Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on June 21, 2017, 10:40:PM
-
After Julie had claimed Jeremy used a bike to commit the murders, PC Bird had taken a soil sample from the trail between WHF and Hyde farm.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7564.msg356878.html#msg356878 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7564.msg356878.html#msg356878)
It also mentions the bike in the same notes. I can safely assume the intention was to compare the soil on the wheels of the bike to that of the sample taken.
I wonder what happened or if any results were produced? I have hardly seen any documents except for PC Birds notes on this subject.
-
What happened to the Sherpa van as well ? Wasn't that also JB's ? Was it examined ?
Like everything else,if they didn't contain JB's DNA,etc,they weren't interested.
Also the footprint around a window area ?
-
What happened to the Sherpa van as well ? Wasn't that also JB's ? Was it examined ?
Like everything else,if they didn't contain JB's DNA,etc,they weren't interested.
Also the footprint around a window area ?
Wouldn't that incriminate him? :-\
-
Wouldn't that incriminate him? :-\
Why would it if it wasn't his ? ::) Which it obviously wasn't,as that's why the " find " died a death,like everything else which was " found ".
-
Why would it if it wasn't his ? ::) Which it obviously wasn't,as that's why the " find " died a death,like everything else which was " found ".
How could they prove it was or wasn't his?
-
How could they prove it was or wasn't his?
We'd have known before now one way or the other if it was or wasn't. It was probably one of the plod's.
-
What happened to the Sherpa van as well ? Wasn't that also JB's ? Was it examined ?
Like everything else,if they didn't contain JB's DNA,etc,they weren't interested.
Also the footprint around a window area ?
Who said the footprint was near a window?
PS. I doubt JB would be barefooted in any situation envolving the murders.
-
Who said the footprint was near a window?
PS. I doubt JB would be barefooted in any situation envolving the murders.
I remember reading about it because it had been AE who'd mentioned it,so whether she'd been told by someone I don't know. I don't remember reading what he wore on his feet anyway ?
Just been watching Diana,Lady Waterlow's video.
-
One thing for sure,there was no sign of a mucky shoe/boot-print on entry and certainly no sign of a bloodied one on the way out-------not even inside the farmhouse considering there was a lot of blood in the kitchen, which even that hadn't been carried upstairs. Not a print in sight.
-
One thing for sure,there was no sign of a mucky shoe/boot-print on entry and certainly no sign of a bloodied one on the way out-------not even inside the farmhouse considering there was a lot of blood in the kitchen, which even that hadn't been carried upstairs. Not a print in sight.
I certainly don't think he used the bike and that RWB had rather a vivid imagination. There wouldn't be prints if he used gloves but there were bloody prints found on the aga tiles, it's in CAL's book (although they were probably Nevill's).
-
I certainly don't think he used the bike and that RWB had rather a vivid imagination. There wouldn't be prints if he used gloves but there were bloody prints found on the aga tiles, it's in CAL's book (although they were probably Nevill's).
The police believe he cycled to WHF. On the bike he brought over to his cottage just before the massacre.
How did he get to & from WHF ?
-
I certainly don't think he used the bike and that RWB had rather a vivid imagination. There wouldn't be prints if he used gloves but there were bloody prints found on the aga tiles, it's in CAL's book (although they were probably Nevill's).
There are such things as glove-prints.
-
The police believe he cycled to WHF. On the bike he brought over to his cottage just before the massacre.
How did he get to & from WHF ?
I believe he walked. I make a similar walk twice a day with my dog across the fields. He knew the area well and would be familiar with short cuts and access routes.
-
There are such things as glove-prints.
Hmm? We're talking Essex 1985, NOT NCIS 2017.
-
I believe he walked. I make a similar walk twice a day with my dog across the fields. He knew the area well and would be familiar with short cuts and access routes.
Do you think Julie lied in her WS. Or that Bamber changed his mind ?
-
Hmm? We're talking Essex 1985, NOT NCIS 2017.
A blind man on a galloping horse would see marks left by someone wearing gloves.( imprint of glove,fibres,sweat.) Gloves leave their own prints.
-
A blind man on a galloping horse would see marks left by someone wearing gloves.( imprint of glove,fibres,sweat.) Gloves leave their own prints.
And gloves can be burned.
-
And gloves can be burned.
Well maybe one of them, as wasn't one found ? A bit careless,wasn't it ?
-
Well maybe one of them, as wasn't one found ? A bit careless,wasn't it ?
I have no idea. However, I seem to recall something about Marigolds? But the thought occurs to me that it's hardly likely to be the sort of thing that Sheila would have done.
-
I have no idea. However, I seem to recall something about Marigolds? But the thought occurs to me that it's hardly likely to be the sort of thing that Sheila would have done.
Nor Jeremy either.
-
Nor Jeremy either.
Sheila wasn't convicted of murder though, so clearly, it had nothing to do with her.
-
Sheila wasn't convicted of murder though, so clearly, it had nothing to do with her.
Had she still been alive she would-----while the balance of her mind was disturbed.
-
Had she still been alive she would-----while the balance of her mind was disturbed.
But she wasn't. She was murdered. Jeremy was convicted.
-
But she wasn't. She was murdered. Jeremy was convicted.
Okay,we'll see.
-
Okay,we'll see.
Sure we will.
-
Sheila wasn't convicted of murder though, so clearly, it had nothing to do with her.
What a stupid comment.
-
I believe he walked. I make a similar walk twice a day with my dog across the fields. He knew the area well and would be familiar with short cuts and access routes.
Based on Googles calculations on flat road during day light. It would take almost and hour and a half via the sea wall route. There are at leased 16 fields to pass. Some of them the size of Goldhanger. Claiming he walked only stretches Sheila's time of death even further making it even more impossible for him to have killed her.
-
Based on Googles calculations on flat road during day light. It would take almost and hour and a half via the sea wall route. There are at leased 16 fields to pass. Some of them the size of Goldhanger. Claiming he walked only stretches Sheila's time of death even further making it even more impossible for him to have killed her.
Your timings are way out from PC Wilkinson's evidence: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
-
Your timings are way out from PC Wilkinson's evidence: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
Google maps is accurate. If you believe Wilkinson's claim of 6 minutes that means he managed to cycle over rugged terrain at 40mph. You better get in touch with the Guinness book of records.
In other words, my timings are way out from PC Wilkinson's bulls**t
-
I certainly don't think he used the bike and that RWB had rather a vivid imagination. There wouldn't be prints if he used gloves but there were bloody prints found on the aga tiles, it's in CAL's book (although they were probably Nevill's).
Oh it must be true then if it was in Cals book
-
I believe he walked. I make a similar walk twice a day with my dog across the fields. He knew the area well and would be familiar with short cuts and access routes.
I dont
-
But she wasn't. She was murdered. Jeremy was convicted.
No Sheila was not murdered
-
Oh it must be true then if it was in Cals book
So you're saying it isn't true because it's in CAL's book?
-
Your timings are way out from PC Wilkinson's evidence: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
The bike is a big piece of circumstantial evidence. So big that the judge included it in his summing up to suggest Bamber's guilt.
However it is not one of the huge amounts of pieces of incriminating evidence David has said (without elaboration) was created by 'forgery & perjury'.
Bamber himself said he brought June's bike over to his cottage just before the massacre. So there is no dispute.
The prosecution suggested Bamber cycled to & from WHF. Backed up by Julie's WS which said he planned to cycle. The police, DPP, jury & appeal courts obviously agreed this was possible.
Or people thought Bamber walked & it was just a coincidence he took June's bike just before the massacre.
Either way a massacre was possible.
-
It's possible he was seen after all. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8157.0.html
-
It's possible he was seen after all. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8157.0.html
LOL. Peter Eaton told Ann, That Len Foakes told him that someone else said.
-
It's possible he was seen after all. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8157.0.html
That does sound a very much like idle gossip Steve. Had such a person seen him, they would have come forward.
-
If you believe Wilkinson's claim of 6 minutes that means he managed to cycle over rugged terrain at 40mph.
DI (not Pc) Wilkinson was referring to just 1629 metres (Brook House Farm track, that he said was well maintained) of what he thought was the shortest practicable route. He averaged about 10mph to cycle that in 6 minutes.
-
It's possible he was seen after all. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8157.0.html
Must be true then if an officer told AE. Was it the same officer who told AE how both women had been found on the bed ? Afterall,going by the way that things went in general,AE and company were believed.
-
Must be true then if an officer told AE. Was it the same officer who told AE how both women had been found on the bed ? Afterall,going by the way that things went in general,AE and company were believed.
Human nature being the way it is, it's entirely possible that, rather than telling a member of the public that they don't know the answer to the question being asked, a police officer MIGHT give the answer THEY believe to be the correct one. I cannot think why this would come as any surprise. After all, it's done, here on the forum, on a regular basis.
-
Human nature being the way it is, it's entirely possible that, rather than telling a member of the public that they don't know the answer to the question being asked, a police officer MIGHT give the answer THEY believe to be the correct one. I cannot think why this would come as any surprise. After all, it's done, here on the forum, on a regular basis.
