might make sense, but wasn't Julie already living in London?
And what would there have been to prevent Jeremy moving in?
-
Has Bamber ever said June hated Julie ? The first I've heard of this is today.
Jackie answering my question on why an apparent greedy Julie turned down £116,000 of today's money because.....June hated Julie ? !
Still waiting for the source where June says she is going to hand over more than £100,000 to Mugford
-
Still waiting for the source where June says she is going to hand over more than £100,000 to Mugford
Reply 11.
Please keep up.
-
Hate is used freely on this forum about Jeremy
Jeremy hated farming
Jeremy hated Sheila
Jeremy hated June
None of which is true
So I am not going to get pulled up saying June hated Mugford
June adored Jeremy and probably saw right through Julie
Julie was a nasty piece of work which ever way you look at it
Jeremy was allowed to hate farming. It's inanimate. I don't believe Jeremy cared enough about anyone to raise enough passion to feel hate. He saw people as being expendable, to which, having experienced it, you can corroborate. I wonder who ever said that June "adored" Jeremy. It's not a word which fits with a mother's feelings for her child, but it IS a word that an adult child might use about the feeling of a parent, for them, that they wished were true.
-
Hate is used freely on this forum about Jeremy
Jeremy hated farming
Jeremy hated Sheila
Jeremy hated June
None of which is true
So I am not going to get pulled up saying June hated Mugford
June adored Jeremy and probably saw right through Julie
Julie was a nasty piece of work which ever way you look at it
Have you got a source that June adored Bamber ?
Julie, Mary Mugford & Bamber testified otherwise.
-
Jeremy was allowed to hate farming. It's inanimate. I don't believe Jeremy cared enough about anyone to raise enough passion to feel hate. He saw people as being expendable, to which, having experienced it, you can corroborate. I wonder who ever said that June "adored" Jeremy. It's not a word which fits with a mother's feelings for her child, but it IS a word that an adult child might use about the feeling of a parent, for them, that they wished were true.
Read the letter June sent Jeremy and look at the photos it obvious
Also he did NOT hate farming
-
Reply 11.
Please keep up.
Don't be rude or I will report you
I have not seen a post where you provide proof June offered to GIVE over £100,000 to Mugford
-
And what would there have been to prevent Jeremy moving in?
He may well have done to allow Sheila to live at Goldhanger in Jeremy's house as suggested. He could have had his own room back at WHF during the week and spent his weekends at Julie's.
-
Read the letter June sent Jeremy and look at the photos it obvious
Also he did NOT hate farming
To which particular letter do you refer, and to which photos? From whom did you learn that Jeremy didn't hate farming?
-
Have you got a source that June adored Bamber ?
Julie, Mary Mugford & Bamber testified otherwise.
Read the letter June sent Jeremy and look at the photos it obvious
-
To which particular letter do you refer, and to which photos? From whom did you learn that Jeremy didn't hate farming?
From Jeremy numerous times on the phone
Straight from the horses mouth
The photos are on the Internet and June's letter to Jeremy is too
-
Don't be rude or I will report you
I have not seen a post where you provide proof June offered to GIVE over £100,000 to Mugford
Reply 1.
Please keep up.
-
Of course June adored her son,and he her.
-
He may well have done to allow Sheila to live at Goldhanger in Jeremy's house as suggested. He could have had his own room back at WHF during the week and spent his weekends at Julie's.
Yeah right! He was 25 years old, Sleeping where and with whom he wanted without restraint. Do you REALLY believe he'd have given that up to go live with his parents? Even more so considering he must have been so desperate to move out in the first place that the couple living in his cottage were evicted so he could move in.
-
From Jeremy numerous times on the phone
Straight from the horses mouth
The photos are on the Internet and June's letter to Jeremy is too
Hmm, That's exactly what I mean. Jeremy's ISN'T the horse's moth. THAT would have been June. As I said, the only time's I've ever heard the word "adored" used as a description, by an adult child of how a parent felt about them AS child, on closer examination, it's proved not to be the case.
-
His only reason for moving out was because June didn't hit it off with Julie so the only remedy was for him to go somewhere where Julie wouldn't be met with hostility and that was Goldhanger----to which June objected to Julie living there with him,so the solution being that June allegedly buys/rents somewhere miles away for Julie to live--------which speaks volumes to me.
-
His only reason for moving out was because June didn't hit it off with Julie so the only remedy was for him to go somewhere where Julie wouldn't be met with hostility and that was Goldhanger----to which June objected to Julie living there with him,so the solution being that June allegedly buys/rents somewhere miles away for Julie to live--------which speaks volumes to me.
From Julie's WS.
"The first day I started there as a waitress I met a boy named Jeremy Nevill Bamber.
He was working there as a barman. I got friendly with Jeremy who at that time was living with Michael Deckers and Malcolm Waters, Elizabeth Rimington at 2 Tusset Mews, Lexden, Colchester".
-
His only reason for moving out was because June didn't hit it off with Julie so the only remedy was for him to go somewhere where Julie wouldn't be met with hostility and that was Goldhanger----to which June objected to Julie living there with him,so the solution being that June allegedly buys/rents somewhere miles away for Julie to live--------which speaks volumes to me.
Of course, we DO need proof of that, Lookout. If Jeremy had been THAT keen to stay a WHF all his life, he wouldn't have made excuses to stay away as often as he did. I seem to recall that when Julie first met him, he was living in Colchester -spitting distance from D'Arcy- and she had no idea that he was a 'farmer'.
-
You didn't answer the question -
Why did Julie turn down £55,000/£116,000 from June, if she was just with Bamber to be part of a possible future inheritance ?
there is no way June would have put the property in Julie's name. It was imo an offer of somewhere to live other than where she wanted her to live. End of .
-
I don't think Julie would have felt one thing in particular when June made the offer. If she was the gold digger she's being painted as being, surely her first reaction would surely have been along the lines of "Goody, goody, I'm rich. I can live in it, sell it, or let it. I wonder which will give me the best return"!!!!! She was a 20 year old student, NOT a seasoned business woman. Of course, she may have felt insulted by the offer. Humiliated, even. MAYBE she'd been bought up never to accept gifts from strangers? Whatever, I think it has to be accepted that it was never likely that she'd get her hands on it. June could have put it in trust for the twins. I very much doubt she'd have countenanced Julie walking away with the money for it.
Jane do you really believe June and Neville would have purchased a flat and put it in her name. I don't think you really believe that.
-
Sorry Jane I hadn't read the whole of your post before I replied, I'm cleaning the kitchen and dipping g in and oug lol. X
-
there is no way June would have put the property in Julie's name. It was imo an offer of somewhere to live other than where she wanted her to live. End of .
June offerred 'to buy' Julie a flat in London. Not pay her rent, not buy for herself & let Julie live there.
June offerred 'to buy' Julie a flat in London.
-
"At one stage she accused me of being a harlot or loose woman. She offered to buy me a flat in London or Colchester so I could go and live there so the neighbours didn’t talk. I declined the offer and I was very offended"
-
Reply 1.
Please keep up.
adam I am beginning to believe you are here to ruffle people's feathers only. You cannot have a debate, you start a thread then just keep repeating what you have said. That isn't debating. If you can't debate then don't bother.
-
Sorry Jane I hadn't read the whole of your post before I replied, I'm cleaning the kitchen and dipping g in and oug lol. X
Glad I saw this before posting a rather testy response ;D ;D ;D Poor you. Can think of more pleasant things to do, than cleaning on Saturday afternoon.
-
Yeah right! He was 25 years old, Sleeping where and with whom he wanted without restraint. Do you REALLY believe he'd have given that up to go live with his parents? Even more so considering he must have been so desperate to move out in the first place that the couple living in his cottage were evicted so he could move in.
Jane it's completely normal for a man of that age want to move out of thier parents house. When my son was 24 off he went and bought his own house, I cannot describe the love I feel for my kids but boy oh boy my son was a selfish lazy so and so when he lived at home and believe me it wasn't for the want of asking, telling him to pick his towels ups from his bathroom floor or to put his clean washing away! We used to have some humdinger of rows, especially with his dad wHo used to get really wound up but it's normal . No amount t of rows or my reluctance to admit that he was many a time on the verge of driving me insane would I feel anything g but love for him when it came down to it and I have absolutely no doubt that June would have felt the same about jeremy and shiela.
Both my kids have told me they hate me and I'm pretty certain that in the heat of the moment they probably meant it but not when things had calmed down and I would get a hug or a kiss and a sorry mum.
Let's face it jeremy had quite a lot to deal with regarding his mum didn't he. She was suffering mental health problems , had taken religion to another level and it did affect his life so who wouldn'twant to leave home. None of that means he didn't love her. Of course he did.
-
Read the letter June sent Jeremy and look at the photos it obvious
Also he did NOT hate farming
It was an occupation he was forced into and was shackled to until the demise of his parents. He could have walked away but that would have meant risking his mother's wealth.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1935.0.html
I have removed the last sentence of your post as it was unnecessary personal comment about another poster.
-
Jane it's completely normal for a man of that age want to move out of thier parents house. When my son was 24 off he went and bought his own house, I cannot describe the love I feel for my kids but boy oh boy my son was a selfish lazy so and so when he lived at home and believe me it wasn't for the want of asking, telling him to pick his towels ups from his bathroom floor or to put his clean washing away! We used to have some humdinger of rows, especially with his dad wHo used to get really wound up but it's normal . No amount t of rows or my reluctance to admit that he was many a time on the verge of driving me insane would I feel anything g but love for him when it came down to it and I have absolutely no doubt that June would have felt the same about jeremy and shiela.
Both my kids have told me they hate me and I'm pretty certain that in the heat of the moment they probably meant it but not when things had calmed down and I would get a hug or a kiss and a sorry mum.
Let's face it jeremy had quite a lot to deal with regarding his mum didn't he. She was suffering mental health problems , had taken religion to another level and it did affect his life so who wouldn'twant to leave home. None of that means he didn't love her. Of course he did.
Thank-you for that, Notsure. The love you bear your children shines out of what you say. However, it interests me hugely, that nowhere do you speak of adoration for them. Your relationship with them, though, sounds healthy, happy and honest. A far cry from that which I believe Jeremy's to have been, other than in his imagination.
-
It was an occupation he was forced into and was shackled to until the demise of his parents. He could have walked away but that would have meant risking his mother's wealth.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1935.0.html
I have done plenty of research unlike you who continually quotes from books
I have had long conversations with Jeremy and I have spoken to people who he grew up with
I have spoken to his lie detector tester
I have done way more research than you
Could you refrain from being rude
-
I have done plenty of research unlike you who continually quotes from books
I have had long conversations with Jeremy and I have spoken to people who he grew up with
I have spoken to his lie detector tester
I have done way more research than you
Could you refrain from being rude
Jackie you are closer to people connected with Jeremy than most on here and I know you have in the past worked very hard to try and help Jeremy and you are still giving your all for Steve to make the comments he did I think very unfair.
-
Jackie you are closer to people connected with Jeremy than most on here and I know you have in the past worked very hard to try and help Jeremy and you are still giving your all for Steve to make the comments he did I think very unfair.
Oh susan did I go over the top..
-
I suppose for those who consider him innocent it explains many of your behaviours. For those of us who believe him to be a child killer there's no such dilemma involved when we unleash our vitriol.
-
Jackie you are closer to people connected with Jeremy than most on here and I know you have in the past worked very hard to try and help Jeremy and you are still giving your all for Steve to make the comments he did I think very unfair.
Thank you Susan
-
http://www.bestsongspk.com/watch/FdnAlSBNceM
Susan I have not done much lately but after I received new information I would like a six part documentary made on the murders. There is only one person for the job so I am pushing for that at the moment
There has to be a series for maximum impact
Above is an old video that got over 1000 views
We have to get the case out there in detail to get to the truth
-
http://www.bestsongspk.com/watch/FdnAlSBNceM
Susan I have not done much lately but after I received new information I would like a six part documentary made on the murders. There is only one person for the job so I am pushing for that at the moment
There has to be a series for maximum impact
Above is an old video that got over 1000 views
We have to get the case out there in detail to get to the truth
I liked how it was very different from mine. I like to think that when I made mine, there was some very raw talen there :))
They were a bit naff to be honest. If I was to make one again, it would be in a similar vein to the others but more subtle. It was a rewarding, if gruelling process.
-
I liked how it was very different from mine. I like to think that when I made mine, there was some very raw talen there :))
They were a bit naff to be honest. If I was to make one again, it would be in a similar vein to the others but more subtle. It was a rewarding, if gruelling process.
That wasn't one of yours was it roch? :o
-
Of course presentation is the key rather than substance.
-
That wasn't one of yours was it roch? :o
No the above is one of Jackie's. I liked how it was very different from mine.
-
I think it's a lovely video given the circumstances. I remember seeing it quite a while back.
A hard-hitting one next ?
-
http://www.bestsongspk.com/watch/FdnAlSBNceM
Susan I have not done much lately but after I received new information I would like a six part documentary made on the murders. There is only one person for the job so I am pushing for that at the moment
There has to be a series for maximum impact
Above is an old video that got over 1000 views
We have to get the case out there in detail to get to the truth
Jackie Good Luck hope you secure the services of the person you want for the Documentary :)
-
http://www.bestsongspk.com/watch/FdnAlSBNceM
Susan I have not done much lately but after I received new information I would like a six part documentary made on the murders. There is only one person for the job so I am pushing for that at the moment
There has to be a series for maximum impact
Above is an old video that got over 1000 views
We have to get the case out there in detail to get to the truth
What new information ?
-
What new information ?
Don't hold your breath.
-
A '6 part' documemtary. Impressive.
One episide will be on Julie identifying the bodies. Which Jackie says shows Bamber is innocent.
One episode on Julie's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. Which shows she wanted Bamber's money.
One episode on Bamber loving farming. Although he did none after the massacre.
One epidode on David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which has still not freed Bamber.
One episode on AE giving BC Nevill's wallet. Which suggests the relatives framed Bamber.
One episode on Ainsley being brought in to hide the evidence that Sheila was the killer. Although as Roch would say - it's "not the documentaries job to speculate why the police did this".
-
What new information ?
Don't hold your breath.
The sad thing is, that any 'new' information is merely old information that has always existed. It hasn't arrived on Earth in a moonbeam projected by higher beings. It just didn't fit with a prosecution of Jeremy.
So it was either excluded from the record - or other devious means were found to nullify it or incorporate it.
-
The sad thing is, that any 'new' information is merely old information that has always existed. It hasn't arrived on Earth in a moonbeam projected by higher beings. It just didn't fit with a prosecution of Jeremy.
So it was either excluded from the record - or other devious means were found to nullify it or incorporate it.
It's lucky that Jackie has "received new information" & is trying to get a 6 part documentary made.
I'm sure both supporters & guilters will watch.
-
The sad thing is, that any 'new' information is merely old information that has always existed. It hasn't arrived on Earth in a moonbeam projected by higher beings. It just didn't fit with a prosecution of Jeremy.
So it was either excluded from the record - or other devious means were found to nullify it or incorporate it.
If it hasn't been presented then it's new evidence. If it has well ........ thems the rules.
-
If you read Poppy's new blog about the meeting which was held in Sheffield on Saturday,you'll see just how difficult it is to produce " new " information,let alone that which has already been presented. In fact I applaud anyone who can manage to get beyond the various " ACTS " that the justice system and police have in place. It'll be a clever person who'll break down the barriers that exist in blocking MOJ's from being allowed a re-trial.