Yes,by me I suppose ! Why don't you say it ::)
-
Yes,by me I suppose ! Why don't you say it ::)
I never need to, Lookout. You do that, very successfully, for yourself, but yet again, you draw attention to what you hurriedly admit to as being your own shortcomings -sorry to tell you but this one isn't yours exclusively so you don't stand out- rather than address the point in hand. Actually, I'm not knocking it. I'm just saying it's the way it is. I don't have your idealized expectations of how others SHOULD be.
-
DI (not Pc) Wilkinson was referring to just 1629 metres (Brook House Farm track, that he said was well maintained) of what he thought was the shortest practicable route. He averaged about 10mph to cycle that in 6 minutes.
That nullifys the entire point. Why did he not cycle the whole route?
-
I never need to, Lookout. You do that, very successfully, for yourself, but yet again, you draw attention to what you hurriedly admit to as being your own shortcomings -sorry to tell you but this one isn't yours exclusively so you don't stand out- rather than address the point in hand. Actually, I'm not knocking it. I'm just saying it's the way it is. I don't have your idealized expectations of how others SHOULD be.
That's because" others " lack the cognitive wherewithall and understanding to act like human beings.!!
-
My estimate based on google maps estimate via road.
Walking the sea wall route from WHF back to Goldhangar would take around 1 hour and 20 minutes. Using a bike It can be achieved in 1/3rd of the walking time.
-
That nullifys the entire point. Why did he not cycle the whole route?
He did, you just chose not to read it.
Extracts from the police officer’s statement:
“With the aid of these maps I measured the distance, using a pedometer, from White House Farm to 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, via the farm track and sea wall. This route measured 6,978 metres and at a brisk walk took 70 minutes to complete. I subsequently cycled this route in 35 minutes.
I then measured the distance, using a pedometer, from 9 Head Street, Goldhanger to Brook House Farm track at its junction with Maldon Road via Church Street and the B1026. This route measured 2895 metres and at a brisk walk took 28 minutes to complete. I subsequently cycled this route in 10 minutes.
(http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/_/rsrc/1319961837584/bicycle/Route WHF Goldhanger - Copy.jpg?height=400&width=393)
I then measured the distance, using a pedometer, from Brook House Farm Track at its junction with Maldon Road to White House Farm via B1026 and B1023. This route measured 3290 metres and at a brisk walk took 30 minutes to complete. I subsequently cycled this route in 12 minutes.
I then measured the distance, with a pedometer, from White House Farm to Maldon Road via Brook House Farm track. This route measured 1629 metres and at a brisk walk took 17 minutes to complete. This track is well maintained, clearly defined, and easily negotiable by foot, cycle or motor vehicle. I subsequently cycled this route in 6 minutes.
There are footpaths marked on the Ordnance Survey map which seem to link White House Farm and Goldhanger in a direct manner via Joyces Farm and Lauriston Farm. However I have attempted to negotiate these footpaths but without success. The paths go directly across ploughed fields or
cultivated crops or peter out on the banks of small streams and irrigation canals.
In my opinion the shortest practicable route between White House Farm and Goldhanger without using main roads is via the sea wall. However, the shortest and quickest practicable route between White House Farm and Goldhanger by foot, cycle or motor vehicle is by using Brook House Farm track and the B1026. This route is 1661 metres less than going through Tolleshunt D'Arcy.”
-
So therefore he must have pedalled like a bat out of Hell on a woman's " sit-up" and beg bike fully clothed in his " 6 " jumpers ( which I read somewhere ),in less than half an hour at 2am after " murdering " his family at midnight ( as has also been said ).
If anyone believes this,they'll believe anything.
-
The text doesn't seem to make complete sense though, and the figures don't add up to what is shown on the map. :-\
-
Or is it just the 1661m less than going through Darc'y?
-
This is the original statement:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4983.0.html
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4983.0.html)
So the shortest route seems to take 16 minutes to cycle.
-
That's because" others " lack the cognitive wherewithall and understanding to act like human beings.!!
Or go through the motions of acting like they think the 'perfect' human being SHOULD act and has little to do with "understanding".
-
He did, you just chose not to read it.
Extracts from the police officer’s statement:
“With the aid of these maps I measured the distance, using a pedometer, from White House Farm to 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, via the farm track and sea wall. This route measured 6,978 metres and at a brisk walk took 70 minutes to complete. I subsequently cycled this route in 35 minutes.
I then measured the distance, using a pedometer, from 9 Head Street, Goldhanger to Brook House Farm track at its junction with Maldon Road via Church Street and the B1026. This route measured 2895 metres and at a brisk walk took 28 minutes to complete. I subsequently cycled this route in 10 minutes.
(http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/_/rsrc/1319961837584/bicycle/Route WHF Goldhanger - Copy.jpg?height=400&width=393)
I then measured the distance, using a pedometer, from Brook House Farm Track at its junction with Maldon Road to White House Farm via B1026 and B1023. This route measured 3290 metres and at a brisk walk took 30 minutes to complete. I subsequently cycled this route in 12 minutes.
I then measured the distance, with a pedometer, from White House Farm to Maldon Road via Brook House Farm track. This route measured 1629 metres and at a brisk walk took 17 minutes to complete. This track is well maintained, clearly defined, and easily negotiable by foot, cycle or motor vehicle. I subsequently cycled this route in 6 minutes.
There are footpaths marked on the Ordnance Survey map which seem to link White House Farm and Goldhanger in a direct manner via Joyces Farm and Lauriston Farm. However I have attempted to negotiate these footpaths but without success. The paths go directly across ploughed fields or
cultivated crops or peter out on the banks of small streams and irrigation canals.
In my opinion the shortest practicable route between White House Farm and Goldhanger without using main roads is via the sea wall. However, the shortest and quickest practicable route between White House Farm and Goldhanger by foot, cycle or motor vehicle is by using Brook House Farm track and the B1026. This route is 1661 metres less than going through Tolleshunt D'Arcy.”
Thanks. Not seen that before. That makes some sense. I estimated 1/3 of 120 minutes so that is 26 minutes.
-
Thanks. Not seen that before. That makes some sense. I estimated 1/3 of 120 minutes so that is 26 minutes.
It's a bit muddled by breaking down the different routes. I think I confused myself at first. :P
16 minutes is what he's saying is the shortest route though.
-
Do we have PC Brown's statement anywhere ?
-
It's a bit muddled by breaking down the different routes. I think I confused myself at first. :P
16 minutes is what he's saying is the shortest route though.
He certainly appears to have researched it fairly comprehensively.
-
Thanks. Not seen that before. That makes some sense. I estimated 1/3 of 120 minutes so that is 26 minutes.
There was discussion about 4 years ago on this. The same mistake occurred regarding the 6 minute time.
I was No-bits by the way.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4680.135.html
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4680.135.html)
-
Do we have PC Brown's statement anywhere ?
I thought it had been referenced in relation to the sighting of a rifle, but it isn't in the archives so I'm not sure if it is available. :-\
-
I thought it had been referenced in relation to the sighting of a rifle, but it isn't in the archives so I'm not sure if it is available. :-\
I've looked through the statements and logs in the archives but there's nothing there,and yes,he's the one with Jeapes who sighted the rifle as well as curtains opening and closing and lights going on and off.
-
I've looked through the statements and logs in the archives but there's nothing there,and yes,he's the one with Jeapes who sighted the rifle as well as curtains opening and closing and lights going on and off.
That is what has been claimed, but if we haven't seen the statement then how do we know it is being quoted accurately.
-
That is what has been claimed, but if we haven't seen the statement then how do we know it is being quoted accurately.
Exactly. That's why I asked if there was a statement. There must be one somewhere ?
-
That is what has been claimed, but if we haven't seen the statement then how do we know it is being quoted accurately.
This is from the Campaign Website:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1
(http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1)
Statement of PC Brown (after 7am)
He also details what he believed to be a gun in the window of the small room off the master bedroom, supporting the evidence of WPC Jeapes. How could sightings by two firearms officers, who were located separately and both watching the house using the telescopic sight of a firearm be mistaken about seeing the gun in the window?
-
I've looked through the statements and logs in the archives but there's nothing there,and yes,he's the one with Jeapes who sighted the rifle as well as curtains opening and closing and lights going on and off.
Jeapes doesn't say she saw curtains opening and closing or lights going on and off.
-
This must be what Roch was talking about - not exactly very compelling!
https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremy-bamber-s-legal-defence/u/20645797?j=92436&sfmc_sub=151895444&l=32_HTML&u=17241305&mid=7259882&jb=3&utm_medium=email&utm_source=92436&utm_campaign=petition_update&sfmc_tk=oqv5kBQKHkcVcy61WhACsAU8fbVS0vLZbD9Za11PPBlcLXFX%2f62XFGetfHtRaXjg
-
Jeapes doesn't say she saw curtains opening and closing or lights going on and off.
I didn't say she did. I was referring to the rifle in the window which they both saw.
-
This is from the Campaign Website:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1
(http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1)
Statement of PC Brown (after 7am)
He also details what he believed to be a gun in the window of the small room off the master bedroom, supporting the evidence of WPC Jeapes. How could sightings by two firearms officers, who were located separately and both watching the house using the telescopic sight of a firearm be mistaken about seeing the gun in the window?
There is no way that this holds water, Jeapes simply said she saw something that 'appeared' to be a rifle. Given that they were just told that fire arms were on the premises and that someone had gone berserk with a gun, they would be honed to look out for anything which might be a threat.
-
This is from the Campaign Website:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1
(http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1)
Statement of PC Brown (after 7am)
He also details what he believed to be a gun in the window of the small room off the master bedroom, supporting the evidence of WPC Jeapes. How could sightings by two firearms officers, who were located separately and both watching the house using the telescopic sight of a firearm be mistaken about seeing the gun in the window?
Thanks for that,it's much more understandable than most of the written logs. It'd take a year just deciphering those alone.
-
This must be what Roch was talking about - not exactly very compelling!
https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremy-bamber-s-legal-defence/u/20645797?j=92436&sfmc_sub=151895444&l=32_HTML&u=17241305&mid=7259882&jb=3&utm_medium=email&utm_source=92436&utm_campaign=petition_update&sfmc_tk=oqv5kBQKHkcVcy61WhACsAU8fbVS0vLZbD9Za11PPBlcLXFX%2f62XFGetfHtRaXjg
Hi Caroline, don't think that was what Roch was talking about.
Roch said he has personally seen what has convinced him that Sheila was involved and it is not in the public arena as a fact....
Don't believe the above is convincing as it cannot be proven one way or the other.
-
Hi Caroline, don't think that was what Roch was talking about.
Roch said he has personally seen what has convinced him that Sheila was involved and it is not in the public arena as a fact....
Don't believe the above is convincing as it cannot be proven one way or the other.
He said the information which confirmed to him that Sheila was the killer is in the public domain and indeed on this forum. He also said it had been argued on here between Hartley and Mike. See the various quotes below.
Not sure what you mean about Jeremy but yes, in a way you are right, with regard to me basing my conclusion on Sheila having what could be termed a 'psychotic episode'. This is simply because that is exactly what took place (whether it is termed a psychotic episode or termed 'daughter gone berserk'). Personally, it's a considerable relief to finally have confirmation that I have been on the right side all along (despite some wavering).
On what evidence are you basing your conclusion that you've been right all along?
It would be counter-productive to point to any aspects which are already in the public domain. I wouldn't expect any fellow members on here to change their opinion purely because of some vain declaration on my part. That's not how this forum works - I have no argument with that.
The police were fully aware of who had committed the massacre from day one. Any officers who looked closely at the crime scene would have recognised with immediate effect that Sheila was the killer.
This is probably the reason why Bob Miller later expressed 'disgust' at the relatives' insinuations. Why would Bob Miller inspect the scene, complete with two gunshot wounds to a 'suicide' victim, then come away convinced that Sheila was the killer? Was he also stubborn like Taff?
Clearly, the evidence that Sheila was the killer was present within the crime scene, where it was witnessed by many police officers.
Everything else is a red herring I'm afraid. Jeremy's hair dye, his trip to Amsterdam or St. Tropez or Burnham on Crouch. etc. Meaningless.
Where is it?
To some extent it is right in front of you (within this forum). I have suggested that I pack-in posting. However, I was pm'd by several members and asked not to pack-in. Believe me, it is as frustrating for me on here as it is for you. I am reading total bullshit on here about how it must be Jeremy - because of blah blah this or blah blah that.
What evidence are you referring to? Your post is very unspecific Roch.
Yes and I'm conscious that I'm going to piss people off - which is really not what I want. I'm pretty sure it's evidence that Mike and Hartley have argued hammer and tongs about quite some time ago.
-
Hi Caroline, don't think that was what Roch was talking about.
Roch said he has personally seen what has convinced him that Sheila was involved and it is not in the public arena as a fact....
Don't believe the above is convincing as it cannot be proven one way or the other.
Thats how I understood it Caroline, he also stated he would not be relaying this information to the legal team or AH
-
Thats how I understood it Caroline, he also stated he would not be relaying this information to the legal team or AH
Odd, isn't it, that these people have information which allegedly proves that Jeremy is innocent, but have not done anything about it!!!!!
-
Odd, isn't it, that these people have information which allegedly proves that Jeremy is innocent, but have not done anything about it!!!!!
So true Jane, all these police and supporters that have evidence, yet zilch to back it up.
-
There is evidence.We just haven't got to hear/see it yet.
-
I'm in no hurry.Are you ?
-
There is evidence.We just haven't got to hear/see it yet.
So you admit the evidence seen doesn't prove innocence?
-
So true Jane, all these police and supporters that have evidence, yet zilch to back it up.
Got anymore leads from your mysterious wedding tipster?
-
So you admit the evidence seen doesn't prove innocence?
I'm not admitting anything !
-
He said the information which confirmed to him that Sheila was the killer is in the public domain and indeed on this forum. He also said it had been argued on here between Hartley and Mike. See the various quotes below.
I know he did. I said I don't believe it is anything to do with the sighting of a rifle by Jeapes which was the post I was replying to. Maybe I misunderstood your original post.
I was reinforcing the fact that Roch had seen the evidence therefore his info isn't hearsay but fact. :-\
-
Got anymore leads from your mysterious wedding tipster?
Yes, don't get married
-
I'm in no hurry.Are you ?
I don't think the CCRC is either, they are reviewing 640 cases already and another 311 awaiting review.
-
Sorry this doesn’t relate to soil samples.
A one-off. Just to correct some incorrect remarks on this thread.
Maggie is right. The evidence I refer to was probably created before 06.09. Therefore of itself, it does not directly relate to the point raised by Caroline.
Listed below is what I tried to previously express (together with some additional opinion):
(1) Evidence has always existed which clearly implicates Sheila Caffell’s involvement in the killings.
It is evidence that the police have always held - from day one. According to the forum, we are now up to 11592 days since Jeremy Bamber was imprisoned. Please take a moment just to consider the enormity of these two things existing in tandem. This is one of the reasons why the case is ‘political’ and therefore obdurate. It would take a brave officer currently serving, to reverse EP’s policy on this. I would like to think that they do have officers of a high calibre, who would go against the grain.
(2) It is evidence that was collated on the morning of the killings.
Some of that evidence exists on the forum – but it has been ‘misread’ – partly as a consequence of deliberate misrepresentation. Broad terms I accept. However I have left a little clue here - with my use of inverted commas.
(3) The official position of the relatives, is based upon the case as presented under the stewardship of Mick Ainsley: which was concocted by a combination of excluding and misrepresenting the evidence I refer to.
(4) It is not inconceivable, that during the period of animosity between DCI Jones and the relatives (re Sheila being / not being the killer), the relatives were made aware of certain facts pertaining to this evidence – or at the very least – opinion was given to the relatives, based upon facts pertaining to this evidence. My reasoning for this is based upon the fact that we know conversations took place and that the evidence in question would not in itself have impacted upon the reputation of police (i.e. how they handled events that morning). In addition, we know the fact that the house had been found secured from the inside was discussed with relatives around this time. Again – not a factor in any way reflecting badly upon the performance of Police that morning.
(5) My interpretation of the relatives’ stance fitting in with the case under Ainsley, is that this was born out of relatives being prepped, in order to obtain the conviction in the first place – i.e. if pressed, relatives are forever boxed-in to regurgitating the case under Ainsley. Privately, I suspect they harbour opinions that don’t fit with the official case under Ainsley (in fact I know they do).
(6) If the relatives were faced with a situation where this evidence was revealed publically (calling in to question the safety of the conviction etc.), my guess is they would fall-back upon a particular line of defence. This would be to claim they were not made privy to this specific evidence at the outset – thereby laying the blame for wrongful conviction solely at the feet of Essex Constabulary. I would hate for the relatives to be able to do that – they were THE driving force in the wrongful conviction.
(7) My opinion - the most likely dynamic here is that there were some police who were open to being ‘got at’ in some way or form. In particular, I strongly suspect that Mick Ainsley was susceptible to cooperating with the will of Robert Boutflour. It should be noted that after the first appeal and first review, Mick Ainsley retired from Essex Constabulary with his pension etc. Perhaps he felt the coast was clear? At some point he later became linked to operations at Osea Rd.
(8) With regard to me passing / not passing evidence on to somebody else (whoever that may be). Completely irrelevant. In the first instance, the defence already know about this evidence. Secondly, the police have had it for more than 11592 days.
(9) With regard to me posting-up evidence on this forum to satisfy the capricious demands of others – including those who labelled me and Bill as ‘dishonest’ etc. No thanks. Reading the repeated scoffing remarks like ‘unsubstantiated and conspiracy’. It’s like hearing Theresa May drone on about ‘strong and stable’. Again – no thanks.