-
If you read Poppy's new blog about the meeting which was held in Sheffield on Saturday,you'll see just how difficult it is to produce " new " information,let alone that which has already been presented. In fact I applaud anyone who can manage to get beyond the various " ACTS " that the justice system and police have in place. It'll be a clever person who'll break down the barriers that exist in blocking MOJ's from being allowed a re-trial.
It's good that Jackie has discovered new information.
Now that Trudi's weekly blogs have stopped, a 6 part documentary from Jackie will be some consolation.
-
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit ! Why are guilters so obnoxious ?
-
It's all true.
I miss Trudi's vlogs. Being interested in the case, I hope Jackie and her new information is screened in a 6 part documentary.
Hopefully the new information Jackie has found will be posted on here before the documentary. I did ask her yesterday what the new information was, but got no response.
-
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit ! Why are guilters so obnoxious ?
Why are some 'innocenters'? ::)
Why do the innocent supporters use the banner of 'guiltiers' as though 'we' on the guilty side all think the same thing? Like in society, we are all individuals and believe different things - just like those on the innocent side. We aren't a group and we don't all think in the same way. Try reading up on in-group out-group theory.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201012/in-groups-out-groups-and-the-psychology-crowds
-
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit ! Why are guilters so obnoxious ?
But the highest form of intelligence ;D
-
If it hasn't been presented then it's new evidence. If it has well ........ thems the rules.
I disagree with your reasoning on both counts. On the second count - you sound like have no interest in discovering the truth.
-
But the highest form of intelligence ;D
Really :)) :)) :)) :))
-
I disagree with your reasoning on both counts. On the second count - you sound like have no interest in discovering the truth.
Of course I do - more than most however, that is the law, Bamber isn't being singled out. I guess you are saying this because the thing that convinced you of Sheila's guilt, is something that has been in the public domain all along? There is certainly nothing I have seen in the years of being here that shows Sheila to be guilty. However, IF such evidence is 'compelling' enough - the CCRC will consider it so put it to the test.
-
Of course I do - more than most however, that is the law, Bamber isn't being singled out. I guess you are saying this because the thing that convinced you of Sheila's guilt, is something that has been in the public domain all along? There is certainly nothing I have seen in the years of being here that shows Sheila to be guilty. However, IF such evidence is 'compelling' enough - the CCRC will consider it so put it to the test.
Hopefully Jackie will today post what the new information she has received is.
I hope it's a bit better than David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
-
Of course I do - more than most however, that is the law, Bamber isn't being singled out. I guess you are saying this because the thing that convinced you of Sheila's guilt, is something that has been in the public domain all along? There is certainly nothing I have seen in the years of being here that shows Sheila to be guilty. However, IF such evidence is 'compelling' enough - the CCRC will consider it so put it to the test.
No that's not what I mean. The evidence has always existed but not necessarily in its correctly disclosed form. The CCRC won't refer - because the case is political. It only referred in 2002 because there was still, at that stage, a good chance of the appeal failing. Why do you place such trust in the CCRC?
-
No that's not what I mean. The evidence has always existed but not necessarily in its correctly disclosed form. The CCRC won't refer - because the case is political. It only referred in 2002 because there was still, at that stage, a good chance of the appeal failing. Why do you place such trust in the CCRC?
There is a way round the CCRC and COA anyway.
"The Royal Prerogative of Mercy remains available as an extraordinary remedy, but is unlikely to be of importance for those seeking to have their convictions quashed except in extremely rare situations. The prerogative, exercised by the Queen on advice of the Justice Secretary, allows the grant of a free pardon, a conditional pardon (whereby the penalty is removed on condition that a lesser sentence is served), or remission of sentence. A pardon does not vitiate the conviction, which remains, but instead relieves the petitioner of the ‘pains and penalties’ which the conviction may entail. With the advent of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, its use seems likely to be confined to truly exceptional cases – for example, where evidence is inadmissible or unsuitable for public disclosure"
CORRECTION OF MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE IN NEW ZEALAND AND ENGLAND.
MALCOLM DAVID BIRDLING, ST CATHERINE’S COLLEGE. PHD THESIS
-
The evidence I have been posting about has always existed. Therefore it is not new evidence. It is old evidence. It's just that police decided it couldn't be disclosed in its full form. The reason why they didn't allow this was so that Jeremy could be prosecuted. Jeremy was prosecuted to appease Robert Boutflour. The relatives are responsible for first pressurising and then corrupting police. The police are responsible for allowing such corruptive approaches to be made and acted upon . All of the victims, including Jeremy, are victims of Sheila and of corrupt policing and corrupt relatives. Since a false version of events has been allowed to stand, for the benefit of those who were / are corrupt.
-
The evidence I have been posting about has always existed. Therefore it is not new evidence. It is old evidence. It's just that police decided it couldn't be disclosed in its full form. The reason why they didn't allow this was so that Jeremy could be prosecuted. Jeremy was prosecuted to appease Robert Boutflour. The relatives are responsible for first pressurising and then corrupting police. The police are responsible for allowing such corruptive approaches to be made and acted upon . All of the victims, including Jeremy, are victims of Sheila and of corrupt policing and corrupt relatives. Since a false version of events has been allowed to stand, for the benefit of those who were / are corrupt.
If it's never been disclosed, then how do you know about it?
-
Really :)) :)) :)) :))
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sarcasm-how-the-lowest-form-of-wit-actually-makes-people-brighter-and-more-creative-10416281.html ;D ;D
-
If it's never been disclosed, then how do you know about it?
It was 'disclosed' over time and attempts were made to impede its disclosure. It existed from day one. Police knew it existed. You shouldn't get too hung up about the terms 'disclosure' and claims of 'non-disclosure'. Unless evidence is fully provided to the defence - in its' correct context and without attempts to manipulate its' meaning or hide its extent - then it cannot be classed as 'disclosed' in any meaningful sense of the term.
If I show you something - but hide its extent or manipulate its meaning or present it out of context - how can I really be showing you it?
-
It was 'disclosed' over time and attempts were made to impede its disclosure. It existed from day one. Police knew it existed. You shouldn't get too hung up about the terms 'disclosure' and claims of 'non-disclosure'. Unless evidence is fully provided to the defence - in its' correct context and without attempts to manipulate its' meaning or hide its extent - then it cannot be classed as 'disclosed' in any meaningful sense of the term.
If I show you something - but hide its extent or manipulate its meaning or present it out of context - how can I really be showing you it?
If it's already in the public domain I'm at a loss to understand why you just can't say what it is, also surely getting it out there would help to get more people interested in the case, and turn guilty supporters into innocent supporters? Surely the more people on side the better for Jeremy? Holding onto information won't help his cause.
-
It's all true.
I miss Trudi's vlogs. Being interested in the case, I hope Jackie and her new information is screened in a 6 part documentary.
Hopefully the new information Jackie has found will be posted on here before the documentary. I did ask her yesterday what the new information was, but got no response.
I am sure everyone who believes Jeremy is guilty will look forward to a new series on the case. One hour does just not cut it
I hope Diane Keen will be included
-
The evidence I have been posting about has always existed. Therefore it is not new evidence. It is old evidence. It's just that police decided it couldn't be disclosed in its full form. The reason why they didn't allow this was so that Jeremy could be prosecuted. Jeremy was prosecuted to appease Robert Boutflour. The relatives are responsible for first pressurising and then corrupting police. The police are responsible for allowing such corruptive approaches to be made and acted upon . All of the victims, including Jeremy, are victims of Sheila and of corrupt policing and corrupt relatives. Since a false version of events has been allowed to stand, for the benefit of those who were / are corrupt.
You know Roch how powerful the public are. If this case is broadcast in detail the public will be in shock
-
If it's already in the public domain I'm at a loss to understand why you just can't say what it is, also surely getting it out there would help to get more people interested in the case, and turn guilty supporters into innocent supporters? Surely the more people on side the better for Jeremy? Holding onto information won't help his cause.
As if
-
If it's already in the public domain I'm at a loss to understand why you just can't say what it is, also surely getting it out there would help to get more people interested in the case, and turn guilty supporters into innocent supporters? Surely the more people on side the better for Jeremy? Holding onto information won't help his cause.
I wouldn't say it was all in the public domain. It will be up to others whether its' made public and how much is made public. There are other things coming to. Something very startling - that I've not been referring to in my posts.
Will just have to see what the coming year brings.
-
I wouldn't say it was all in the public domain. It will be up to others whether its' made public and how much is made public. There are other things coming to. Something very startling - that I've not been referring to in my posts.
Will just have to see what the coming year brings.
That's just it - it is always 'all coming soon' and has been, since I joined here. Why is is up to others/ Who are these others and why do they hold the reins? If this shows Jeremy to be innocent, isn't it the duty of anyone 'in the know' to DO SOMETHING?
-
That's just it - it is always 'all coming soon' and has been, since I joined here. Why is is up to others/ Who are these others and why do they hold the reins? If this shows Jeremy to be innocent, isn't it the duty of anyone 'in the know' to DO SOMETHING?
Not my remit or my evidence. I understand what you mean though. I think the CT are advised by pro-bono legal team on aspects of evidence. I'm not involved.
-
That's just it - it is always 'all coming soon' and has been, since I joined here. Why is is up to others/ Who are these others and why do they hold the reins? If this shows Jeremy to be innocent, isn't it the duty of anyone 'in the know' to DO SOMETHING?
Hopefully today Jackie will reveal the new information she said on Saturday she has received. I've asked for it 5 times.
-
Anything that's " leaked " will be torn to shreds by the media who will have been contacted by those involved in the case who are waiting with baited breath to block any thought of an appeal " because of fears for families ". After the EU ruling on life sentences,relatives were in touch with MP's and the local media,as well as EP, so any chances of a re-trial/acquittal will fall heavily on those who are working in the background in support of Jeremy,to present a " startling " result.
-
Anything that's " leaked " will be torn to shreds by the media who will have been contacted by those involved in the case who are waiting with baited breath to block any thought of an appeal " because of fears for families ". After the EU ruling on life sentences,relatives were in touch with MP's and the local media,as well as EP, so any chances of a re-trial/acquittal will fall heavily on those who are working in the background in support of Jeremy,to present a " startling " result.
I agree with you Lookout but if there is unassailable evidence his team will be in a strong position to face down the opposition. For that reason his team need to have drawn all the strands together and be rock solid before they make their move, whatever they believe that move should be. :)
-
I agree with you Lookout but if there is unassailable evidence his team will be in a strong position to face down the opposition. For that reason his team need to have drawn all the strands together and be rock solid before they make their move, whatever they believe that move should be. :)
Indeed Maggie. One thing in its favour is that the power of detection this 30 odd years on is so much improved by the technology we now have,plus the brain-power that goes with it. 30 years might not seem the longest of times,but those of a certain age can see vast improvements in certain areas thanks to study and the knowledge, in helping us move forward and to get things right before committing.
-
Not my remit or my evidence. I understand what you mean though. I think the CT are advised by pro-bono legal team on aspects of evidence. I'm not involved.
But they told you about it?
-
Anything that's " leaked " will be torn to shreds by the media who will have been contacted by those involved in the case who are waiting with baited breath to block any thought of an appeal " because of fears for families ". After the EU ruling on life sentences,relatives were in touch with MP's and the local media,as well as EP, so any chances of a re-trial/acquittal will fall heavily on those who are working in the background in support of Jeremy,to present a " startling " result.
If such evience can't stand up to scrutiny, then it's not worth it's salt.
-
I agree with you Lookout but if there is unassailable evidence his team will be in a strong position to face down the opposition. For that reason his team need to have drawn all the strands together and be rock solid before they make their move, whatever they believe that move should be. :)
Roch said that originally, the way the evidence was presented allowed it to be seen in a certain way that favoured the prosecution. What we could be looking at is simply a different presentation biased the other way. But apparently, this 'evidence' couldn't be used anyway and has been in the public domain for a long while, which is why I don't understand why it's such a secret.
Also, Roch's account seems to run along the same lines as Paul Harrison's. What is interesting is that Paul Harrison's account was supposed to have originated from Jeremy himself ie. Sheila was involved but not the mastermind.
-
Roch said that originally, the way the evidence was presented allowed it to be seen in a certain way that favoured the prosecution. What we could be looking at is simply a different presentation biased the other way. But apparently, this 'evidence' couldn't be used anyway and has been in the public domain for a long while, which is why I don't understand why it's such a secret.
Also, Roch's account seems to run along the same lines as Paul Harrison's. What is interesting is that Paul Harrison's account was supposed to have originated from Jeremy himself ie. Sheila was involved but not the mastermind.
I can't help but feel we've heard it all before. Such claims are another on going theme, usually they either don't materialise, or if they do then they don't equate to what is claimed.
-
If such evience can't stand up to scrutiny, then it's not worth it's salt.
Not necessarily.
-
Not necessarily.
So if it can't stand up to scrutiny please indicate what use it has?
-
So if it can't stand up to scrutiny please indicate what use it has?
There'll be far more in-depth methods used,even for that which has been presented before,as a handful of forensics are doing the scrutinising this time without a stone unturned.In other words a more thorough job than was ever done.
-
There'll be far more in-depth methods used,even for that which has been presented before,as a handful of forensics are doing the scrutinising this time without a stone unturned.In other words a more thorough job than was ever done.
If something doesn't stand up to scrutiny from a group of amateurs, experts will just demolish it.
-
If something doesn't stand up to scrutiny from a group of amateurs, experts will just demolish it.
So they're all amateurs who are working for the CT team ?
-
So they're all amateurs who are working for the CT team ?
I was specifically talking about this forum but yes, the CT are also amateurs. His legal team are not.
-
So they're all amateurs who are working for the CT team ?
Yes, and even worse, deluded amateurs with poor graveside manners!
-
Yes, and even worse, deluded amateurs with poor graveside manners!
Ain't THAT the truth!
-
Anything else you'd like to add ? ::)
-
Anything else you'd like to add ? ::)
To what?
-
To what?
Irrelevancies ? Such as the gravestone,mentioned in a subject we weren't even discussing.
-
Irrelevancies ? Such as the gravestone,mentioned in a subject we weren't even discussing.
Please forgive my poor attempt at humour. :-[
Although, giving an example of their behaviour did actually seem quite relevant to the question asked. :-\
-
Please forgive my poor attempt at humour. :-[
Although, giving an example of their behaviour did actually seem quite relevant to the question asked. :-\
I was referring more to those " legals " working in the background rather than the crew that are the CT.
-
I was referring more to those " legals " working in the background rather than the crew that are the CT.
Fair enough.
-
But they told you about it?
No involvement with CT - but am aware that they are aware of the evidence in question.
It seems ironic that professionals can witness and record evidence, before concealing it, only for it to later be 'demolished' and fail to stand up to scrutiny. We live in a strange world.
-
No involvement with CT - but am aware that they are aware of the evidence in question.
It seems ironic that professionals can witness and record evidence, before concealing it, only for it to later be 'demolished' and fail to stand up to scrutiny. We live in a strange world.
Of course another more measured view could be that something is recorded, without attaching particular significance. When this 'something' is then offered up with a usually skewed interpretation, the lack of significance originally applied still remains.
-
Of course another more measured view could be that something is recorded, without attaching particular significance. When this 'something' is then offered up with a usually skewed interpretation, the lack of significance originally applied still remains.
This is also my general feeling.
-
Of course another more measured view could be that something is recorded, without attaching particular significance. When this 'something' is then offered up with a usually skewed interpretation, the lack of significance originally applied still remains.
Actually, it's not a more measured view at all. Not in respect to this particular evidence. Probably not even in respect of previous submissions either. Anyway, you and Caroline have got the wrong end of the stick. That is to say, you have it in reverse.
-
Actually, it's not a more measured view at all. Not in respect to this particular evidence. Probably not even in respect of previous submissions either. Anyway, you and Caroline have got the wrong end of the stick. That is to say, you have it in reverse.
I disagree, we've had these sensational claims before, upon closer inspection each and every time they have been found wanting. That is the normal pattern. Why should anybody think it will be different this time?
I don't think we can simply rely on your interpretation, you are unable to even interpret the evidence which IS available correctly.
Anybody who disagrees with me clearly lacks judgement. ;D
-
I disagree, we've had these sensational claims before, upon closer inspection each and every time they have been found wanting. That is the normal pattern. Why should anybody think it will be different this time?
I don't think we can simply rely on your interpretation, you are unable to even interpret the evidence which IS available correctly.
Anybody who disagrees with me clearly lacks judgement. ;D
They are not sensational claims per se. The system is just not set up to expose corruption and wrongdoings in a case which has become political. The CCRC will simply accept what the police tell them. That is hardly a robust model to enable an accurate judgement regarding sensationalism. If an arbiter nearly always favours one side over the other, then the arbiter is not serving any real quest to find the truth in these matters.
-
They are not sensational claims per se. The system is just not set up to expose corruption and wrongdoings in a case which has become political. The CCRC will simply accept what the police tell them. That is hardly a robust model to enable an accurate judgement regarding sensationalism. If an arbiter nearly always favours one side over the other, then the arbiter is not serving any real quest to find the truth in these matters.
Aah okay, now it's the CCRC's fault, gotcha.
I think that's a pretty sensational claim myself. :-\
-
Aah okay, now it's the CCRC's fault, gotcha.
I think that's a pretty sensational claim myself. :-\
It's a pretty common claim actually. Nothing sensational about the CCRC attracting criticism. If CCRC is programmed to accept explanations from police = police can trust upon CCRC to accept their explanations.
Police can then issue generic statements referring 'Mr. Bamber to the CCRC' instead of bothering them etc.
What would happen if Trading Standards merely accepted the answers given by businesses, in respect of shoddy work or poor service?
What would happen if OFSTED received complaints and then just accepted the answers given by those administering failing schools?
-
It's a pretty common claim actually. Nothing sensational about the CCRC attracting criticism. If CCRC is programmed to accept explanations from police = police can trust upon CCRC to accept their explanations.
Police can then issue generic statements referring 'Mr. Bamber to the CCRC' instead of bothering them etc.
What would happen if Trading Standards merely accepted the answers given by businesses, in respect of shoddy work or poor service?
What would happen if OFSTED received complaints and then just accepted the answers given by those administering failing schools?
I think it's only attracting your criticism because they haven't arrived at the conclusion you wanted.
The cases which the CCRC have dealt with which were overturned probably didn't attract the same criticism.
JB and his supporters seem to blame other people an awful lot.
-
Jeremy's predicament has been created by " other people " so therefore he and supporters are within their right to blame such people for their failings.
-
Jeremy's predicament has been created by " other people " so therefore he and supporters are within their right to blame such people for their failings.
Other people DID NOT make Jeremy commit mass murder.
-
Other people DID NOT make Jeremy commit mass murder.
Other people made sure he had done.
In my books he didn't commit mass murder or any other kind of murder.
-
Other people DID NOT make Jeremy commit mass murder.
Agree 100%
-
Of course another more measured view could be that something is recorded, without attaching particular significance. When this 'something' is then offered up with a usually skewed interpretation, the lack of significance originally applied still remains.
What if something was evidenced during the course of procedural thorougness, yet with a high degree of relevance also? Then, later, it is presented with a skewed interpretation, to invert its significance?
-
What if something was evidenced during the course of precedural thorougness, yet with a high degree of relevance also? Then, later, it is presented with a skewed interpretation, to invert its significance?
Perhaps it's been skewed recently.
-
Perhaps it's been skewed recently.
I can only offer you my assurance that it hasn't. Probably not enough, granted :))
-
Perhaps it's been skewed recently.
Just noticed a typo in my post. Posts are littered - starting to wonder if it's an age thing. 'Precedural' :o was meant to be procedural.
-
I can only offer you my assurance that it hasn't. Probably not enough, granted :))
How do you know? How do you know that what is being put forward (from whoever) hasn't been twisted to fit an innocent perspective?
-
What is being put forward ?
-
How do you know? How do you know that what is being put forward (from whoever) hasn't been twisted to fit an innocent perspective?
The simple answer is as follows: When this particular evidence was noted, it was done so without any attempt to hide Sheila's involvement in the killings. It is from day 1. Jeremy was not a suspect. There was no motive to conceal her involvement.
What you are suggesting above - is actually the correct situation in reverse. The 'twisted to fit' was carried out during the second investigation - not the first.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/707781/Jeremy-Bamber-supporters-claim-police-ignored-sister-suicide-note-white-farm-essex/amp&ved=0ahUKEwiY-o6v__PTAhXmC8AKHfBGBdEQFggpMAI&usg=AFQjCNGY5aBchNMy3HtKC0qrIrapNJ7y3g
Hopefully the CT can give an update on the forensic tests on Sheila's hand written notes. They have had 8 months to do the tests since mentioning them.
Otherwise it has to be assummed the tests came to nothing.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/707781/Jeremy-Bamber-supporters-claim-police-ignored-sister-suicide-note-white-farm-essex/amp&ved=0ahUKEwiY-o6v__PTAhXmC8AKHfBGBdEQFggpMAI&usg=AFQjCNGY5aBchNMy3HtKC0qrIrapNJ7y3g
Hopefully the CT can give an update on the forensic tests on Sheila's hand written notes. They have had 8 months to do the tests since mentioning them.
Otherwise it has to be assummed the tests came to nothing.
Imo even if the tests come to nothing it only means Sheila didn't write that letter. It doesn't mean she wasn't involved in the massacre. That's a different question.
-
Imo even if the tests come to nothing it only means Sheila didn't write that letter. It doesn't mean she wasn't involved in the massacre. That's a different question.
Hi Maggie I agree with you if the tests prove Sheila did not write that letter this does not mean she did not murder her family then kill herself. The only way the CT can be certain is to get a Graphologist to look at the documents maybe they have done this who knows :)
-
Hi Maggie I agree with you if the tests prove Sheila did not write that letter this does not mean she did not murder her family then kill herself. The only way the CT can be certain is to get a Graphologist to look at the documents maybe they have done this who knows :)
Everyone agrees Sheila wrote the notes, don't they ?
It's weather the notes suggest Sheila was planning to committ suicide & take other people with her.
As there has been no annoncenent in the last 8 months, It can only assumed they didn't.
-
Hi Maggie I agree with you if the tests prove Sheila did not write that letter this does not mean she did not murder her family then kill herself. The only way the CT can be certain is to get a Graphologist to look at the documents maybe they have done this who knows :)
If there was anything in the notes that suggested murder/suicide, supporters would say it makes Bamber innocent.
However there isn't anything. So supporters now claim it doesn't make Bamber guilty.
Good approach.
-
Everyone agrees Sheila wrote the notes, don't they ?
It's weather the notes suggest Sheila was planning to committ suicide & take other people with her.
As there has been no annoncenent in the last 8 months, It can only assumed they didn't.
I'm not 100% sure that Sheila wrote those notes now.
-
Everyone agrees Sheila wrote the notes, don't they ?
It's weather the notes suggest Sheila was planning to committ suicide & take other people with her.
As there has been no annoncenent in the last 8 months, It can only assumed they didn't.
Adam none of us know who wrote the notes have you a thread on this subject if so I will go and read
-
Although a known fact,it has been said that Sheila did express herself more readily by writing,but wasn't known for leaving notes around WHF------June was. So I'm torn between the two women. It depends on the full content of all the letters/notes that have been found before I can honestly commit for sure that it was Sheila's writing.
I find it sad that neither women could confront each other face to face to have aired their differences.Life would have been much easier for them both and it would have cleared the atmosphere between Sheila,Colin and June,for the sake of the children who are the ones that suffer during a rift within the family.
-
The simple answer is as follows: When this particular evidence was noted, it was done so without any attempt to hide Sheila's involvement in the killings. It is from day 1. Jeremy was not a suspect. There was no motive to conceal her involvement.
What you are suggesting above - is actually the correct situation in reverse. The 'twisted to fit' was carried out during the second investigation - not the first.
Sorry Roch, but I don't believe there is any way to know that. I think someone's interpretation has influenced whatever it is you're talking about.
-
Sorry Roch, but I don't believe there is any way to know that. I think someone's interpretation has influenced whatever it is you're talking about.
Hi Caroline, I agree we have seen various ambiguous examples of 'evidence' which are always down to an individual's interpretation which for me have never convinced but we know Roch isn't a fool. therefore personally I do tend to believe whatever he has seen must stand as it is without ambiguity. It's interesting and hope we get to hear more about it before too long. :-\
-
Sorry Roch, but I don't believe there is any way to know that. I think someone's interpretation has influenced whatever it is you're talking about.
It would be foolish for me to think that you could be persuaded on this. Especially since, as you rightly point out, I have not provided any of the evidence in question.
I was not persuaded by the wallet situation - and to be fair - you did provide the information in that instance.
Regarding the evidence I am referring to, I personally do not think it is the kind of evidence that is open to interpretation. This is why I described it using terms such as 'blatant' and 'obvious'.
However, I have very little confidence in the CCRC. My fear is that the authorities are 'trying to keep him in on a technicality'. Therefore, some way will probably be found to dismiss the evidence anyway.
You'll be kicking yourself when you realise what it is :))
-
Hi Caroline, I agree we have seen various ambiguous examples of 'evidence' which are always down to an individual's interpretation which for me have never convinced but we know Roch isn't a fool. therefore personally I do tend to believe whatever he has seen must stand as it is without ambiguity. It's interesting and hope we get to hear more about it before too long. :-\
Thanks for the compliment - but I am actually a fool in real life 8)
It is a bit much to expect people to reconsider without having been afforded any insight in to this. I cant speed up the process but if more people are keeping an open mind about the case - then that's great in my opinion.
-
Interesting post Roch with the same thoughts as my own regarding the CCRC,who,in this case have hindered rather than helped in their " supposedly " independent creation keeping it from Government " interference " and also matters in the courtroom. They failed miserably.
-
Thanks for the compliment - but I am actually a fool in real life 8)
It is a bit much to expect people to reconsider without having been afforded any insight in to this. I cant speed up the process but if more people are keeping an open mind about the case - then that's great in my opinion.
Think we're all fools at times Roch. ;D
I am a believer in the Open Mind, maybe we should form a club ... The Open Mind Club for all who are of an open mind (obviously ;D).
I agree it is hard to reconsider, especially after so many false starts related to this case, think there is a definitely weariness and wariness and for good reason particularly among those who have been members for a long time.
I am ever an optimist so shall watch this space. :)
-
Hi Caroline, I agree we have seen various ambiguous examples of 'evidence' which are always down to an individual's interpretation which for me have never convinced but we know Roch isn't a fool. therefore personally I do tend to believe whatever he has seen must stand as it is without ambiguity. It's interesting and hope we get to hear more about it before too long. :-\
No, but we are all influenced by our belief (innocent or guilty) and look for things which confirm those beliefs (concious or unconsciously). It also depends on who and how this 'evidence' was presented - I certainly bought into a LOT of what was said here in the good old days - however 'now' I work very much from a seeing is believing perspective and with all due respect to Roch (and he knows that I don't think he has made this up - I believe he believes it), unless I have seen something for myself, I am 100% sceptical.
-
Adam none of us know who wrote the notes have you a thread on this subject if so I will go and read
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/707781/Jeremy-Bamber-supporters-claim-police-ignored-sister-suicide-note-white-farm-essex/amp&ved=0ahUKEwiY-o6v__PTAhXmC8AKHfBGBdEQFggpMAI&usg=AFQjCNGY5aBchNMy3HtKC0qrIrapNJ7y3g
This says it was Sheila's writing.
It would be a bit of a waste of £1,500.00p if it wasn't. Mind you, after 8 months, it seems if it was Sheila's writing it didn't reveal anything.
It would be good if 360 kept people up to date on things they have requested money for. They only mention things like the window & Sheila's notes when they want money. If they have not got anywhere with these, just say.
-
I can't help but feel we've heard it all before. Such claims are another on going theme, usually they either don't materialise, or if they do then they don't equate to what is claimed.
I bet thats exactly what the people who thought the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 were guilty
How many appeals did they have
Its a good job they had such determined, tenacious supporters
-
No involvement with CT - but am aware that they are aware of the evidence in question.
It seems ironic that professionals can witness and record evidence, before concealing it, only for it to later be 'demolished' and fail to stand up to scrutiny. We live in a strange world.
What ever this evidence is I am sure it will add to the gathering evidence
-
No, but we are all influenced by our belief (innocent or guilty) and look for things which confirm those beliefs (concious or unconsciously). It also depends on who and how this 'evidence' was presented - I certainly bought into a LOT of what was said here in the good old days - however 'now' I work very much from a seeing is believing perspective and with all due respect to Roch (and he knows that I don't think he has made this up - I believe he believes it), unless I have seen something for myself, I am 100% sceptical.
I don't blame you Caroline and I feel very much the same, as innocents we were all duped too many times waiting for the great revelation which never came or was at best ambiguous and of little consequence. :-\
-
I disagree, we've had these sensational claims before, upon closer inspection each and every time they have been found wanting. That is the normal pattern. Why should anybody think it will be different this time?
I don't think we can simply rely on your interpretation, you are unable to even interpret the evidence which IS available correctly.
Anybody who disagrees with me clearly lacks judgement. ;D
You and your mates have nothing to worry about then have you?
-
Hi Caroline, I agree we have seen various ambiguous examples of 'evidence' which are always down to an individual's interpretation which for me have never convinced but we know Roch isn't a fool. therefore personally I do tend to believe whatever he has seen must stand as it is without ambiguity. It's interesting and hope we get to hear more about it before too long. :-\
The thing is Maggie the last time evidence was being put together for the CCRC submission all of a sudden the the closing date for the application was mysteriously announced when gun tests were in process
I wonder why the CCRC would do that in the middle of very important evidence being collected
-
It would be foolish for me to think that you could be persuaded on this. Especially since, as you rightly point out, I have not provided any of the evidence in question.
I was not persuaded by the wallet situation - and to be fair - you did provide the information in that instance.
Regarding the evidence I am referring to, I personally do not think it is the kind of evidence that is open to interpretation. This is why I described it using terms such as 'blatant' and 'obvious'.
However, I have very little confidence in the CCRC. My fear is that the authorities are 'trying to keep him in on a technicality'. Therefore, some way will probably be found to dismiss the evidence anyway.
You'll be kicking yourself when you realise what it is :))
Why can't you reveal it on here ?
If Jackie reveals her received new information she mentioned 3 days ago & you you're information, all we need then is Mike to post his photo of Sheila on the bed.
-
The thing is Maggie the last time evidence was being put together for the CCRC submission all of a sudden the the closing date for the application was mysteriously announced when gun tests were in process
I wonder why the CCRC would do that in the middle of very important evidence being collected
I gather you're talking about the marks on Nevill's back and whether the rifle end could have caused it etc? The TV programme said it was a work in progress, I know it was very expensive and wasn't completed in time.