(10) I also saw that HG questioned why I took the approach that I did. The answer is that I was simply being honest and constrained at the same time.
-
Sorry this doesn’t relate to soil samples.
A one-off. Just to correct some incorrect remarks on this thread.
Maggie is right. The evidence I refer to was probably created before 06.09. Therefore of itself, it does not directly relate to the point raised by Caroline.
Listed below is what I tried to previously express (together with some additional opinion):
(1) Evidence has always existed which clearly implicates Sheila Caffell’s involvement in the killings.
It is evidence that the police have always held - from day one. According to the forum, we are now up to 11592 days since Jeremy Bamber was imprisoned. Please take a moment just to consider the enormity of these two things existing in tandem. This is one of the reasons why the case is ‘political’ and therefore obdurate. It would take a brave officer currently serving, to reverse EP’s policy on this. I would like to think that they do have officers of a high calibre, who would go against the grain.
(2) It is evidence that was collated on the morning of the killings.
Some of that evidence exists on the forum – but it has been ‘misread’ – partly as a consequence of deliberate misrepresentation. Broad terms I accept. However I have left a little clue here - with my use of inverted commas.
(3) The official position of the relatives, is based upon the case as presented under the stewardship of Mick Ainsley: which was concocted by a combination of excluding and misrepresenting the evidence I refer to.
(4) It is not inconceivable, that during the period of animosity between DCI Jones and the relatives (re Sheila being / not being the killer), the relatives were made aware of certain facts pertaining to this evidence – or at the very least – opinion was given to the relatives, based upon facts pertaining to this evidence. My reasoning for this is based upon the fact that we know conversations took place and that the evidence in question would not in itself have impacted upon the reputation of police (i.e. how they handled events that morning). In addition, we know the fact that the house had been found secured from the inside was discussed with relatives around this time. Again – not a factor in any way reflecting badly upon the performance of Police that morning.
(5) My interpretation of the relatives’ stance fitting in with the case under Ainsley, is that this was born out of relatives being prepped, in order to obtain the conviction in the first place – i.e. if pressed, relatives are forever boxed-in to regurgitating the case under Ainsley. Privately, I suspect they harbour opinions that don’t fit with the official case under Ainsley (in fact I know they do).
(6) If the relatives were faced with a situation where this evidence was revealed publically (calling in to question the safety of the conviction etc.), my guess is they would fall-back upon a particular line of defence. This would be to claim they were not made privy to this specific evidence at the outset – thereby laying the blame for wrongful conviction solely at the feet of Essex Constabulary. I would hate for the relatives to be able to do that – they were THE driving force in the wrongful conviction.
(7) My opinion - the most likely dynamic here is that there were some police who were open to being ‘got at’ in some way or form. In particular, I strongly suspect that Mick Ainsley was susceptible to cooperating with the will of Robert Boutflour. It should be noted that after the first appeal and first review, Mick Ainsley retired from Essex Constabulary with his pension etc. Perhaps he felt the coast was clear? At some point he later became linked to operations at Osea Rd.
(8) With regard to me passing / not passing evidence on to somebody else (whoever that may be). Completely irrelevant. In the first instance, the defence already know about this evidence. Secondly, the police have had it for more than 11592 days.
(9) With regard to me posting-up evidence on this forum to satisfy the capricious demands of others – including those who labelled me and Bill as ‘dishonest’ etc. No thanks. Reading the repeated scoffing remarks like ‘unsubstantiated and conspiracy’. It’s like hearing Theresa May drone on about ‘strong and stable’. Again – no thanks.
(10) I also saw that HG questioned why I took the approach that I did. The answer is that I was simply being honest and constrained at the same time.
A very good post Roch and well explained.
-
A very good post Roch and well explained.
Yes I thought that, the evidence is there but it's just been misread?
-
Sorry this doesn’t relate to soil samples.
A one-off. Just to correct some incorrect remarks on this thread.
Maggie is right. The evidence I refer to was probably created before 06.09. Therefore of itself, it does not directly relate to the point raised by Caroline.
Listed below is what I tried to previously express (together with some additional opinion):
(1) Evidence has always existed which clearly implicates Sheila Caffell’s involvement in the killings.
It is evidence that the police have always held - from day one. According to the forum, we are now up to 11592 days since Jeremy Bamber was imprisoned. Please take a moment just to consider the enormity of these two things existing in tandem. This is one of the reasons why the case is ‘political’ and therefore obdurate. It would take a brave officer currently serving, to reverse EP’s policy on this. I would like to think that they do have officers of a high calibre, who would go against the grain.
(2) It is evidence that was collated on the morning of the killings.
Some of that evidence exists on the forum – but it has been ‘misread’ – partly as a consequence of deliberate misrepresentation. Broad terms I accept. However I have left a little clue here - with my use of inverted commas.
(3) The official position of the relatives, is based upon the case as presented under the stewardship of Mick Ainsley: which was concocted by a combination of excluding and misrepresenting the evidence I refer to.
(4) It is not inconceivable, that during the period of animosity between DCI Jones and the relatives (re Sheila being / not being the killer), the relatives were made aware of certain facts pertaining to this evidence – or at the very least – opinion was given to the relatives, based upon facts pertaining to this evidence. My reasoning for this is based upon the fact that we know conversations took place and that the evidence in question would not in itself have impacted upon the reputation of police (i.e. how they handled events that morning). In addition, we know the fact that the house had been found secured from the inside was discussed with relatives around this time. Again – not a factor in any way reflecting badly upon the performance of Police that morning.
(5) My interpretation of the relatives’ stance fitting in with the case under Ainsley, is that this was born out of relatives being prepped, in order to obtain the conviction in the first place – i.e. if pressed, relatives are forever boxed-in to regurgitating the case under Ainsley. Privately, I suspect they harbour opinions that don’t fit with the official case under Ainsley (in fact I know they do).
(6) If the relatives were faced with a situation where this evidence was revealed publically (calling in to question the safety of the conviction etc.), my guess is they would fall-back upon a particular line of defence. This would be to claim they were not made privy to this specific evidence at the outset – thereby laying the blame for wrongful conviction solely at the feet of Essex Constabulary. I would hate for the relatives to be able to do that – they were THE driving force in the wrongful conviction.
(7) My opinion - the most likely dynamic here is that there were some police who were open to being ‘got at’ in some way or form. In particular, I strongly suspect that Mick Ainsley was susceptible to cooperating with the will of Robert Boutflour. It should be noted that after the first appeal and first review, Mick Ainsley retired from Essex Constabulary with his pension etc. Perhaps he felt the coast was clear? At some point he later became linked to operations at Osea Rd.
(8) With regard to me passing / not passing evidence on to somebody else (whoever that may be). Completely irrelevant. In the first instance, the defence already know about this evidence. Secondly, the police have had it for more than 11592 days.
(9) With regard to me posting-up evidence on this forum to satisfy the capricious demands of others – including those who labelled me and Bill as ‘dishonest’ etc. No thanks. Reading the repeated scoffing remarks like ‘unsubstantiated and conspiracy’. It’s like hearing Theresa May drone on about ‘strong and stable’. Again – no thanks.
(10) I also saw that HG questioned why I took the approach that I did. The answer is that I was simply being honest and constrained at the same time.
You're saying the evidence has been 'misread' but if that's the case, it must mean it can be taken two ways - so maybe you have misread it. This is the case with a lot of things that have been claimed to show innocence, they can taken two ways. You say the point I raised doesn't 'directly' relate to the evidence that you (won't) refer to so it MUST indirectly relate to it.
-
Yes I thought that, the evidence is there but it's just been misread?
It takes someone with brains and know-how you see justice. ;D Well done on his part. Really speaking,there's no more need for a debate after that,it's self-explanatory.
-
It takes someone with brains and know-how you see justice. ;D Well done on his part. Really speaking,there's no more need for a debate after that,it's self-explanatory.
Whoops I've just misread your post Lookout, I thought you was talking about me then, brains and know-how?
-
Whoops I've just misread your post Lookout, I thought you was talking about me then, brains and know-how?
Aw,yes,you as well.x
-
You're saying the evidence has been 'misread' but if that's the case, it must mean it can be taken two ways - so maybe you have misread it. This is the case with a lot of things that have been claimed to show innocence, they can taken two ways. You say the point I raised doesn't 'directly' relate to the evidence that you (won't) refer to so it MUST indirectly relate to it.
I should have added a point (11). This conversation has happened before.
The evidence in its originally witnessed and recorded form, could not have been read two-ways (so to speak). In order to create a second interpretation of the evidence, it was necessary to part conceal it / part misrepresent it.
What they did was tactically desperate and brazened. The fact they pulled it off is horrifying.
I've gone over my one post - so I'll leave it there.
-
Aw,yes,you as well.x
Thanks Lookout x
-
Roch
An excellent honest post from you my friend. Well done.
-
I should have added a point (11). This conversation has happened before.