It did seem unfair that after all the work, funded by supporters, they weren't allowed to complete the tests in US before they had to present submission. Whether there was an ulterior motive is questionable but it's a possibility, the establishment looks after it's own imo.
I'm not convinced the CCRC is completely neutral as it's supposed to be, also I'm sure it's snowed under with applications for submissions. Like everything else in the public sector it's underfunded and under staffed which doesn't help at all and makes everything even more difficult for anyone who claims innocence.
-
I gather you're talking about the marks on Nevill's back and whether the rifle end could have caused it etc? The TV programme said it was a work in progress, I know it was very expensive and wasn't completed in time.
It did seem unfair that after all the work, funded by supporters, they weren't allowed to complete the tests in US before they had to present submission. Whether there was an ulterior motive is questionable but it's a possibility, the establishment looks after it's own imo.
I'm not convinced the CCRC is completely neutral as it's supposed to be, also I'm sure it's snowed under with applications for submissions. Like everything else in the public sector it's underfunded and under staffed which doesn't help at all and makes everything even more difficult for anyone who claims innocence.
Have you got a source that it was not completed on time ?
The last CCRC application was 10 years after the COA application. The CCRC extended the time for Bamber to complete his submission.
His Judicial Review on the rejection was also dismissed.
-
I don't blame you Caroline and I feel very much the same, as innocents we were all duped too many times waiting for the great revelation which never came or was at best ambiguous and of little consequence. :-\
Hello Maggie I don't think we were duped as such in the good old days I for one just followed the majority without any clue about anything and then I followed the guilty again clueless and here I am 4 years on still clueless but I must admit I have tremendous faith in Roch and he believes strongly that Sheila murdered her family so I am interested in anything he has to say ;)
-
Have you got a source that it was not completed on time ?
The last CCRC application was 10 years after the COA application. The CCRC extended the time for Bamber to complete his submission.
His Judicial Review on the rejection was also dismissed.
I have got a memory Adam and I do remember all that but thanks anyway. My source is my brain. ;D
-
Hello Maggie I don't think we were duped as such in the good old days I for one just followed the majority without any clue about anything and then I followed the guilty again clueless and here I am 4 years on still clueless but I must admit I have tremendous faith in Roch and he believes strongly that Sheila murdered her family so I am interested in anything he has to say ;)
I've gone along with my own senses,Susan,and stuck to them. I can read people like a book. 8)
-
I have got a memory Adam and I do remember all that but thanks anyway. My source is my brain. ;D
The Judicial review on the 2012 CCRC decision does not mention time constraints. I will post the source.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8263.msg392402.html#msg392402
-
Hello Maggie I don't think we were duped as such in the good old days I for one just followed the majority without any clue about anything and then I followed the guilty again clueless and here I am 4 years on still clueless but I must admit I have tremendous faith in Roch and he believes strongly that Sheila murdered her family so I am interested in anything he has to say ;)
The problem is the mountain of forensic evidence shows it wasn't Sheila.
Roch has never provided any sources & is currently saying he knows something but is not going to say what. But you've been taken in.
-
Think we're all fools at times Roch. ;D
I am a believer in the Open Mind, maybe we should form a club ... The Open Mind Club for all who are of an open mind (obviously ;D).
I agree it is hard to reconsider, especially after so many false starts related to this case, think there is a definitely weariness and wariness and for good reason particularly among those who have been members for a long time.
I am ever an optimist so shall watch this space. :)
Maggie I shall watch this space with you :) we all know Roch is very upfront and honest and would not make anything up or see something and take from it his own scenario. As far as guilty is concerned only a couple of bits of evidence have been presented and IMO they are both suspect everything else on here is somebody's opinion :)may I add this is how I see things now
-
The problem is the mountain of forensic evidence shows it wasn't Sheila.
And Roch has never provided any sources & is currently saying he knows something but is not going to reveal it. But you've been taken in.
Have I Adam? Who says I have been taken in just because I and others believe Roch has a right to post up what he has seen?
I am not in a personal fight with anyone either guilter or innocent so to my mind you are my friend, you lucky thing. :-* :-* ;)
-
Have I Adam? Who says I have been taken in just because I and others believe Roch has a right to post up what he has seen?
I am not in a personal fight with anyone either guilter or innocent so to my mind you are my friend, you lucky thing. :-* :-* ;)
I responded to Susans post.
-
I've gone along with my own senses,Susan,and stuck to them. I can read people like a book. 8)
Hi lookout I know from the start when we all joined you thought Jeremy innocent and you have stuck with it well done for having a mind of your own not a sheep like me :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
I responded to Susans post.
I realise I misread your post ;D You are still my friend tho' so you are still lucky. ;) ;) ;D
-
Maggie I shall watch this space with you :) we all know Roch is very upfront and honest and would not make anything up or see something and take from it his own scenario. As far as guilty is concerned only a couple of bits of evidence have been presented and IMO they are both suspect everything else on here is somebody's opinion :)may I add this is how I see things now
There are over 50 pieces of forensic evidence which shows Sheila is not the killer.
Where have you been ?
-
Hahaha Maggie I like that your source is your brain I will start using that one :)) :)) :))
-
There are over 50 pieces of forensic evidence which shows Sheila is not the killer.
Where have you been ?
Adam you know I am slow at catching up I am trying and will read all the 50 pieces of forensic evidence where is it all by the way? I will read all 50
-
Hahaha Maggie I like that your source is your brain I will start using that one :)) :)) :))
Quite proud of that Suse. ;D ;D
-
Hahaha Maggie I like that your source is your brain I will start using that one :)) :)) :))
I don't think that's a very good idea.
Jackie & Roch already have new top secret information which they are not going to post. And Mike has a picture of Sheila on the bed which he is not going to post.
You doing what all other supporters do of making big statements with no source & not revealing alledged new information will not enhance the forum.
-
Adam you know I am slow at catching up I am trying and will read all the 50 pieces of forensic evidence where is it all by the way? I will read all 50
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7204.msg375403.html#msg375403
Not sure what more people want.
There is one alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity & no alibi. A witness, a conviction & several failed appeals.
There is also a mountain of forensic & circumstsntial evidence.
Julie identifying the twins does not negate this.
-
I don't think that's a very good idea.
Jackie & Roch already have new top secret information which they are not going to post. And Mike has a picture of Sheila on the bed which he is not going to post.
You doing what all other supporters do of making big statements with no source & not revealing new information will not enhance the forum.
Who said I'm a supporter, have never claimed that or are you speaking to Susan again? Sorry to interfere in your little tete a tete. 8)
-
Who said I'm a supporter, have never claimed that or are you speaking to Susan again? Sorry to interfere in your little tete a tete. 8)
That was a reply to Susan.
-
That was a reply to Susan.
Oh dear silly old me!
-
Oh dear silly old me!
Maggie do keep up please and stop trying to move in on my posts to Adam do your own :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Who said I'm a supporter, have never claimed that or are you speaking to Susan again? Sorry to interfere in your little tete a tete. 8)
Maggie do I detect sour grapes :)) :P :o :-*
-
Maggie do I detect sour grapes :)) :P :o :-*
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
You have lead me off topic as well susan, the mods will be after us. :-[
-
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
You have lead me off topic as well susan, the mods will be after us. :-[
Hahaha I was always good at that wonder I was never banned hehehe I will be good now and answer Adam's posts :))
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7204.msg375403.html#msg375403
Not sure what more people want.
There is one alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity & no alibi. A witness, a conviction & several failed appeals.
There is also a mountain of forensic & circumstsntial evidence.
Julie identifying the twins does not negate this.
Adam
I know what you are saying is correct but I think Sheila did have motive and she was very ill poor Sheila. Jeremy would have got a good share of everything when his parents died I know you will not agree with me but I think Julie did not think Jeremy murdered his family but when he was arrested she was brain washed into believing Jeremy murdered his family also the silencer I don't believe a silencer was used in the murders so IMO the evidence against Jeremy was weak and I think his Defence Team thought that and this is why they did not put their backs into defending him they really let him down :(
-
I don't think that's a very good idea.
Jackie & Roch already have new top secret information which they are not going to post. And Mike has a picture of Sheila on the bed which he is not going to post.
You doing what all other supporters do of making big statements with no source & not revealing alledged new information will not enhance the forum.
Adam,
Why worry? You can take a similar line to other members and reject what is being claimed or remain sceptical - on the grounds that no evidence has been provided to the contrary.
You can also rely upon the CCRC to reject Jeremy's next submissions, for example on a technicality or point of law. Jeremy isn't going anywhere. He will probably die in prison - because EP can just signpost to CCRC. CCRC have EP's back and can also rely on previous appeals having narrowed down the scope of what can be classed as a new ground.
-
Adam,
Why worry? You can take a similar line to other members and reject what is being claimed or remain sceptical - on the grounds that no evidence has been provided to the contrary.
You can also rely upon the CCRC to reject Jeremy's next submissions, for example on a technicality or point of law. Jeremy isn't going anywhere. He will probably die in prison - because EP can just signpost to CCRC. CCRC have EP's back and can also rely on previous appeals having narrowed down the scope of what can be classed as a new ground.
Hi Roch
your post seems so negative I do hope what you say could happen wont happen. I hope Jeremy has a good Legal Team that can overcome any of the things you have stated. Other people have overcome and had their submissions accepted. If an innocent man dies in prison for a crime he did not commit I don't suppose the people who put in there will bat an eye lid sadly they are only thinking of themselves.
-
Hi Roch
your post seems so negative I do hope what you say could happen wont happen. I hope Jeremy has a good Legal Team that can overcome any of the things you have stated. Other people have overcome and had their submissions accepted. If an innocent man dies in prison for a crime he did not commit I don't suppose the people who put in there will bat an eye lid sadly they are only thinking of themselves.
The case is too political Susan. It's a Pandora's Box of corruption and failed processes. How would authorities explain that it was known from day one that Sheila was the killer and that police collected and knew about the evidence indicating this - but have managed to knowingly send an innocent man to prison and fail to uncover expose the truth after two reviews and two appeals? That's just the start of it. The case brings in to question the validity of so many processes and practices in the justice system. It's a nightmare scenario for the authorities.
As one of the mafia bosses said on the film Casino... "Why take the risk?"
-
The case is too political Susan. It's a Pandora's Box of corruption and failed processes. How would authorities explain that it was known from day one that Sheila was the killer and that police collected and knew about the evidence indicating this - but have managed to knowingly send an innocent man to prison and fail to uncover the truth after two reviews and two appeals? That's just the start of it. The case brings in to question the validity of so many processes and practices in the justice system. It's a nightmare scenario for the authorities.
As one of the mafia bosses said on the film Casino... "Why take the risk?"
Roch
I understand where you are coming from but the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford and indeed the Cardiff 3 were all MOJ evidence either ignored or tampered with they can usually come up with feeble excuses as to why it happened. The JB case needs some high profile people who will not allow this to happen and an innocent man is freed after all these years it is frightening to think this happens but I know it does Edy Guilfoyle is another one lookout knows all about that case (apologise if I have spelt his name incorrectly
-
And how would the relatives explain that they have gone on record in the media, parroting the case under DCS Michael Ainsley - but not discussing what they were told by DCI Thomas Jones in the beginning? It doesn't look good for them when you consider this point. Relatives have gone out of their way in the media to do this.
At some point, somebody is going to say... 'hang on... why have you not gone on record in the media talking about what the original case evidence was?'
It's all very messy for them too. Their only option in my opinion is to attempt to blame police for allegedly withholding facts from them. Facts which would have ended their crusade against Jeremy.
Police will be left holding the baby - because the relatives will do what they do best - look after themselves and their own interests.
-
The timing of the coming general election couldn't be worse either as all thoughts will be more towards that and far less likely about who should be in prison and who should not.
Well for spite to those reaping the benefits I hope Labour win and sting them for 50% tax !
I can dream,I suppose. ???
-
I gather you're talking about the marks on Nevill's back and whether the rifle end could have caused it etc? The TV programme said it was a work in progress, I know it was very expensive and wasn't completed in time.
It did seem unfair that after all the work, funded by supporters, they weren't allowed to complete the tests in US before they had to present submission. Whether there was an ulterior motive is questionable but it's a possibility, the establishment looks after it's own imo.
I'm not convinced the CCRC is completely neutral as it's supposed to be, also I'm sure it's snowed under with applications for submissions. Like everything else in the public sector it's underfunded and under staffed which doesn't help at all and makes everything even more difficult for anyone who claims innocence.
I absolutely agree Maggie
-
Hello Maggie I don't think we were duped as such in the good old days I for one just followed the majority without any clue about anything and then I followed the guilty again clueless and here I am 4 years on still clueless but I must admit I have tremendous faith in Roch and he believes strongly that Sheila murdered her family so I am interested in anything he has to say ;)
Ditto and I don't mind how kin I have to wait
-
And how would the relatives explain that they have gone on record in the media, parroting the case under DCS Michael Ainsley - but not discussing what they were told by DCI Thomas Jones in the beginning? It doesn't look good for them when you consider this point. Relatives have gone out of their way in the media to do this.
At some point, somebody is going to say... 'hang on... why have you not gone on record in the media talking about what the original case evidence was?'
It's all very messy for them too. Their only option in my opinion is to attempt to blame police for allegedly withholding facts from them. Facts which would have ended their crusade against Jeremy.
Police will be left holding the baby - because the relatives will do what they do best - look after themselves and their own interests.
You underestimate the power of the public and their expectation of our justice system and maybe a policeman with something he has waited for the right time to say something
-
And how would the relatives explain that they have gone on record in the media, parroting the case under DCS Michael Ainsley - but not discussing what they were told by DCI Thomas Jones in the beginning? It doesn't look good for them when you consider this point. Relatives have gone out of their way in the media to do this.
At some point, somebody is going to say... 'hang on... why have you not gone on record in the media talking about what the original case evidence was?'
It's all very messy for them too. Their only option in my opinion is to attempt to blame police for allegedly withholding facts from them. Facts which would have ended their crusade against Jeremy.
Police will be left holding the baby - because the relatives will do what they do best - look after themselves and their own interests.
Roch
if it comes down to it lies will be told and the police will be blamed after all it was their job to investigate the case and present the necessary evidence to the powers that be I am sure they will wriggle out of it and nobody will be blamed but I guess if JB gets released that is all that matters.
-
You underestimate the power of the public and their expectation of our justice system and maybe a policeman with something he has waited for the right time to say something
Hi Jackie
you could be right quite often somebody will speak out when the time is right for them and the public should have a large influence as they are sick of this corruption. We have some excellent police but we have a few rotten apples who need to be sorted out and sacked.
-
And how would the relatives explain that they have gone on record in the media, parroting the case under DCS Michael Ainsley - but not discussing what they were told by DCI Thomas Jones in the beginning? It doesn't look good for them when you consider this point. Relatives have gone out of their way in the media to do this.
At some point, somebody is going to say... 'hang on... why have you not gone on record in the media talking about what the original case evidence was?'
It's all very messy for them too. Their only option in my opinion is to attempt to blame police for allegedly withholding facts from them. Facts which would have ended their crusade against Jeremy.
Police will be left holding the baby - because the relatives will do what they do best - look after themselves and their own interests.
But you just said the police didn't withhold evidence from them, in fact they were told 'something' which proved Sheila was the killer. If you and others know what this something was, then it hasn't been withheld. I fail to see how anyone would be party to this information outside of the people who were party to it at the time.