The evidence in its originally witnessed and recorded form, could not have been read two-ways (so to speak). In order to create a second interpretation of the evidence, it was necessary to part conceal it / part misrepresent it.
What they did was tactically desperate and brazened. The fact they pulled it off is horrifying.
I've gone over my one post - so I'll leave it there.
And yet you say it has been 'misread' - I'm sure you believe that Roch, I certainly don't.
-
A very good post Roch and well explained.
Thank you Roch, let's hope that everyone involved in probably the worst miscarriage of justice in British history spends a very long time in prison and are made an example of.
-
I should have added a point (11). This conversation has happened before.
The evidence in its originally witnessed and recorded form, could not have been read two-ways (so to speak). In order to create a second interpretation of the evidence, it was necessary to part conceal it / part misrepresent it.
What they did was tactically desperate and brazened. The fact they pulled it off is horrifying.
I've gone over my one post - so I'll leave it there.
Horrifying yes I bet it is when they read your posts. I doubt they have a concience though
-
Horrifying enough to still keep it all a secret? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever for people who believe this 'conspiracy' to continue to do exactly what they claim EP have done.
-
Horrifying enough to still keep it all a secret? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever for people who believe this 'conspiracy' to continue to do exactly what they claim EP have done.
Absolutely Caroline! We've got all these people claiming to have all this information. We've got others claiming they've spent more time on the telephone with Jeremy than anyone one else, and clearly hoping that it will be included in the documentary they claim is in the pipe line, and yet more are claiming an "in" with the official "those" in the know. It seems to me that all these people are vying with each other to see who knows the most, and all the while Jeremy molders in his cell.
-
Absolutely Caroline! We've got all these people claiming to have all this information. We've got others claiming they've spent more time on the telephone with Jeremy than anyone one else, and clearly hoping that it will be included in the documentary they claim is in the pipe line, and yet more are claiming an "in" with the official "those" in the know. It seems to me that all these people are vying with each other to see who knows the most, and all the while Jeremy molders in his cell.
Well, I can prove Jeremy is guilty - of course I can't tell anyone why - it's a secret ::)
-
Well, I can prove Jeremy is guilty - of course I can't tell anyone why - it's a secret ::)
Ha Ha, it's a bit like Sheila on the bed photo and Z, I suppose it pulls the gullible in.
-
Well, I can prove Jeremy is guilty - of course I can't tell anyone why - it's a secret ::)
Okay. Fine by me.
-
Absolutely Caroline! We've got all these people claiming to have all this information. We've got others claiming they've spent more time on the telephone with Jeremy than anyone one else, and clearly hoping that it will be included in the documentary they claim is in the pipe line, and yet more are claiming an "in" with the official "those" in the know. It seems to me that all these people are vying with each other to see who knows the most, and all the while Jeremy molders in his cell.
Eventually Jane its this sort of claiming that has a reverse effect on supporting Bamber, offering without substance.
-
Well, I can prove Jeremy is guilty - of course I can't tell anyone why - it's a secret ::)
Presumably your inverted hyphens are a clue? :-\
-
Absolutely Caroline! We've got all these people claiming to have all this information. We've got others claiming they've spent more time on the telephone with Jeremy than anyone one else, and clearly hoping that it will be included in the documentary they claim is in the pipe line, and yet more are claiming an "in" with the official "those" in the know. It seems to me that all these people are vying with each other to see who knows the most, and all the while Jeremy molders in his cell.
Who has claimed they have information? Not me.
-
Presumably your inverted hyphens are a clue? :-\
I was joking H - or was I? 8) ;) :-\
-
Who has claimed they have information? Not me.
Well, everyone is under that impression so they must have gotten it from somewhere?
-
Ha Ha, it's a bit like Sheila on the bed photo and Z, I suppose it pulls the gullible in.
Don't forget the wedding tipster ;)
-
Don't forget the wedding tipster ;)
How could he when you keep goading him with it time after time - while misrepresenting what he actually said.
-
How could he when you keep goading him with it time after time - while misrepresenting what he actually said.
What goes around comes around.
As for misrepresenting, its claimed this individual who has not been named gave him information. So how else can I put it?
-
What goes around comes around.
As for misrepresenting, its claimed this individual who has not been named gave him information. So how else can I put it?
You would do well to remember your own words.
Justice is well within his rights not to name people who are not on this forum, it doesn't make what he has said any less relevant.
-
You would do well to remember your own words.
Justice is well within his rights not to name people who are not on this forum, it doesn't make what he has said any less relevant.
It makes it as credible as informant Z.
-
It makes it as credible as informant Z.
You can goad all you like David, your the very last person I would share names with, you have a habit of grassing them up.
The one thing I did say was this,
Great post Caroline, I was told personal information about Bamber from a psychiatrist I won't reveal it because I cannot then back it up unless I get this person on here which I doubt very much.
This was from a post to Caroline back in August on the forum
-
It makes it as credible as informant Z.
You mean like an attempt to draw in the gullible?
-
You mean like an attempt to draw in the gullible?
Ha Ha the "converted" Roch, in inverted comas by the way.
-
Ha Ha the "converted" Roch, in inverted comas by the way.
If people don't want to consider a clue then it's a free world. If you check my posting history for the entire time I have been on the forum, there's a heavy bias towards probable innocence. In terms of leading on the gullible - why is it one rule for you and a different rule for others?
-
If people don't want to consider a clue then it's a free world. If you check my posting history for the entire time I have been on the forum, there's a heavy bias towards probable innocence. In terms of leading on the gullible - why is it one rule for you and a different rule for others?
I think in general terms Roch, my evidence which I also shared with you wasn't designed to convert anyone, I was honest when I said I couldn't prove it, like Caroline we both shared evidence, ok it puts you up for ridicule but hey it's not the end of the world. My argument is, saying they have evidence and not putting it up for scrutiny. Roch I trust you and would gladly share their names and everything about them, but it's a bit different sharing names on an open forum when I don't have their permission. I'm not asking anyone to believe me, I don't think anyone who believes Bamber innocent would believe it if he said himself he'd done it.
-
You can goad all you like David, your the very last person I would share names with, you have a habit of grassing them up.
The one thing I did say was this,
Great post Caroline, I was told personal information about Bamber from a psychiatrist I won't reveal it because I cannot then back it up unless I get this person on here which I doubt very much.
This was from a post to Caroline back in August on the forum
Justice, your ethics are commendable. It would be entirely inappropriate to mention, on forum, the name of a professional person who's had contact with Jeremy.
-
Justice, your ethics are commendable. It would be entirely inappropriate to mention, on forum, the name of a professional person who's had contact with Jeremy.
Thanks Jane, she knows I use the forum and she never told me I couldn't, it's my decision not to name them.
-
You can goad all you like David, your the very last person I would share names with, you have a habit of grassing them up.
The one thing I did say was this,
Great post Caroline, I was told personal information about Bamber from a psychiatrist I won't reveal it because I cannot then back it up unless I get this person on here which I doubt very much.
This was from a post to Caroline back in August on the forum
With respect Justice, I do find the fact that a professional person spoke to anyone other than a professional colleague about a patient in the prison service or in a hospital setting surprising.
This is not a reflection on you but all medical professionals like any other person in a position of trust should never do such a thing as far as I am aware.
As a Student Nurse we, like all practitioners ers, signed an oath that we would not repeat anything concerning patients except in a professional capacity.
-
With respect Justice, I do find the fact that a professional person spoke to anyone other than a professional colleague about a patient in the prison service or in a hospital setting. This is not a reflection on you but all medical professionals like any other person in a position of trust should never do such a thing as far as I am aware.
As a Student Nurse we all signed an oath that we would not repeat anything concerning patients except in a professional capacity.
I think because a lot was passed through family Maggie it probably made it a bit different, she never said anything personal other than what she had formed of him and what she thought of him, the fact they are both retired now, maybe this is why I never shared their names. Yours and Roch thoughts could have been shared with me when I told you about this person in a pm. How many people in this day and age kiss and tell in books, at least she hasn't made her observations public.
-
I think because a lot was passed through family Maggie it probably made it a bit different, she never said anything personal other than what she had formed of him and what she thought of him, the fact they are both retired now, maybe this is why I never shared their names. Yours and Roch thoughts could have been shared with me when I told you about this person in a pm. How many people in this day and age kiss and tell in books, at least she hasn't made her observations public.
I think there is a difference between a kiss and tell book and discussing a patient.
I don't believe I would be happy if my doctor or specialist discussed anything about me with anyone unless it was professionally necessary and they had my consent.
JB may be a convicted prisoner but he still has the right of privacy. :-\
-
I think in general terms Roch, my evidence which I also shared with you wasn't designed to convert anyone, I was honest when I said I couldn't prove it, like Caroline we both shared evidence, ok it puts you up for ridicule but hey it's not the end of the world. My argument is, saying they have evidence and not putting it up for scrutiny. Roch I trust you and would gladly share their names and everything about them, but it's a bit different sharing names on an open forum when I don't have their permission. I'm not asking anyone to believe me, I don't think anyone who believes Bamber innocent would believe it if he said himself he'd done it.
As I recall, you were referring to first hand opinion, regarding the state of his mental health / persona etc. In that sense, all you were doing was passing on an opinion about something not tangible. I'm not suggesting their opinion is worthless. Not at all. But my situation was different in that I was referring to actual evidence that had not yet been officially used - in other words my hands were tied. I can understand the scepticism in those circs. - but I think it was wrong to label forum members as dishonest / deceitful etc. In other words, it was to some extent easier for you to show your hand than it is for me to show mine.
-
I think there is a difference between a kiss and tell book and discussing a patient.
I don't believe I would be happy if my doctor or specialist discussed anything about me with anyone unless it was professionally necessary and they had my consent.
JB may be a convicted prisoner but he still has the right of privacy. :-\
Maggie your comments are very true and I had never looked at it like that before JB maybe a convicted prisoner but he has the right to privacy and findings about him should not be discussed with anyone without his permission.
-
As I recall, you were referring to first hand opinion, regarding the state of his mental health / persona etc. In that sense, all you were doing was passing on an opinion about something not tangible. I'm not suggesting their opinion is worthless. Not at all. But my situation was different in that I was referring to actual evidence that had not yet been officially used - in other words my hands were tied. I can understand the scepticism in those circs. - but I think it was wrong to label forum members as dishonest / deceitful etc. In other words, it was to some extent easier for you to show your hand than it is for me to show mine.
Roch
very well said I for one understand the position you are in and I think it is so unfair for posters to turn the situation into a joke like has been happening.
-
I think there is a difference between a kiss and tell book and discussing a patient.
I don't believe I would be happy if my doctor or specialist discussed anything about me with anyone unless it was professionally necessary and they had my consent.
JB may be a convicted prisoner but he still has the right of privacy. :-\
Ha Ha, like that, privacy, a man who has had numerous books written about him, been in the news for 30 odd years, his innocent family been ridiculed and accusd on here, professionals giving their opinion, psychiatrists, police, Barristers,solicitors, and your worried what a Shrink said to me, don't make me laugh.
-
Ha Ha, like that, privacy, a man who has had numerous books written about him, been in the news for 30 odd years, his innocent family been ridiculed and accusd on here, professionals giving their opinion, psychiatrists, police, Barristers,solicitors, and your worried what a Shrink said to me, don't make me laugh.
I'm not trying to make you laugh justice, I am just giving my opinion from a neutral position. I'm not trying to pointscore, can't see the reason for that but I do think anyone who treated Jeremy Bamber or anyone else in prison or anywhere else in the capacity of a psychiatrist should not be discussing him with anyone. I know we have heard statements during trial from various medical staff, also we've had the odd psychologist giving their opinion on him from distant observed behaviour, which I find a bit close to the line anyway but I don't recall anyone who has treated him in a personal capacity as a patient speaking out about him or discussing his behaviour, mindset etc.
No offence it's just an observation and I may be wrong, if I am I apologise to them.
-
I'm not trying to make you laugh justice, I am just giving my opinion from a neutral position. I'm not trying to pointscore, can't see the reason for but I do think anyone who treated Jeremy Bamber in prison in the capacity of a psychiatrist should not be discussing him with anyone. I know we have heard statements during trial from various medicall staff, also we've had the odd psychologist giving their opinion on him from distant observed behaviour, which I find a bit close to the line anyway but I don't recall anyone who has treated him in a personal capacity as a patient speaking out about him or discussing his behaviour, mindset etc.
No offence it's just an observation and I may be wrong n g, if I am I apologise to them.
Actually, I'm inclined to think that Jeremy probably couldn't care less about who says what -it's all been said before and we're just getting repeats of repeats- after all ANY publicity is better than NO publicity. ANY publicity keeps him in the public eye.
-
Actually, I'm inclined to think that Jeremy probably couldn't care less about who says what -it's all been said before and we're just getting repeats of repeats- after all ANY publicity is better than NO publicity. ANY publicity keeps him in the public eye.
That is quite likely Jane but that's not really my point, I'm not particularly trying to protect JB, I am rather giving an opinion on the behaviour of professionals, imo it's not acceptable to break what is a confidence.
-
That is quite likely Jane but that's not really my point, I'm not particularly trying to protect JB, I am rather giving an opinion on the behaviour of professionals, imo it's not acceptable to break what is a confidence.
I take your point, Maggie, but it's not as if this person has been the first one to offer an opinion on him. I also feel if Jeremy has nothing to hide, there's no reason for not allowing access to his medical file, especially as he's demanding to see Sheila's AND those allegedly held by the police. Let's have ALL cards on the table, shall we? It could be a case of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours".
-
That is quite likely Jane but that's not really my point, I'm not particularly trying to protect JB, I am rather giving an opinion on the behaviour of professionals, imo it's not acceptable to break what is a confidence.
Maggie I understand where you are coming from you are not trying to protect JB but I still say he is entitled to privacy and if he gives permission for a confidence to be broken that is OK it is the profession your post is aimed at.
-
Actually, I'm inclined to think that Jeremy probably couldn't care less about who says what -it's all been said before and we're just getting repeats of repeats- after all ANY publicity is better than NO publicity. ANY publicity keeps him in the public eye.
I think because it's about Jeremy people don't like it, you only have to look online what psychiatrists write about murderers they have worked with. Who cares what anyone says about a murderer anyway, he put himself in this position without thought for anyone else. Hypercritical really, they spend half their life on here for gossip and would love to know what he says and does, what's in his mind, who's writing a book, who's doing the next documentary, delve into Sheila's past, mind, medicine, drugs, what the psychiatrist said about her etc and all they are bothered about is Bamber's privacy, yet no privacy for the poor family or the deceased.
As I said, it's because it's about Bamber that it upsets them.
-
I think because it's about Jeremy people don't like it, you only have to look online what psychiatrists write about murderers they have worked with. Who cares what anyone says about a murderer anyway, he put himself in this position without thought for anyone else. Hypercritical really, they spend half their life on here for gossip and would love to know what he says and does, what's in his mind, who's writing a book, who's doing the next documentary, delve into Sheila's past, mind, medicine, drugs, what the psychiatrist said about her etc and all they are bothered about is Bamber's privacy, yet no privacy for the poor family or the deceased.
As I said, it's because it's about Bamber that it upsets them.
I have said I'm not protecting JB, don't know if the above post is aimed at me. Even as a mod I have a very busy life away from the forum, I don't gossip or have any interest in his private life, I was merely voicing my concern about professional behaviour. If posters consider I am wrong, that's fine, I'm not offended by that its all a matter of opinion really.
-
Speaking of psychiatrists,did anyone read about one of the top criminal psychiatrist's being hoodwinked ? It was in last weeks Daily Mail ?
-
I think because it's about Jeremy people don't like it, you only have to look online what psychiatrists write about murderers they have worked with. Who cares what anyone says about a murderer anyway, he put himself in this position without thought for anyone else. Hypercritical really, they spend half their life on here for gossip and would love to know what he says and does, what's in his mind, who's writing a book, who's doing the next documentary, delve into Sheila's past, mind, medicine, drugs, what the psychiatrist said about her etc and all they are bothered about is Bamber's privacy, yet no privacy for the poor family or the deceased.
As I said, it's because it's about Bamber that it upsets them.
Yes, Justice. Why should Jeremy, as a convicted murderer, be any more entitled to more privacy than any other convicted murderer whose psychological background is up for grabs? No one seems to give a toss about "all" those police personnel and A.N.Others who allegedly give information freely -allegedly highlighting his innocence- about what allegedly transpired at WHF. Why is it different when the boot is on the other foot?
-
It makes it as credible as informant Z.
I know for a fact he's telling the truth so nothing like the Z informant.
-
If people don't want to consider a clue then it's a free world. If you check my posting history for the entire time I have been on the forum, there's a heavy bias towards probable innocence. In terms of leading on the gullible - why is it one rule for you and a different rule for others?
There is a difference with what Justice has claimed, he has told the forum what the psychiatrist said, he simply isn't revealing there name. You claim you were told/shown evidence of Sheila's guilt but won't reveal what that evidence is; no one is asking you who told/showed it to you.
-
Yes, Justice. Why should Jeremy, as a convicted murderer, be any more entitled to more privacy than any other convicted murderer whose psychological background is up for grabs? No one seems to give a toss about "all" those police personnel and A.N.Others who allegedly give information freely -allegedly highlighting his innocence- about what allegedly transpired at WHF. Why is it different when the boot is on the other foot?
I think it's unfair to make out I was doing any such thing. I still think that ethically a murderer has the right of privacy from those medical staff who treat them the same as any other person. Imo it's about a decent society which treats all human beings equally and if I have a right to medical privacy, so should everyone else. Just because some do not behave in a civilised way doesn't mean that we should stoop to their level.