Jones interrogated Jeremy, are you saying he'd have done this in full knowledge of knowing he was innocent? I think under such circumstances his superiors would have made sure he was kept away from Jeremy. It's one thing to keep a secret such as this (although I don't believe he and others would have - no motive) but quite another to take part in the downfall - especially when you fought so hard to keep him from being arrested in the first place.
-
I don't blame you Caroline and I feel very much the same, as innocents we were all duped too many times waiting for the great revelation which never came or was at best ambiguous and of little consequence. :-\
Exactly.
-
Hi Jackie
you could be right quite often somebody will speak out when the time is right for them and the public should have a large influence as they are sick of this corruption. We have some excellent police but we have a few rotten apples who need to be sorted out and sacked.
It's just a matter of time Susan you wait and see
-
Speaking about police,if anyone watched the sad series about Rhys Jones,a certain officer who worked tirelessly to hunt down the killer/s of the little boy along with the gruesome parents of the killers accomplices,ended up with a rebuff from his higher-ups .
Because of this officer's grit and determination and his proving to others how an investigation should be conducted,without the bribes and deals that had been offered,he'd obviously become the thorn in the side of those who would have taken an easier option.
Instead of being rewarded for his work,the DS was stripped of his title to DCI after putting in 30 years work and ready for retirement. How's that for teamwork ?? Not !
Is honesty and hard work the best policy ? You decide.
-
It's just a matter of time Susan you wait and see
Hopefully not much longer. It's already been 32 years.
-
Speaking about police,if anyone watched the sad series about Rhys Jones,a certain officer who worked tirelessly to hunt down the killer/s of the little boy along with the gruesome parents of the killers accomplices,ended up with a rebuff from his higher-ups .
Because of this officer's grit and determination and his proving to others how an investigation should be conducted,without the bribes and deals that had been offered,he'd obviously become the thorn in the side of those who would have taken an easier option.
Instead of being rewarded for his work,the DS was stripped of his title to DCI after putting in 30 years work and ready for retirement. How's that for teamwork ?? Not !
Is honesty and hard work the best policy ? You decide.
Yes and other police officers weren't very happy about it and said so to the press, they didn't have to give their name. It seems police can talk to the press when they are unhappy about something. The following article just refers to the officer as 'a police insider'.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/cop-who-caught-rhys-joness-3457649
-
Hopefully not much longer. It's already been 32 years.
You can't rush these things.
-
Yes and other police officers weren't very happy about it and said so to the press, they didn't have to give their name. It seems police can talk to the press when they are unhappy about something. The following article just refers to the officer as 'a police insider'.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/cop-who-caught-rhys-joness-3457649
You'll always have sour grapes in such establishments,watching each other like hawks instead of getting on with the job in hand.
-
You'll always have sour grapes in such establishments,watching each other like hawks instead of getting on with the job in hand.
He was shabbily treated lookout.
-
You'll always have sour grapes in such establishments,watching each other like hawks instead of getting on with the job in hand.
Well, they weren't scared of losing pensions or their careers - they spoke to the press who kept their name out of it. There has been plenty of time for someone to do the same in Jeremy's case - but not one person has.
-
The timing of the coming general election couldn't be worse either as all thoughts will be more towards that and far less likely about who should be in prison and who should not.
Well for spite to those reaping the benefits I hope Labour win and sting them for 50% tax !
I can dream,I suppose. ???
;D ;D ;D Nice one Lookout.
-
But you just said the police didn't withhold evidence from them, in fact they were told 'something' which proved Sheila was the killer. If you and others know what this something was, then it hasn't been withheld. I fail to see how anyone would be party to this information outside of the people who were party to it at the time.
That's kind of what I'm suggesting. Relatives were told some facts and opinion pertaining to Sheila having been responsible. Not just from DCI Jones - but from fellow detectives who were present with Jones. Over the years, the relatives havent detailed what this information was - but - they have gone out of their way to repeat claims made of the case during Mick Ainsley's stewardship of the 'second investigation'. Now if you were detectives with your backs to the wall, facing angry relatives who wont go away, what's the betting you would provide them with info I am referring to, to confirm that Sheila was the killer?
Relatives will not say what this info was - because for over 30 years - they have nailed their colours to the mast regarding the case under Ainsley. It's not as if they can suddenly back-track and say 'actually, come to think of it we've just remembered... we were told about a, b, c.'
Instead, they will attempt to claim they were not told. Thus pushing the blame on to police.
Jones interrogated Jeremy, are you saying he'd have done this in full knowledge of knowing he was innocent? I think under such circumstances his superiors would have made sure he was kept away from Jeremy. It's one thing to keep a secret such as this (although I don't believe he and others would have - no motive) but quite another to take part in the downfall - especially when you fought so hard to keep him from being arrested in the first place.
DS Jones was not kept away from Jeremy - precisely because Mick Ainsley realised that he (Jones) was already sufficiently wound-up to do a job (on Jeremy). ACC Simpson was furious that Jim Knneally did not deviate from Sheila being implicated - and therefore could not assist in getting old man Boutlfour off his back. Ainsley used DS Jones to get 'Bobby' off of Simpson's back.
-
That's kind of what I'm suggesting. Relatives were told some facts and opinion pertaining to Sheila having been responsible. Not just from DCI Jones - but from fellow detectives who were present with Jones. Over the years, the relatives havent detailed what this information was - but - they have gone out of their way to repeat claims made of the case during Mick Ainsley's stewardship of the 'second investigation'. Now if you were detectives with your backs to the wall, facing angry relatives who wont go away, what's the betting you would provide them with info I am referring to, to confirm that Sheila was the killer?
I wouldn't tell them anything other than to bugger off and I see no reason for anyone to have 'their backs to the wall'?
Relatives will not say what this info was - because for over 30 years - they have nailed their colours to the mast regarding the case under Ainsley. It's not as if they can suddenly back-track and say 'actually, come to think of it we've just remembered... we were told about a, b, c.'
Instead, they will attempt to claim they were not told. Thus pushing the blame on to police.
How do you know they won't say what it was? Who said it was anything mind blowing anyway or compelling? It was just a couple of days after the murders, there was a lit of info to take in and at that stage, they weren't 100% sure it was Jeremy. Without knowing what they were told there's not much to it.
DS Jones was not kept away from Jeremy - precisely because Mick Ainsley realised that he (Jones) was already sufficiently wound-up to do a job (on Jeremy). ACC Simpson was furious that Jim Knneally did not deviate from Sheila being implicated - and therefore could not assist in getting old man Boutlfour off his back. Ainsley used DS Jones to get 'Bobby' off of Simpson's back.
I'm not talking about DS Jones, I was talking about DCI Jones (see the doc below for interviewing officers). DCI Jones who initially interrogated Jeremy (with DC Barlow), why would he agree to help build a guilty case when he was convinced of his innocence and had been all along? How do you know Simpson was furious? It would have been simple to get old man B off his back - especially armed with such compelling evidence of Sheila's guilt. You seem to be saying he succumbed to blackmail but have no reason why he would? In fact there is every reason why he wouldn't.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5785)
-
Kenneally wrote his report before Bamber was arrested and before any of the evidence pertaining to him was available for comparison. Given that no one has seen this report then his compelling evidence is likely to be, Nevill called Jeremy and said it was Sheila who had the gun, that she was found with said gun in a (as far as could be determined) locked farmhouse and they were all dead. The very story that Jeremy fed them from day one. At the time he wrote his report, there was no official alternatives.
-
Everyone on or off the forum will have different reasons for believing in guilt or innocence.
The police, the courts & a jury have to go by the mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence.
Other people don't look at this at all and take a more emotive view, focusing on other people. Most recently saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins & AE gave Nevill's wallet to Basil Cock.
Some people are influenced by other people they engage with. One of Trudie's & Matts top 5 reasons for believing Bamber is innocent is because Bamber is a 'nice guy' on the phone to them. Susan recently said Bamber is innocent because Roch posted "Sheila definately committed the massacre".
At the end of the day, Bamber will only get released if it's proved that all the incriminating evidence was fabricated by the police & experts.
-
Everyone on or off the forum will have different reasons for believing in guilt or innocence.
The police, the courts & a jury have to go by the mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence.
Other people don't look at this at all and take a more emotive view, focusing on other people. Most recently saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins & AE gave Nevill's wallet to BC.
Some people are influenced by other people they engage with. One of Trudie's & Matts top 5 reasons for believing Bamber is innocent is because Bamber is a 'nice guy' on the phone to them. Susan recently saying Bamber is innocent because Roch posted "Sheila definately committed the massacre".
At the end of the day, Bamber will only get released if it's proved that all the incriminating evidence was fabricated by the police & experts.
Guess that would be EVERY/ALL expert/police because each element would need to advise other elements of what outcome was being looked for from their particular part of the investigation?
-
Everyone on or off the forum will have different reasons for believing in guilt or innocence.
The police, the courts & a jury have to go by the mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence.
Other people don't look at this at all and take a more emotive view, focusing on other people. Most recently saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins & AE gave Nevill's wallet to BC.
Some people are influenced by other people they engage with. One of Trudie's & Matts top 5 reasons for believing Bamber is innocent is because Bamber is a 'nice guy' on the phone to them. Susan recently saying Bamber is innocent because Roch posted "Sheila definately committed the massacre".
At the end of the day, Bamber will only get released if it's proved that all the incriminating evidence was fabricated by the police & experts.
Why don't you make a video on your " mountain of evidence " ? There are loads of videos showing innocence,but none showing/explaining guilt. There isn't even a speaker on video demonstrating how the killing was carried out,considering that many have described it. Actions speak louder than words.
The innocents are at least making an effort.
-
Get your voice heard on change.org to " keep him in prison ".
If I was in your position and felt as strongly as you do about JB's guilt,I'd be contacting everyone concerned. Afterall,public support goes a long way.
-
Get your voice heard on change.org to " keep him in prison ".
If I was in your position and felt as strongly as you do about JB's guilt,I'd be contacting everyone concerned. Afterall,public support goes a long way.
He's already in prison and going nowhere.
-
Get your voice heard on change.org to " keep him in prison ".
If I was in your position and felt as strongly as you do about JB's guilt,I'd be contacting everyone concerned. Afterall,public support goes a long way.
I'm not aware of any groundswell of voices demanding a change to his present and future circumstances.
-
He's already in prison and going nowhere.
I was asking Adam to air his views elsewhere because of his strong feelings. We know he's in prison ::)
A strong over-rule will keep him there if the likes of Adam puts his side of the argument to the legal side of the CT to block any hope of his release is what I'm saying. RWB would have done.
-
I was asking Adam to air his views elsewhere because of his strong feelings. We know he's in prison ::)
A strong over-rule will keep him there if the likes of Adam puts his side of the argument to the legal side of the CT to block any hope of his release is what I'm saying. RWB would have done.
Adam, me, you and anyone on this forum has no influence on what will or won't happen in the future. This is just a forum for debate.
-
Adam, me, you and anyone on this forum has no influence on what will or won't happen in the future. This is just a forum for debate.
Of course there's influence. Where do you think David got his idea from to send to the legal team ? By reading from this forum and its archives. Some people are sharper than others and those with a deeper interest in the case see things that others don't.
The same applies to those who, like Adam,don't see anything but guilt and no amount of research will convince him otherwise. If I was in his shoes I'd be like a dog with a bone sending letters here there and everywhere. I did all that in the past when I felt strongly about a couple of cases ( no internet ),the only difference being that both were innocent,but the media tore them to pieces and spread negative news to convince the public they were guilty.
I couldn't sit back and do nothing at the time because I'd felt strongly about their innocence.
-
Of course there's influence. Where do you think David got his idea from to send to the legal team ? By reading from this forum and its archives. Some people are sharper than others and those with a deeper interest in the case see things that others don't.
The same applies to those who, like Adam,don't see anything but guilt and no amount of research will convince him otherwise. If I was in his shoes I'd be like a dog with a bone sending letters here there and everywhere. I did all that in the past when I felt strongly about a couple of cases ( no internet ),the only difference being that both were innocent,but the media tore them to pieces and spread negative news to convince the public they were guilty.
I couldn't sit back and do nothing at the time because I'd felt strongly about their innocence.
Where did he get the idea from? The stuff about the palm print - I've already told you and what exactly do you imagine is going to happen because of it?
That's an interesting sentence.
-
Jones interrogated Jeremy, are you saying he'd have done this in full knowledge of knowing he was innocent? I think under such circumstances his superiors would have made sure he was kept away from Jeremy. It's one thing to keep a secret such as this (although I don't believe he and others would have - no motive) but quite another to take part in the downfall - especially when you fought so hard to keep him from being arrested in the first place.
I'm not talking about DS Jones, I was talking about DCI Jones (see the doc below for interviewing officers). DCI Jones who initially interrogated Jeremy (with DC Barlow), why would he agree to help build a guilty case when he was convinced of his innocence and had been all along?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5785)
Can you explain this any differently? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean.
-
How do you know Simpson was furious? It would have been simple to get old man B off his back - especially armed with such compelling evidence of Sheila's guilt. You seem to be saying he succumbed to blackmail but have no reason why he would? In fact there is every reason why he wouldn't.
Robert Boutflour and his daughter were not interested in any evidence that indicated Sheila. Both strongly desired Jeremy to be investigated for the killings. Ann Eaton had identified Jeremy as a 'threat' to their interests prior to the killings. DCI Jones stood up to them. Quite why Simpson did not stand up to Robert and instead acquiesced is not easy to discern. I'm not certain but I know there were claims that relatives were threatening to go to the press (they had after all been receiving inside information on the case behind Thomas Jones' back). Perhaps Simpson thought that it was worth a gamble - because any investigation in to Jeremy would be doomed to failure due to insufficient evidence. He would be able to shrug his shoulders to Robert Boutflour and say - 'we tried our best - we did try to tell you it was Sheila but you just wouldn't listen'. Simpson was angered during Kenneally's review - because there was nothing that assisted him in getting the investigation in to Jeremy off the ground (i.e. to appease Robert Boutflour). Perhaps Simpson hadn't factored-in or realised the extent of coziness between Mick Ainsley and Robert? Once Ainsley was in position, he was prepared to 'do a job' for Robert by literally concealing the evidence that indicated Sheila (i.e that evidence which caused Thomas Jones to hold firm!).
Robert (or at least his family) prospered from the conviction and enhanced their circumstances. After the first appeal and enquiry were done and dusted, Mick Ainsley retired from EC and began collecting his police pension. He probably thought the coast was clear. At some point he became linked to security at the caravan site. Perhaps this was arranged at an earlier stage, when Robert required a detective to 'do a job' for him - on his own nephew.
-
Robert Boutflour and his daughter were not interested in any evidence that indicated Sheila. Both strongly desired Jeremy to be investigated for the killings. Ann Eaton had identified Jeremy as a 'threat' to their interests prior to the killings. DCI Jones stood up to them. Quite why Simpson did not stand up to Robert and instead acquiesced is not easy to discern. I'm not certain but I know there were claims that relatives were threatening to go to the press (they had after all been receiving inside information on the case behind Thomas Jones' back). Perhaps Simpson thought that it was worth a gamble - because any investigation in to Jeremy would be doomed to failure due to insufficient evidence. He would be able to shrug his shoulders to Robert Boutflour and say - 'we tried our best - we did try to tell you it was Sheila but you just wouldn't listen'. Simpson was angered during Kenneally's review - because there was nothing that assisted him in getting the investigation in to Jeremy off the ground (i.e. to appease Robert Boutflour). Perhaps Simpson hadn't factored-in or realised the extent of coziness between Mick Ainsley and Robert? Once Ainsley was in position, he was prepared to 'do a job' for Robert by literally concealing the evidence that indicated Sheila (i.e that evidence which caused Thomas Jones to hold firm!).