-
Yes, Justice. Why should Jeremy, as a convicted murderer, be any more entitled to more privacy than any other convicted murderer whose psychological background is up for grabs? No one seems to give a toss about "all" those police personnel and A.N.Others who allegedly give information freely -allegedly highlighting his innocence- about what allegedly transpired at WHF. Why is it different when the boot is on the other foot?
Unbelievable, what I've seen written on here Jane about Sheila, the family and the police, all innocent people. I could understand it if she delved into his personal prison life, his behaviour in prison how he spends his day, she never delved about his psychology in anyway or any communication with him, as I have said, it was talked about within the family, not shouted from the roof or on a forum, it's ME that's brought it to the forum, maybe I'm the one who has broken privacy, but guess what I'm not bothered one bit. Yet Bamber sanctions books, blogs and letters and can say what he wants about others and puts himself on a pedestal, but at the same time we have to respect his privacy.
-
A " passing through " psychiatrist can't evaluate any condition unless a person is in their particular care and has read medical records/prison records,etc. In other words,unless the psychiatrist that knows justice saw JB in a professional capacity,the definite answer to what he/she thinks isn't one which has required a full examination. This procedure is for forensic/criminal psychiatrists.
-
I think it's unfair to make out I was doing any such thing. I still think that ethically a murderer has the right of privacy from those medical staff who treat them the same as any other person. Imo it's about a decent society which treats all human beings equally and if I have a right to medical privacy, so should everyone else. Just because some do not behave in a civilised way doesn't mean that we should stoop to their level.
I see what you're saying Maggie but thinking about how many inmates have had their psychology discussed in the press and on TV and no one makes comment. Levi Bellfield, Hindley and Bradey Peter Sutcliffe etc. have all had their psychological assessments made public - I guess because it is in the public interest to know how dangerous these people are.
-
A " passing through " psychiatrist can't evaluate any condition unless a person is in their particular care and has read medical records/prison records,etc. In other words,unless the psychiatrist that knows justice saw JB in a professional capacity,the definite answer to what he/she thinks isn't one which has required a full examination. This procedure is for forensic/criminal psychiatrists.
They can certainly form an opinion, one which is more informed than most on here.
-
Has there ever been such reports after assessment of JB ?
-
Has there ever been such reports after assessment of JB ?
The assessments he gets are nothing to to with whether he's a psychopath or not.
-
Has there ever been such reports after assessment of JB ?
I think she was based at Full Sutton and her partner was as well, he wasn't a psychiatrist or a prison guard though Lookout.
-
The assessments he gets are nothing to to with whether he's a psychopath or not.
I didn't mention psychopathy,as they don't have to be psychopaths. I'm talking about assessments and evaluations given by forensic/criminal psychologists.
-
I think she was based at Full Sutton and her partner was as well, he wasn't a psychiatrist or a prison guard though Lookout.
Did she personally evaluate JB,justice ?
-
I think it's unfair to make out I was doing any such thing. I still think that ethically a murderer has the right of privacy from those medical staff who treat them the same as any other person. Imo it's about a decent society which treats all human beings equally and if I have a right to medical privacy, so should everyone else. Just because some do not behave in a civilised way doesn't mean that we should stoop to their level.
Maggie, I wasn't aiming my post at you, personally, any more than you were aiming your post at me, personally. We were just, as far as I'm concerned, airing our thoughts which just happen to be different. I'm not certain that anyone convicted of anything is entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. I can't help but feel that it MAY be our willingness to be tolerant which has left us at the mercy of terrorists who see it as weakness.
-
I didn't mention psychopathy,as they don't have to be psychopaths. I'm talking about assessments and evaluations given by forensic/criminal psychologists.
Then you need to explain what you mean by 'such reports'?
-
I know for a fact he's telling the truth so nothing like the Z informant.
In truth Caroline, I wasn't searching for it, it came to me. Seems strange that now posters have changed their mind about Bamber she has become so unprofessional.
-
Has there ever been such reports after assessment of JB ?
Why must there be a report on someone's opinion? I understand that NONE of Jeremy's medical/psych records have been released.
-
Why must there be a report on someone's opinion? I understand that NONE of Jeremy's medical/psych records have been released.
It's just been pointed out that those killers/lifers behind bars are noted to be dangerous to the public ? Where's JB's name ?
-
In truth Caroline, I wasn't searching for it, it came to me. Seems strange that now posters have changed their mind about Bamber she has become so unprofessional.
I guess even psychiatrists are entitled to a personal opinion about someone.
-
Did she personally evaluate JB,justice ?
Like I said Lookout, she never delved into his mind, if he was a psychopath or what he gets up to, she is very professional and very highly regarded Lookout, as I've said before she has worked with a lot of high profile criminals, but my meeting with them was limited to my daughter's wedding, she only passed info onto me because she was told of my interest in Bamber and possibly the area I worked. I will never see them again to ask anymore questions I'm afraid, I would like to see her but my questions wouldn't be about Bamber it would be about someone else.
-
Maggie, I wasn't aiming my post at you, personally, any more than you were aiming your post at me, personally. We were just, as far as I'm concerned, airing our thoughts which just happen to be different. I'm not certain that anyone convicted of anything is entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. I can't help but feel that it MAY be our willingness to be tolerant which has left us at the mercy of terrorists who see it as weakness.
No probs Jane. We will have to agree to differ. :)
-
It's just been pointed out that those killers/lifers behind bars are noted to be dangerous to the public ? Where's JB's name ?
?
-
I know for a fact he's telling the truth so nothing like the Z informant.
And how have you verified this to be a fact?
-
It's just been pointed out that those killers/lifers behind bars are noted to be dangerous to the public ? Where's JB's name ?
Wasn't it the presiding judge, at Jeremy's trial, who tole him, when handing down a MINIMUM sentence of 25 years, that it remained to be seen whether he would ever be considered safe to be set free?
-
And how have you verified this to be a fact?
Because given that Justice trusts me, he gave me more information and I have been bale to check certain details. I'm sure you know he is telling the truth ::)
-
Because given that Justice trusts me, he gave me more information and I have been bale to check certain details. I'm sure you know he is telling the truth ::)
It has never occurred to me that he wasn't telling the truth.
-
Wasn't it the presiding judge, at Jeremy's trial, who tole him, when handing down a MINIMUM sentence of 25 years, that it remained to be seen whether he would ever be considered safe to be set free?
The judge may have said it but because of the publicity over the years about Sutcliffe,Brady,West,et al,why has there never been the same which includes JB too ?
-
It has never occurred to me that he wasn't telling the truth.
Exactly - he has no reason to lie.
-
The judge may have said it but because of the publicity over the years about Sutcliffe,Brady,West,et al,why has there never been the same which includes JB too ?
He's on this list right next to those very people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_orders
-
Because given that Justice trusts me, he gave me more information and I have been bale to check certain details. I'm sure you know he is telling the truth ::)
and those details are?
-
He's on this list right next to those very people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_orders
I've read all that yonks ago. I'm talking about the media in general-------or is it only those who put JB where he is that are saying that " they all fear for their lives ?"
-
I've read all that yonks ago. I'm talking about the media in general-------or is it only those who put JB where he is that are saying that " they all fear for their lives ?"
There are MANY documentaries about Jeremy Bamber or will you move the goal post a little further until they are so far apart that Bamber gets lost in the space?
-
I was going to reply to a post from Caroline on this thread but it appears that my original post and her reply have been removed. There must have been some recent moderation on this thread.
-
The police believe he cycled to WHF. On the bike he brought over to his cottage just before the massacre.
How did he get to & from WHF ?
No proof whatsoever that happened. Pure speculation.
-
No proof whatsoever that happened. Pure speculation.
The proof is he brought June's bike over to his cottage just before the massacre. And that there were easy cycle routes which passed no dwellings. And Julie said he planned to cycle.
-
The proof is he brought June's bike over to his cottage just before the massacre. And that there were easy cycle routes which passed no dwellings. And Julie said he planned to cycle.
Yes and Julie herself in her own statement explained why the bike was there . And I personally do not believe her statements . I think she was manipulated by the police to help build their non existent case. Imo of course 😊
-
Yes and Julie herself in her own statement explained why the bike was there . And I personally do not believe her statements . I think she was manipulated by the police to help build their non existent case. Imo of course 😊
Were Liz Rimmington and Malcolm Waters manipulated too? Why would they back up Julie?
-
Were Liz Rimmington and Malcolm Waters manipulated too? Why would they back up Julie?
Their evidence was no where near as incriminating but I would not make assumptions. Of course there are still questions otherwise we would not be here but we know from other high profile cases that the police could be very underhand in order to get a conviction.
-
Their evidence was no where near as incriminating but I would not make assumptions. Of course there are still questions otherwise we would not be here but we know from other high profile cases that the police could be very underhand in order to get a conviction.
Julie told others before telling the police and those people advised to to come clean. They had no reason to lie and the police had no reason to drag them into it - just like the notion of a hitman. No reason.