Robert (or at least his family) prospered from the conviction and enhanced their circumstances. After the first appeal and enquiry were done and dusted, Mick Ainsley retired from EC and began collecting his police pension. He probably thought the coast was clear. At some point he became linked to security at the caravan site. Perhaps this was arranged at an earlier stage, when Robert required a detective to 'do a job' for him - on his own nephew.
It's certainly difficult to comprehend why there would be such a cover up but I do believe life is stranger than fiction.
I try to imagine why the likes of Ainsley agreed to cover up evidence and point the finger at the innocent Bamber, however perhaps he was just a corrupt copper willing to scratch a mates back in return for some back scratching of his own :-\
I have always thought there was an outside chance that a few at the top of EP may have covered up evidence rather than have to publicly admit they had been right the first time and JB wasn't guilty after all. No one likes to look that much of a fool but it us a bit far fetched.
I am curious as to how the rest of the raid team and others who accepted Sheila was guilty for what Roch has said was readily available evidence, were closed down and have been kept quiet ever since?
-
Where did he get the idea from? The stuff about the palm print - I've already told you and what exactly do you imagine is going to happen because of it?
That's an interesting sentence.
Meaning that both cases in the past happened to have been innocents but were pronounced guilty " in the eyes of the law ". I wrote my objections when both were found guilty because I'd felt strongly that they weren't.
-
It's certainly difficult to comprehend why there would be such a cover up but I do believe life is stranger than fiction.
I try to imagine why the likes of Ainsley agreed to cover up evidence and point the finger at the innocent Bamber, however perhaps he was just a corrupt copper willing to scratch a mates back in return for some back scratching of his own :-\
I have always thought there was an outside chance that a few at the top of EP may have covered up evidence rather than have to publicly admit they had been right the first time and JB wasn't guilty after all. No one likes to look that much of a fool but it us a bit far fetched.
I am curious as to how the rest of the raid team and others who accepted Sheila was guilty for what Roch has said was readily available evidence, were closed down and have been kept quiet ever since?
ACC Peter Simpson was top brass. He created downward internal pressures, by wanting Jeremy Bamber to be investigated for the killings (in attempting to appease Robert Boutflour). The detective chosen to oversee this - DCS Michael Ainsley happened to become close-knit with Robert Boutflour to the extent he called him 'Bobby'. DCS Mick Ainsley was able to make use of the fact that DS Stan Jones hated Jeremy Bamber and was gunning for him.
Jeremy Bamber himself, seems to have done himself no favours. I think the behaviour that gets attributed to him is a combination of three factors. Real behaviour (for which he only has himself to blame); perceived behaviour (in the minds of suspicious and judgemental people); and made-up behaviour (deliberately designed to blacken his name further by exaggerating etc). Perhaps it was easy for some police and others to show little sympathy or interest regarding his plight.
The conviction has plagued Essex Police for 32 years. Knowing what they know now, if they could go back in time and revisit the immediate aftermath of the killings - I very much doubt they would make the same decisions.
They would either come clean from the off regarding any complications in the farmhouse - or at the very least they would send the vultures packing, when they showed up with their bullshit grievances and theories.
-
I certainly couldn't have put it better,Roch. Well said.
-
I certainly couldn't have put it better,Roch. Well said.
Thanks. I was going to say that I cannot believe what I have seen. But to be honest, that isn't strictly true. What I have seen, is actually what I suspected all along. It feels good to be vindicated - if nothing else - (as sadly, I have no faith in CCRC etc.).
-
I am curious as to how the rest of the raid team and others who accepted Sheila was guilty for what Roch has said was readily available evidence, were closed down and have been kept quiet ever since?
Whatever concerns existed were raised internally and were subdued internally. I do not think there are many known instances were police officers have openly raised concerns outside of their force command structure. I am not aware of any but I couldn't say I had actively researched the issue.
To some extent it comes down to whether or not an individual is prepared to believe Mark Higgs, who made sustained attempts to contact TFG members. He claimed to have received a mixed response with plenty hostility and avoidance. He claimed that TFG felt that they were not prepared to be made scapegoats for the wrongful conviction, due decisions that were made outside of their control / remit.
Police pensions are a strong motivating factor in any decision made. I think the police pension is generally regarded as a very good deal. People have lives and families etc. I doubt Julia Jeapes is unaware that Sheila Caffell was alive in the farmhouse when they were all outside. She is now a Councillor in a local authority. If it was in my ward, I would feel a bit uncomfortable about it and question whether she was fit for such public service. Perhaps she doesn't see why she should take the blame and perhaps she doesn't feel comfortable upsetting the apple-cart that contains so many of her ex-colleagues.
-
Robert Boutflour and his daughter were not interested in any evidence that indicated Sheila. Both strongly desired Jeremy to be investigated for the killings. Ann Eaton had identified Jeremy as a 'threat' to their interests prior to the killings. DCI Jones stood up to them. Quite why Simpson did not stand up to Robert and instead acquiesced is not easy to discern. I'm not certain but I know there were claims that relatives were threatening to go to the press (they had after all been receiving inside information on the case behind Thomas Jones' back). Perhaps Simpson thought that it was worth a gamble - because any investigation in to Jeremy would be doomed to failure due to insufficient evidence. He would be able to shrug his shoulders to Robert Boutflour and say - 'we tried our best - we did try to tell you it was Sheila but you just wouldn't listen'. Simpson was angered during Kenneally's review - because there was nothing that assisted him in getting the investigation in to Jeremy off the ground (i.e. to appease Robert Boutflour). Perhaps Simpson hadn't factored-in or realised the extent of coziness between Mick Ainsley and Robert? Once Ainsley was in position, he was prepared to 'do a job' for Robert by literally concealing the evidence that indicated Sheila (i.e that evidence which caused Thomas Jones to hold firm!).
Robert (or at least his family) prospered from the conviction and enhanced their circumstances. After the first appeal and enquiry were done and dusted, Mick Ainsley retired from EC and began collecting his police pension. He probably thought the coast was clear. At some point he became linked to security at the caravan site. Perhaps this was arranged at an earlier stage, when Robert required a detective to 'do a job' for him - on his own nephew.
Unless you or whoever told you this was present when it happened, there is no substance to what you say. When Kenneally wrote his report Bamber hadn't even been arrested and wasn't considered a suspect (officially) so he had nothing to compare Sheila as a suspect with. And why would TAFF Jones take part in the interrogation of Bamber if he KNEW Sheila was the killer? Someone like Simpson, doesn't get to be such a high ranking office by giving into a silly old man and a couple of farmers. The press were already scathing of the police, switching to Jeremy made it even worse, not better. I don't know what you have seen but I bet it could be interpreted in more than one way.
-
Whatever concerns existed were raised internally and were subdued internally. I do not think there are many known instances were police officers have openly raised concerns outside of their force command structure. I am not aware of any but I couldn't say I had actively researched the issue.
To some extent it comes down to whether or not an individual is prepared to believe Mark Higgs, who made sustained attempts to contact TFG members. He claimed to have received a mixed response with plenty hostility and avoidance. He claimed that TFG felt that they were not prepared to be made scapegoats for the wrongful conviction, due decisions that were made outside of their control / remit.
Police pensions are a strong motivating factor in any decision made. I think the police pension is generally regarded as a very good deal. People have lives and families etc. I doubt Julia Jeapes is unaware that Sheila Caffell was alive in the farmhouse when they were all outside. She is now a Councillor in a local authority. If it was in my ward, I would feel a bit uncomfortable about it and question whether she was fit for such public service. Perhaps she doesn't see why she should take the blame and perhaps she doesn't feel comfortable upsetting the apple-cart that contains so many of her ex-colleagues.
Police could have given information the the press anonymously.
-
I don't know what you have seen but I bet it could be interpreted in more than one way.
What you mean is that other people, due to their stance, are preemptively desperate to interpret it another way (a way that fits with their stance).
When Robert Boutflour was told about the windows and doors having been secured from the inside and that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows, he was unable to accept the implications - because it didn't fit in with his stance or aims. So he went away and did more scheming and theorising. If he had not schemed and theorised further - we would have found out about the evidence I am referring to 32 years ago.
-
Police could have given information the the press anonymously.
That's a fair point. Were papers allowed to print stories on anonymous tip-offs? In the 80's possibly. Wasn't some kind of block put on that kind of reporting?
-
What you mean is that other people, due to their stance, are preemptively desperate to interpret it another way (a way that fits with their stance).
When Robert Boutflour was told about the windows and doors having been secured from the inside and that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows, he was unable to accept the implications - because it didn't fit in with his stance or aims. So he went away and did more scheming and theorising. If he had not schemed and theorised further - we would have found out about the evidence I am referring to 32 years ago.
These are all lovely stories and theories Roch.
Maybe you should start 'The Rochford Society' seeking out corruption wherever it may be.
Maybe we could get Dylan to sing a song called "Talkin' Rochford Paranoid Blue's", in a similar vein to his John Birch effort. :-\
-
Unless you or whoever told you this was present when it happened, there is no substance to what you say. When Kenneally wrote his report Bamber hadn't even been arrested and wasn't considered a suspect (officially) so he had nothing to compare Sheila as a suspect with. And why would TAFF Jones take part in the interrogation of Bamber if he KNEW Sheila was the killer? Someone like Simpson, doesn't get to be such a high ranking office by giving into a silly old man and a couple of farmers. The press were already scathing of the police, switching to Jeremy made it even worse, not better.
I'm not aware of the exact dynamics involved at the time, regarding Boutflour / Simpson - Ainsley / Kenneally and Mugford / Jones. Several things are supposed to have happened on the same day - and I suspect the scheming behind the scenes had already began in earnest.
DCI Jones dealt with Jeremy Bamber professionally. If he 'interrogated' him or interviewed him - it blows out of the water any claims he was blind to Jeremy's alleged murderous scheming.
Not one poster on here has yet explained why the deputy head of CID would want (or allow himself to be involved in) a mass murderer going free?
At which point did the press become scathing of police?
-
These are all lovely stories and theories Roch.
Maybe you should start 'The Rochford Society' seeking out corruption wherever it may be.
Maybe we could get Dylan to sing a song called "Talkin' Rochford Paranoid Blue's", in a similar vein to his John Birch effort. :-\
I hate Bob Dylan. Some people compare him to Shakespeare. I cannot stand his nasally whining voice and convoluted lyrics. Prefer a catchy tune.
-
I hate Bob Dylan. Some people compare him to Shakespeare. I cannot stand his nasally whining voice and convoluted lyrics. Prefer a catchy tune.
Jimmy Nail then? ???
-
I hate Bob Dylan. Some people compare him to Shakespeare. I cannot stand his nasally whining voice and convoluted lyrics. Prefer a catchy tune.
He's my hero!
-
Jimmy Nail then? ???
Ha ha. Bit of big daft galoot on screen (apart from in Spender?). Bit too 'Geordie' for me.
-
He's my hero!
My apologies :-[
-
He's my hero!
Jimmy Nail's your hero? :o :o :o
-
Whatever concerns existed were raised internally and were subdued internally. I do not think there are many known instances were police officers have openly raised concerns outside of their force command structure. I am not aware of any but I couldn't say I had actively researched the issue.
To some extent it comes down to whether or not an individual is prepared to believe Mark Higgs, who made sustained attempts to contact TFG members. He claimed to have received a mixed response with plenty hostility and avoidance. He claimed that TFG felt that they were not prepared to be made scapegoats for the wrongful conviction, due decisions that were made outside of their control / remit.
Police pensions are a strong motivating factor in any decision made. I think the police pension is generally regarded as a very good deal. People have lives and families etc. I doubt Julia Jeapes is unaware that Sheila Caffell was alive in the farmhouse when they were all outside. She is now a Councillor in a local authority. If it was in my ward, I would feel a bit uncomfortable about it and question whether she was fit for such public service. Perhaps she doesn't see why she should take the blame and perhaps she doesn't feel comfortable upsetting the apple-cart that contains so many of her ex-colleagues.
It's really difficult to believe anyone would behave that way but we have to remember we are not all the same. Not all human beings have the same sense of moral compass and may put loyalty to colleagues above anything else. Food for thought Roch
-
My apologies :-[
Should think so!! :'( :'( :P
-
How do you know they won't say what it was? Who said it was anything mind blowing anyway or compelling? It was just a couple of days after the murders, there was a lot of info to take in and at that stage, they weren't 100% sure it was Jeremy. Without knowing what they were told there's not much to it.
They persisted with complaints that it couldn't have been Sheila (thereby insinuating it could have been Jeremy). DCI Jones became enraged and shouted 'I dont have to put up with this' or words to that effect.
Other detectives also present then began to explain some information to Peter and Anthony (both gun experts) and possibly also Ann. This resulted in either Peter / Anthony or both accepting that Sheila could have indeed been responsible for the killings. They already knew that Jeremy had been the informant of the incident and had told police his sister had mental health issues etc etc etc. So this other information (that was able to subdue the relatives) was additional information.
In answer to your question - I do not believe they will give an honest account of exactly what that information was - probably because such a frank disclosure would counter the information that they have already gone on record as parroting from the Ainsley era.
-
Jimmy Nail's your hero? :o :o :o
No! Bob Dylan have you guys got a soul??
-
Unless you or whoever told you this was present when it happened, there is no substance to what you say. When Kenneally wrote his report Bamber hadn't even been arrested and wasn't considered a suspect (officially) so he had nothing to compare Sheila as a suspect with. And why would TAFF Jones take part in the interrogation of Bamber if he KNEW Sheila was the killer? Someone like Simpson, doesn't get to be such a high ranking office by giving into a silly old man and a couple of farmers. The press were already scathing of the police, switching to Jeremy made it even worse, not better. I don't know what you have seen but I bet it could be interpreted in more than one way.
I've wondered why any police force frame anyone Caroline. There doesn't have to be a fantastic reason as far as I can tell. I think we should all be worried how this happens.
-
I've wondered why any police force frame anyone Caroline. There doesn't have to be a fantastic reason as far as I can tell. I think we should all be worried how this happens.
Hi notsure
in some cases police forces are under pressure from the media and public to get a conviction I suspect this was the case with the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 in other cases they are confident their suspect is guilty and they have no evidence so they engineer some other cases are very political and they get pressurised from outside forces.
-
He's my hero!
Mine too! Rock On Dylan!!!!!
-
Mine too! Rock On Dylan!!!!!
The recent Minneapolis Mural is pretty cool.
-
I'm not aware of the exact dynamics involved at the time, regarding Boutflour / Simpson - Ainsley / Kenneally and Mugford / Jones. Several things are supposed to have happened on the same day - and I suspect the scheming behind the scenes had already began in earnest.
DCI Jones dealt with Jeremy Bamber professionally. If he 'interrogated' him or interviewed him - it blows out of the water any claims he was blind to Jeremy's alleged murderous scheming.
Not one poster on here has yet explained why the deputy head of CID would want (or allow himself to be involved in) a mass murderer going free?
At which point did the press become scathing of police?
Well, they wouldn't and they didn't let it happen.
-
I hate Bob Dylan. Some people compare him to Shakespeare. I cannot stand his nasally whining voice and convoluted lyrics. Prefer a catchy tune.
Now here is something I will agree with you on! Can't stand him either - hippy music!
-
Similar to David's palm print/'forensic evidence breakthough, it is disappointing that Roch, Jackie & Mike have information on here which they won't share on the forum. Or even say where they got it from.
Not sure why they mention it in the first place.
Especially Roch who mentions his inside information daily and says it shows Sheila "definately committed the massacre".
Mike's picture of Sheila on the bed would also be very helpful to Bamber. Mike said a long time ago it was given to his lawyers, but there has been no further updates.
Most of Jackie's posts are about Julie, so it would have made a change if she had enlightened the forum with details of the "new information" she said she had received on the 13th May. However Jackie has refused point blank to expand.
Not sure why new information is withheld on this forum. Withholding new evidence or keeping secret on what is being investigated is not a tactic of Bamber, the OS, 360 & the CT. Who all use the media & internet to tell the world what is happening.
-
Ha ha. Bit of big daft galoot on screen (apart from in Spender?). Bit too 'Geordie' for me.
why aye! ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84jwrWMp5js
-
They persisted with complaints that it couldn't have been Sheila (thereby insinuating it could have been Jeremy). DCI Jones became enraged and shouted 'I dont have to put up with this' or words to that effect.
Other detectives also present then began to explain some information to Peter and Anthony (both gun experts) and possibly also Ann. This resulted in either Peter / Anthony or both accepting that Sheila could have indeed been responsible for the killings. They already knew that Jeremy had been the informant of the incident and had told police his sister had mental health issues etc etc etc. So this other information (that was able to subdue the relatives) was additional information.
In answer to your question - I do not believe they will give an honest account of exactly what that information was - probably because such a frank disclosure would counter the information that they have already gone on record as parroting from the Ainsley era.
Yes, you have mentioned this before but 'accepted'? Don't you mean 'considered'?
We don't know what they new at the time of the meeting with Jones, so anything would be additional, not necessarily compelling though.
-
I've wondered why any police force frame anyone Caroline. There doesn't have to be a fantastic reason as far as I can tell. I think we should all be worried how this happens.
Easily------by using various Sections and Subsections in their " books of rules ".
-
Hi notsure
in some cases police forces are under pressure from the media and public to get a conviction I suspect this was the case with the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 in other cases they are confident their suspect is guilty and they have no evidence so they engineer some other cases are very political and they get pressurised from outside forces.
Yes I think that too but it's terrible and those that have done it don't seem to ever get punished.
-
I've wondered why any police force frame anyone Caroline. There doesn't have to be a fantastic reason as far as I can tell. I think we should all be worried how this happens.
I don't have to wonder because it happened to someone I know. I'm not naive enough to believe the boys in blue always work in the best interests of Joe Public but in this case, they would have had to go against their own best interests just to appease and old farmer and his family.
-
Yes I think that too but it's terrible and those that have done it don't seem to ever get punished.
In this case they weren't under pressure because they had a culprit and according to Roch, they had the right one. They had to be pretty sure that Bamber was responsible to change and make themselves look stupid. I would imagine that something like that would require a LOT of internal questions being asked and the risk f being caught in some kind of conspiracy for more likely.
-
I wonder why AH told David to not reveal the'forensic evidence breakthrough' because it "would give the crown more time to prepare".
Prior to the 2012 CCRC submission the whole country knew what was going to be submitted. The 'Tonight' programme aired a half hour documentary on it.
-
Essex police are dealing with a case from 16 years ago where apparently they hadn't investigated properties/garages which had been right under their noses at the time the murder of a child had been committed. There were 750 officers drafted to search areas near to where the girl had gone missing in 2001.
-
Mine too! Rock On Dylan!!!!!
8) 8) 8) ;)
-
Similar to David's palm print/'forensic evidence breakthough, it is disappointing that Roch, Jackie & Mike have information on here which they won't share on the forum. Or even say where they got it from.
Not sure why they mention it in the first place.
Especially Roch who mentions his inside information daily and says it shows Sheila "definately committed the massacre".
Mike's picture of Sheila on the bed would also be very helpful to Bamber. Mike said a long time ago it was given to his lawyers, but there has been no further updates.
Most of Jackie's posts are about Julie, so it would have made a change if she had enlightened the forum with details of the "new information" she said she had received on the 13th May. However Jackie has refused point blank to expand.
Not sure why new information is withheld on this forum. Withholding new evidence or keeping secret on what is being investigated is not a tactic of Bamber, the OS, 360 & the CT. Who all use the media & internet to tell the world what is happening.
Adam
I can totally understand why they don't share their knowledge it could be detrimental to do so we will have to wait and see we will find out when the time is right.
-
Imagine leaked information in the wrong hands.
-
It seems everything which shows Bamber is innocent is either being held by EP, or somehow known by members of this forum who won't reveal anything.
The only apparent concreate evidence Bamber is innocent is that Julie identified the twins.
-
Nothing to do with it.
-
Imagine leaked information in the wrong hands.
lookout any information regarding new evidence has to be kept totally secret and not shared at all :)
-
lookout any information regarding new evidence has to be kept totally secret and not shared at all :)
That is incorrect. Bamber, the CT, OS & 360 reveal new evidence to the media & internet.
There was a 10 year gap between 2002 & 2012. Lots of things were published in this period. Ditto after 2012.
-
As mentioned Bamber's team promoted the evidence to the media it was presenting to the CCRC in 2012.
So don't know why posters on a discussion forum can't post what they apparently know.
-
As mentioned Bamber's team promoted the evidence it was presenting to the CCRC in 2012.
I fail to see why they wouldn't want to promote such things, keeping it secret won't get Jeremy out but Roch has already said 'it' (whatever 'it' is), isn't new evidence anyway.
-
Currently the best way to promote Bamber's innocence is to either say EP are holding onto things, or that new information is known which is never revealed.
The 360 says it is carrying out tests on released evidence, but does not publish results.
-
Currently the best way to promote Bamber's innocence is to either say EP are holding onto things, or that new information is known which is never revealed.
The 360 says it is carrying out tests on released evidence, but does not publish results.
If you never reveal anything then no one can say you were wrong.
-
Currently the best way to promote Bamber's innocence is to either say EP are holding onto things, or that new information is known which is never revealed.
The 360 says it is carrying out tests on released evidence, but does not publish results.
Why worry. The system has him sewn up every which way
-
Why worry. The system has him sewn up every which way
It's very doubtful there will be another CCRC application. If there is you've said it will be rejected due to bias against Bamber.
So there is nothing to lose in you & Jackie submitting you're new information on here. And Mike posting his photo. You've all already told the forum you have this.
Where did you get this information from & have you hand delivered it to Bamber's legal team, as David did with his palm print/forensic evidence breakthrough ?
-
It's very doubtful there will be another CCRC application. If there is you've said it will be rejected due to bias against Bamber.
ì
So there is nothing to lose in you & Jackie submitting you're new information on here. And Mike posting his photo. You've all already told the forum you have this.
Where did you get this information from & have you hand delivered it to Bamber's legal team, as David did with his palm print/forensic evidence breakthrough ?
I am fascinated by your eagerness to find out what the new evidence is.
Why are you even interested when you have repeatedly listed all the reasons why he is guilty, when you have said there is a pile of evidence against JB etc. Are you a but rattled Adam? ;)
-
I am fascinated by your eagerness to find out what the new evidence is.
Why are you even interested when you have repeatedly listed all the reasons why he is guilty, when you have said there is a pile of evidence against JB etc. Are you a but rattled Adam? ;)
I think he is maggie 😀I'd rather not know if it helps the legal team. I'm sure it will all come out in the end. Patience isn't one of Adams good poin't.
-
I think he is maggie 😀I'd rather not know if it helps the legal team. I'm sure it will all come out in the end. Patience isn't one of Adams good poin't.
Maggie can you remove this post as it's goading.
-
Hopefully we will know today if the new information, some of it apparently showing Sheila is the killer, has been passed to Bamber's legal team.
As well as where this new information came from.
All I know is that Mike's photo of Sheila on the bed was passed to Mike's legal advisors several years ago. Mike has not updated further.
It will be very irresponsible if other new major information is just being sat on by posters. At least David hand delivered his palm print/forensic evidence breakthrough to Bamber's legal team a year ago.
-
It's very doubtful there will be another CCRC application. If there is you've said it will be rejected due to bias against Bamber.
So there is nothing to lose in you & Jackie submitting you're new information on here. And Mike posting his photo. You've all already told the forum you have this.
Where did you get this information from & have you hand delivered it to Bamber's legal team, as David did with his palm print/forensic evidence breakthrough ?
Last Tuesday I boarded a Leer Jet (paid for by donations made to the CT) and handed the evidence personally to Andrew Hunter. I was chauffeured from the private airport in question to the residence of AH. The evidence was hand-cuffed to my wrist the whole time in an attache case. A special key had been forged, with AH retaining one half and my self the other half. Once the two components were fitted together, the case was opened and the contents contained within a large jiffy bag (marked 'Top Secret') were taken and placed in a safe. Once the safe locking mechanism had been respun, I was dismissed by AH and dropped off by the chauffeur at a railway station with a one-way ticket home.
That's all I know.
-
It will be too optimistic to expect the new information from Jackie & Roch to be revealed. Although my reply 266 says there is nothing to lose.
However the source and where this information has been passed to is a start. If Jackie is holding onto her 'new information' until her 6 part documentary, everyone will have to wait & then watch.
I can only assume Mike's picture of Sheila on the bed has not been forwarded to Bamber. Upon the advice of Mike's legal advisors. Otherwise it would have been all over the media
-
Last Tuesday I boarded a Leer Jet (paid for by donations made to the CT) and handed the evidence personally to Andrew Hunter. I was chauffeured from the private airport in question to the residence of AH. The evidence was hand-cuffed to my wrist the whole time in an attache case. A special key had been forged, with AH retaining one half and my self the other half. Once the two components were fitted together, the case was opened and the contents contained within a large jiffy bag (marked 'Top Secret') were taken and placed in a safe. Once the safe locking mechanism had been respun, I was dismissed by AH and dropped off by the chauffeur at a railway station with a one-way ticket home.
That's all I know.
we need to call you 007 from now on then.😀😀😀😀
-
Last Tuesday I boarded a Leer Jet (paid for by donations made to the CT) and handed the evidence personally to Andrew Hunter. I was chauffeured from the private airport in question to the residence of AH. The evidence was hand-cuffed to my wrist the whole time in an attache case. A special key had been forged, with AH retaining one half and my self the other half. Once the two components were fitted together, the case was opened and the contents contained within a large jiffy bag (marked 'Top Secret') were taken and placed in a safe. Once the safe locking mechanism had been respun, I was dismissed by AH and dropped off by the chauffeur at a railway station with a one-way ticket home.
That's all I know.
You've been given the VIP treatment. David had to travel 45 minutes himself to hand deliver his palm print/forensic evidence breakthrough.
How long did you have this information for before deciding to pass it on last Tuesday ? It seems like a long time.
It seems it's important information. How did you get this information ?
Do you think there will be an annoncement from the CT about this soon ?
-
Hopefully Jackie will confirm where she got her 'new information' from and if she's passed it on. And whether this involved planes and handcuffs, or similar to David she had to make her own travelling arrangements.
It would make sense for her to pass it on. It might help free Bamber. It can still be included in her 6 part documentary.
What a pity Mike's legal advisors told him not to pass on his picture of Sheila on the bed. Surely this would have greatly assisted Bamber.
-
Last Tuesday I boarded a Leer Jet (paid for by donations made to the CT) and handed the evidence personally to Andrew Hunter. I was chauffeured from the private airport in question to the residence of AH. The evidence was hand-cuffed to my wrist the whole time in an attache case. A special key had been forged, with AH retaining one half and my self the other half. Once the two components were fitted together, the case was opened and the contents contained within a large jiffy bag (marked 'Top Secret') were taken and placed in a safe. Once the safe locking mechanism had been respun, I was dismissed by AH and dropped off by the chauffeur at a railway station with a one-way ticket home.
That's all I know.
;D ;D ;D ;D 8) 8)
-
Who's paying you Adam ?
-
You've been given the VIP treatment. David had to travel 45 minutes himself to hand deliver his palm print/forensic evidence breakthrough.
How long did you have this information for before deciding to pass it on last Tuesday ? It seems like a long time.
It seems it's important information. How did you get this information ?
Do you think there will be an annoncement from the CT about this soon ?
I think I spelled Learjet wrong.
Seriously though - the source of the new/old evidence is Essex Constabulary. It is their own evidence. Its original intended use would have been as proof that the case was four murders and one suicude. It was made to 'disappear' because it could not be used in the case against Jeremy. It has reappeared as part of the evidence that has been disclosed in more recent years.
Like I say - I wouldn't worry. I have absolutely no confidence that the CCRC will refer the case. Your main concern should be the potential impact on public opinion.
-
Who's paying you Adam ?
It's been hard work. But Roch has revealed he has handed in his evidence which shows Sheila was the killer.
What this is & how he got it has not been revealed. Although I suspect the next evidence announcement from the CT will relate to it.
-
I think I spelled Learjet wrong.
Seriously though - the source of the new/old evidence is Essex Constabulary. It is their own evidence. Its original intended use would have been as proof that the case was four murders and one suicude. It was made to 'disappear' because it could not be used in the case against Jeremy. It has reappeared as part of the evidence that has been disclosed in more recent years.
Like I say - I wouldn't worry. I have absolutely no confidence that the CCRC will refer the case. Your main concern should be the potential impact on public opinion.
How did you manage to obtain it if it had been made to disappear. Do you have contacts in EP ?
Do the CT already have it as well as you. Or are you holding on to it ?
-
I think I spelled Learjet wrong.
Seriously though - the source of the new/old evidence is Essex Constabulary. It is their own evidence. Its original intended use would have been as proof that the case was four murders and one suicude. It was made to 'disappear' because it could not be used in the case against Jeremy. It has reappeared as part of the evidence that has been disclosed in more recent years.
Like I say - I wouldn't worry. I have absolutely no confidence that the CCRC will refer the case. Your main concern should be the potential impact on public opinion.
A secret won't influence public opinion.
-
How did you manage to obtain it if it had been made to disappear. Do you have contacts in EP ?
Do the CT already have it as well as you. Or are you holding on to it ?
Essex Police have had the evidence for 32 years.
The CT and legal etc are aware of it.
I dont have it. But I have seen it in part.
You and everyone on here will have seen less of it. You will have misread it for two reasons.
-
A secret won't influence public opinion.
I agree. At some point it will probably be made public though.
-
Essex Police have had the evidence for 32 years.
The CT and legal etc are aware of it.
I dont have it. But I have seen it in part.
You and everyone on here will have seen less of it. You will have misread it for two reasons.
Is it what EP are refusing to release ?
-
I agree. At some point it will probably be made public though.
But that just sounds like the CT and their claims that items haven't been disclosed - you could carry on saying that ad infinitum.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D 8) 8)
Hi Maggie
I was sat further down the aisle from Roch I was sent along to keep my eye on him and his bag of evidence we thought somebody might be lurking in the toilets hehehe
-
Hi Maggie
I was sat further down the aisle from Roch I was sent along to keep my eye on him and his bag of evidence we thought somebody might be lurking in the toilets hehehe
:o :o ;D ;D
-
I think I spelled Learjet wrong.
Seriously though - the source of the new/old evidence is Essex Constabulary. It is their own evidence. Its original intended use would have been as proof that the case was four murders and one suicude. It was made to 'disappear' because it could not be used in the case against Jeremy. It has reappeared as part of the evidence that has been disclosed in more recent years.
Like I say - I wouldn't worry. I have absolutely no confidence that the CCRC will refer the case. Your main concern should be the potential impact on public opinion.
Exactly, and the timing is perfect
-
But that just sounds like the CT and their claims that items haven't been disclosed - you could carry on saying that ad infinitum.
I don't get what you mean. And if you are referring to the disclosure booklet - how do you know that things being asked for have been disclosed? Is everyone linked to the defence sitting on top of all the stuff mentioned in the booklet but pretending they haven't actually got it and asking for it to be released again?
The evidence I refer to is real. It is something that has been skirted around on here. Delved in to by several posters. For example, Mike and Hartley argued about it. Mike got it right. Hartley got it wrong. Other posters have visited it from both sides of the fence.
-
I don't get what you mean. And if you are referring to the disclosure booklet - how do you know that things being asked for have been disclosed? Is everyone linked to the defence sitting on top of all the stuff mentioned in the booklet but pretending they haven't actually got it and asking for it to be released again?
The evidence I refer to is real. It is something that has been skirted around on here. Delved in to by several posters. For example, Mike and Hartley argued about it. Mike got it right. Hartley got it wrong. Other posters have visited it from both sides of the fence.
Because anyone can say this or that exists and proves A or B and you can go on saying that but that doesn't mean it actually does exist. For instance tape of Nevill's call to the police - I don't believe for one single second such a tape exists because I don't believe that Nevill called the police in the first place. EP can't produce what they don't have.
As for the evidence you refer to; from what you say people have debated it so it can't be compelling evidence - it can still be argued and how do you know Mike got it right and Hartley got it wrong? Also if it is already on this forum, I fail to see why you're not able to point to the debate in question?
-
Because anyone can say this or that exists and proves A or B and you can go on saying that but that doesn't mean it actually does exist. For instance tape of Nevill's call to the police - I don't believe for one single second such a tape exists because I don't believe that Nevill called the police in the first place. EP can't produce what they don't have.
As for the evidence you refer to; from what you say people have debated it so it can't be compelling evidence - it can still be argued and how do you know Mike got it right and Hartley got it wrong? Also if it is already on this forum, I fail to see why you're not able to point to the debate in question?
I used to have these kind of arguments with Hartley. I can remember expressing that the reverse to there having been a prosecution led 'conspiracy' is a defence led 'conspiracy'.
What is being asked for are missing items of evidence, for which there exists only 'trace evidence' within the body of material already disclosed to the defence / CT. It is not 'invented' evidence.
The fact that Mike got something right and Hartley got it wrong is a very interesting diversion to explore.
Mike Tesko can get facts wrong because he is prone to theorise and he has gone on record expressing that if it's OK for the prosecution to bend facts to suit - then it's OK for him to do the same in response. Even though he can ask sublime questions on the case and point out glaring inconsistencies - he is essentially undermined by his other posting traits.
Vs
Hartley could get a lot of things wrong because he is a very strict adherent of the official line given by the prosecution and authorities: typed witness statements; Dickinson findings; and CCRC etc etc. He does not and will not deviate from the official line. All prosecution evidence is kosher; bona-fide etc etc. His rigidity does not allow for any skullduggery in the case, among the prosecution side: i.e. police; relatives; and using 'red tape' to deliberately impede etc.
The reason why one is right and one is wrong in this instance is purely black and white. Like the panic alarm. When Vic and others were right and Mike was wrong. It's as simple as that. With reference to evidence I am referring to Mike was right. Scipio was also wrong on the same evidence.
-
Hartley could get a lot of things wrong because he is a very strict adherent of the official line given by the prosecution and authorities: typed witness statements; Dickinson findings; and CCRC etc etc. He does not and will not deviate from the official line. All prosecution evidence is kosher; bona-fide etc etc. His rigidity does not allow for any skullduggery in the case, among the prosecution side: i.e. police; relatives; and using 'red tape' to deliberately impede etc.
.
I don't adhere to anything Roch, I'm happy to consider skullduggery, just show me the evidence to support its existence.
The same is true regardless of the argument, I'm fairly measured and reasonable in dismissing claims both for or against if there isn't evidence to support them.
-
I used to have these kind of arguments with Hartley. I can remember expressing that the reverse to there having been a prosecution led 'conspiracy' is a defence led 'conspiracy'.
What is being asked for are missing items of evidence, for which there exists only 'trace evidence' within the body of material already disclosed to the defence / CT. It is not 'invented' evidence.
The fact that Mike got something right and Hartley got it wrong is a very interesting diversion to explore.
Mike Tesko can get facts wrong because he is prone to theorise and he has gone on record expressing that if it's OK for the prosecution to bend facts to suit - then it's OK for him to do the same in response. Even though he can ask sublime questions on the case and point out glaring inconsistencies - he is essentially undermined by his other posting traits.
Vs
Hartley could get a lot of things wrong because he is a very strict adherent of the official line given by the prosecution and authorities: typed witness statements; Dickinson findings; and CCRC etc etc. He does not and will not deviate from the official line. All prosecution evidence is kosher; bona-fide etc etc. His rigidity does not allow for any skullduggery in the case, among the prosecution side: i.e. police; relatives; and using 'red tape' to deliberately impede etc.
The reason why one is right and one is wrong in this instance is purely black and white. Like the panic alarm. When Vic and others were right and Mike was wrong. It's as simple as that. With reference to evidence I am referring to Mike was right. Scipio was also wrong on the same evidence.
Except that you haven't answered the question, you haven't said how you know who was wrong and who was right and if it can be debated then it's hardly compelling, just a matter of opinion.
-
Except that you haven't answered the question, you haven't said how you know who was wrong and who was right and if it can be debated then it's hardly compelling, just a matter of opinion.
The simple answer is that it's not a matter of opinion. Hartley has never once agreed there is a bloodied palm print on the Bible. Do you think that is a matter of opinion - or is Hartley just plain wrong? Remember I pointed out that he won't deviate from the official line. People have made the error of misreading the evidence I am referring to - because they have been misled.
-
The simple answer is that it's not a matter of opinion. Hartley has never once agreed there is a bloodied palm print on the Bible. Do you think that is a matter of opinion - or is Hartley just plain wrong? Remember I pointed out that he won't deviate from the official line. People have made the error of misreading the evidence I am referring to - because they have been misled.
Not sure what one has to do with the other but the notion of the palm print originated from Jeremy. It is a matter of opinion given that it has never officially been confirmed. I still say that as far as being mislead is concerned, that can happen both ways and maybe you have been mislead. When someone says "No, no, don't believe that, believe this" they add their slant and who knows which version is correct? Maybe neither or maybe the truth is some place in the middle.
-
The simple answer is that it's not a matter of opinion. Hartley has never once agreed there is a bloodied palm print on the Bible. Do you think that is a matter of opinion - or is Hartley just plain wrong? Remember I pointed out that he won't deviate from the official line. People have made the error of misreading the evidence I am referring to - because they have been misled.
It is an opinion of some lay people that there is a bloodied Palm print on the bible.
That is not enough to convince me. I am of the 'opinion' that it would have been identified as such long before now, if it were the case.
However, if an expert in a relevant field provides evidence that it is indeed a palm print, then that would be another matter.
It is not a case of being 'Right' or 'Wrong', and I rarely adopt such absolutes.
I do not believe I am being unreasonable with my opinion on this.
Your sustained attack on my views is rather unsavoury and simply an attempt to dismiss and undermine them without actually having cause to do so. I suspect you would have greater success trying to push water up hill. :-\
-
The simple answer is that it's not a matter of opinion. Hartley has never once agreed there is a bloodied palm print on the Bible. Do you think that is a matter of opinion - or is Hartley just plain wrong? Remember I pointed out that he won't deviate from the official line. People have made the error of misreading the evidence I am referring to - because they have been misled.
Interesting and informative post
You have shared some great information with Mark
-
Not sure what one has to do with the other but the notion of the palm print originated from Jeremy. It is a matter of opinion given that it has never officially been confirmed. I still say that as far as being mislead is concerned, that can happen both ways and maybe you have been mislead. When someone says "No, no, don't believe that, believe this" they add their slant and who knows which version is correct? Maybe neither or maybe the truth is some place in the middle.
I'm 100% certain that you believe 100% - that it's a palm print.
I can assure you - I have not been misled. It's not that type of evidence. The only way it would be possible to mislead regarding this evidence, would be to conceal it and tell lies about it. That is what was achieved under DCS Michael Ainsley's stewardship - in order to prosecute Jeremy. Without such concealment and lies, it would not have been possible to prosecute Jeremy.
It is an opinion of some lay people that there is a bloodied Palm print on the bible.
That is not enough to convince me. I am of the 'opinion' that it would have been identified as such long before now, if it were the case.
However, if an expert in a relevant field provides evidence that it is indeed a palm print, then that would be another matter.
It is not a case of being 'Right' or 'Wrong', and I rarely adopt such absolutes.
I do not believe I am being unreasonable with my opinion on this.
Your sustained attack on my views is rather unsavoury and simply an attempt to dismiss and undermine them without actually having cause to do so. I suspect you would have greater success trying to push water up hill. :-\
You know it's a palm print but you wouldn't admit it as such - because that is not the official prosecution case. I repeat - your downfall on here is, that you will not countenance any deviation from the prosecution case.
Interesting and informative post
You have shared some great information with Mark
Do you mean MWT or Mark Higgs? I've had no contact with MWT for years. Don't recall exchanging much with of any note with Mark Higgs recently. Though I do plan to ask him a few things if I get round to it. I think his recent video was correct in terms of the political aspect - but not so sure regarding some of the other claims made in it.
-
You know it's a palm print but you wouldn't admit it as such - because that is not the official prosecution case. I repeat - your downfall on here is, that you will not countenance any deviation from the prosecution case.
Please refer to the post which you have quoted, my position is quite clear.
-
Please refer to the post which you have quoted, my position is quite clear.
Your position doesn't fool me. We'll leave it there. 8)
-
Your position doesn't fool me. We'll leave it there. 8)
There's nothing to leave, I think you're just on a bit of a wind up and attempting to goad.
You're not fooling me I'm afraid. 8)
-
I'm 100% certain that you believe 100% - that it's a palm print.
I can assure you - I have not been misled. It's not that type of evidence. The only way it would be possible to mislead regarding this evidence, would be to conceal it and tell lies about it. That is what was achieved under DCS Michael Ainsley's stewardship - in order to prosecute Jeremy. Without such concealment and lies, it would not have been possible to prosecute Jeremy.
You know it's a palm print but you wouldn't admit it as such - because that is not the official prosecution case. I repeat - your downfall on here is, that you will not countenance any deviation from the prosecution case.
Do you mean MWT or Mark Higgs? I've had no contact with MWT for years. Don't recall exchanging much with of any note with Mark Higgs recently. Though I do plan to ask him a few things if I get round to it. I think his recent video was correct in terms of the political aspect - but not so sure regarding some of the other claims made in it.
Roch, with all due respect, I'm certain that you 100% believe what you say to be 100% true. Unfortunately, from where I sit, I'm aware only of a fervour which comes from the newly converted who has found a cause which supports their belief.
-
Roch, with all due respect, I'm certain that you 100% believe what you say to be 100% true. Unfortunately, from where I sit, I'm aware only of a fervour which comes from the newly converted who has found a cause which supports their belief.
Hi Jane. I think I prefer the term recently vindicated to newly converted. But I do understand what you mean.
I'm afraid it really is a sad and tragic fact that Sheila's involvement was covered up.
It's a sad and tragic fact that Robert and Ann's version of showing respect to the late Nevill and June, was to help frame their adopted son for multiple murder. I'm sure Nevill and June were really grateful for this kind and noble act committed for them down on Earth. I'm sure Daniel and Nicolas are really grateful that their uncle took the rap for their mother - so that various other relatives could divide the estate up and police could retire early.
Sad but true.
-
Hi Jane. I think I prefer the term recently vindicated to newly converted. But I do understand what you mean.
I'm afraid it really is a sad and tragic fact that Sheila's involvement was covered up.
It's a sad and tragic fact that Robert and Ann's version of showing respect to the late Nevill and June, was to help frame their adopted son for multiple murder. I'm sure Nevill and June were really grateful for this kind and noble act committed for them down on Earth. I'm sure Daniel and Nicolas are really grateful that their uncle took the rap for their mother - so that various other relatives could divide the estate up and police could retire early.
Sad but true.
Only if you believe it to be the case, Roch.
-
As it happens,I too believe Roch. I shall never falter from the way I feel about this case.
-
I'm 100% certain that you believe 100% - that it's a palm print.
I can assure you - I have not been misled. It's not that type of evidence. The only way it would be possible to mislead regarding this evidence, would be to conceal it and tell lies about it. That is what was achieved under DCS Michael Ainsley's stewardship - in order to prosecute Jeremy. Without such concealment and lies, it would not have been possible to prosecute Jeremy.
You know it's a palm print but you wouldn't admit it as such - because that is not the official prosecution case. I repeat - your downfall on here is, that you will not countenance any deviation from the prosecution case.
Do you mean MWT or Mark Higgs? I've had no contact with MWT for years. Don't recall exchanging much with of any note with Mark Higgs recently. Though I do plan to ask him a few things if I get round to it. I think his recent video was correct in terms of the political aspect - but not so sure regarding some of the other claims made in it.
Sorry I thought it was Mark Higgs not MWT
-
I'm 100% certain that you believe 100% - that it's a palm print.
I can assure you - I have not been misled. It's not that type of evidence. The only way it would be possible to mislead regarding this evidence, would be to conceal it and tell lies about it. That is what was achieved under DCS Michael Ainsley's stewardship - in order to prosecute Jeremy. Without such concealment and lies, it would not have been possible to prosecute Jeremy.
You know it's a palm print but you wouldn't admit it as such - because that is not the official prosecution case. I repeat - your downfall on here is, that you will not countenance any deviation from the prosecution case.
Do you mean MWT or Mark Higgs? I've had no contact with MWT for years. Don't recall exchanging much with of any note with Mark Higgs recently. Though I do plan to ask him a few things if I get round to it. I think his recent video was correct in terms of the political aspect - but not so sure regarding some of the other claims made in it.
OK, I'm leaving this now, you can't debate on a subject where someone's argument is 'this is how it is but I can't tell you why'. If you can't say why, then perhaps you shouldn't have said anything? I haven't changed my opinion by the claims made and unless I see some substance, I can't take it seriously.
-
I don't adhere to anything Roch, I'm happy to consider skullduggery, just show me the evidence to support its existence.
The same is true regardless of the argument, I'm fairly measured and reasonable in dismissing claims both for or against if there isn't evidence to support them.
I agree - without the evidence it's just more empty claims and we have had far too many of those here.
-
And...like I said - all I was doing was giving members the heads-up.
-
And...like I said - all I was doing was giving members the heads-up.
But you haven''t.
-
But you haven''t.
Well I've tried. 8)
-
And...like I said - all I was doing was giving members the heads-up.
Thank you. This case has always been simple without the interventions
A totally innocent person can only speculate what happened because they were not there
-
Well I've tried. 8)
Yeah! 8)
-
I agree - without the evidence it's just more empty claims and we have had far too many of those here.
Haven't we just.