-
Julie told others before telling the police and those people advised to to come clean. They had no reason to lie and the police had no reason to drag them into it - just like the notion of a hitman. No reason.
I think it's quite obvious why the hitman was bought into it . Because of the phone call.
Imagine in the many many interviews , " we are sure Jeremy had an accomplice , we know about a phone call, do you know anyone who might fit the bill? Etc etc .
And considering there were several in recorded meetings with Julie and the police how can we be 100% sure of all the dates of when conversations took place? For all we know there could have been more unofficial interviews when the police sent Julie back into the crowd to start asking questions and glean more info. Exactly why they never should have done what they did. But of course there is an easy solution release the file on Julie .
-
I think it's quite obvious why the hitman was bought into it . Because of the phone call.
Imagine in the many many interviews , " we are sure Jeremy had an accomplice , we know about a phone call, do you know anyone who might fit the bill? Etc etc .
And considering there were several in recorded meetings with Julie and the police how can we be 100% sure of all the dates of when conversations took place? For all we know there could have been more unofficial interviews when the police sent Julie back into the crowd to start asking questions and glean more info. Exactly why they never should have done what they did. But of course there is an easy solution release the file on Julie .
Julie had already told Susan about the hitman theory before going to police
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4575.0;attach=33657
-
Julie had already told Susan about the hitman theory before going to police
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4575.0;attach=33657
Allegedly.
Like I said I would love to see all the dates and all the transcripts of her many interviews.
-
Allegedly.
Like I said I would love to see all the dates and all the transcripts of her many interviews.
10th of September
-
Julie had already told Susan about the hitman theory before going to police
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4575.0;attach=33657
And Liz Rimmington and Malcolm Waters or perhaps these two lied too?
-
10th of September
All on one day?
I was not talking about the official interview.
-
And Liz Rimmington and Malcolm Waters or perhaps these two lied too?
It seems they are all in on it with the pathologist in a box marked Just in case?
-
I think it's quite obvious why the hitman was bought into it . Because of the phone call.
Imagine in the many many interviews , " we are sure Jeremy had an accomplice , we know about a phone call, do you know anyone who might fit the bill? Etc etc .
And considering there were several in recorded meetings with Julie and the police how can we be 100% sure of all the dates of when conversations took place? For all we know there could have been more unofficial interviews when the police sent Julie back into the crowd to start asking questions and glean more info. Exactly why they never should have done what they did. But of course there is an easy solution release the file on Julie .
Sorry but in order to make Jeremy innocent, this just jets more and more complicated. :-\
-
It seems they are all in on it with the pathologist in a box marked Just in case?
I agree - cast of thousands!
-
All on one day?
I was not talking about the official interview.
Sorry which one do you mean?
-
Julie betrayed Bamber 5 times while still with him. By telling 5 people. The first time after only 20 days.
There is a recent thread on this.
-
10th of September
Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the
family and committed suicide. On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned
Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White
House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone
Report Number One. The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a
mystery as Essex Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.
(Why withhold this? )
On 8th sept was the charge by Essex police on Julie which was later withdrawn
I would like to see the alleged interviews , 31 in all? Referred to in documents.
-
Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the
family and committed suicide. On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned
Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White
House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone
Report Number One. The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a
mystery as Essex Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.
(Why withhold this? )
On 8th sept was the charge by Essex police on Julie which was later withdrawn
I would like to see the alleged interviews , 31 in all? Referred to in documents.
Sorry I was on about Susan Battersby, must have our wires crossed? I Posted about Susan Battersby saying Julie told her before going to police
-
Sorry I was on about Susan Battersby, must have our wires crossed? I Posted about Susan Battersby saying Julie told her before going to police
Julie told 5 people before going to the police. Threads created.
I said this a few minutes ago & two days ago when Susan claimed the police brainwashed Julie.
-
Like I said release the full interviews not just the statements and then I can give a proper opinion.
Perhaps Julie did change her mind during the period after the funeral , but the fact is she obviously lied in either her first statements or subsequent ones . Because they were a change of material facts not just opinion. So we know what she was capable of . Her motives are yet to be determined .
-
I agree - cast of thousands!
I wonder if everyone interviewed agreed to doing two interviews just in case police wanted to change direction? Then signed confidential papers to say that they only did one and the police could use whichever they wanted and charge whoever fits?
-
I wonder if everyone interviewed agreed to doing two interviews just in case police wanted to change direction? Then signed confidential papers to say that they only did one and the police could use whichever they wanted and charge whoever fits?
Was that police protocol in 1985. Or are you jumping on the industrial frame bandwagon ?
-
Was that police protocol in 1985. Or are you jumping on the industrial frame bandwagon ?
It seems that is what happened, everytime a point gets raised this is what the defence ends up being? So either everyone is in on it and lying or it's a load of B@ll@ks?
-
It seems that is what happened, everytime a point gets raised this is what the defence ends up being? So either everyone is in on it and lying or it's a load of B@ll@ks?
Seems what happened ?
If it was an industrial frame, it needs to worked out how this could be achieved. Both within 6 weeks & after the DPP submission.
The only suggestion so far is that Ainsley was brought in to hide evidence.
-
Seems what happened ?
If it was an industrial frame, it needs to worked out how this could be achieved. Both within 6 weeks & after the DPP submission.
The only suggestion so far is that Ainsley was brought in to hide evidence.
Well you work it out then.
-
Well you work it out then.
I don't believe there was an industrial frame.
If supporters can give plausible accounts of how one was carried out, then guilters will have agree Bamber could be innocent.
-
Julie told 5 people before going to the police. Threads created.
I said this a few minutes ago & two days ago when Susan claimed the police brainwashed Julie.
What exactly did she say ? A hitman was involved ? This was false.
She thought Jeremy had done it? Perhaps she changed her mind? Does not make him guilty does it?
Something happened between her original statements and the second ones but what ?
Again I say why now should her interviews be kept under wraps if there is nothing to hide?
-
Sorry I was on about Susan Battersby, must have our wires crossed? I Posted about Susan Battersby saying Julie told her before going to police
Susan's statement contained 12 pages each signed by her, why would she lie about Julie telling her about the hitman?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4575.0.html
Have a look at the top where it says WHO STATES
-
Susan's statement contained 12 pages each signed by her, why would she lie about Julie telling her about the hitman?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4575.0.html
I don't know , but the hitman never existed and I still wonder if she had spoken to the police before official interviews ? If I had all the answers I would not be on here would I?
-
I don't know , but the hitman never existed and I still wonder if she had spoken to the police before official interviews ? If I had all the answers I would not be on here would I?
So it's just your thoughts then that something was concocted with the police and Susan? Good luck with finding your answers on here then.
-
So it's just your thoughts then that something was concocted with the police and Susan? Good luck with finding your answers on here then.
No I meant to say ( sorry just getting back into everything) that if the police had had earlier unofficial chats with Julie earlier that we are unaware of then she might have said those things to her friends . Like I said if the confidential file on Julie was released we might have a few more answers .
And technically just because Julie might have changed her mind about Jeremy and said things to her friends it does not make him guilty. Her second staments completely contradict the first ones so take your pick .
-
No I meant to say ( sorry just getting back into everything) that if the police had had earlier unofficial chats with Julie earlier that we are unaware of then she might have said those things to her friends . Like I said if the confidential file on Julie was released we might have a few more answers .
And technically just because Julie might have changed her mind about Jeremy and said things to her friends it does not make him guilty. Her second staments completely contradict the first ones so take your pick .
So Julie had unofficial chats with the police. Who for some reason mentioned a hit man. Julie then went & spoke to 5 people, mentioning the hit man.
-
No I meant to say ( sorry just getting back into everything) that if the police had had earlier unofficial chats with Julie earlier that we are unaware of then she might have said those things to her friends . Like I said if the confidential file on Julie was released we might have a few more answers .
And technically just because Julie might have changed her mind about Jeremy and said things to her friends it does not make him guilty. Her second staments completely contradict the first ones so take your pick .
That proves to me they have nothing to hide, if they wanted to be squeaky clean why not hide the first statement that contradicts the second?
-
That proves to me they have nothing to hide, if they wanted to be squeaky clean why not hide the first statement that contradicts the second?
Do you mean hide Julies first statement ?
Well it would be pretty obvious who would be interviewed even when it was murder suicide. So not possible. But they did have to make sure she had a good story about why she lied .
After all there were times when she was with the police on her own so very easily could have told them about all the alleged discussions about killing his parents that had happened before the event , but somehow did not register as being relevant. :o
-
Julie's WS on the massacre day doesn't tell any lies.
It just confirms who she is & that Bamber rang her at 3am.
If Bamber hadn't have whisked her over to WHF on the massacre day, the police wouldn't have even spoken to her.
-
You can't go on kidding yourself. It's not going to work.
-
Julie's WS on the massacre day doesn't tell any lies.
It just confirms who she is & that Bamber rang her at 3am.
If Bamber hadn't have whisked her over to WHF on the massacre day, the police wouldn't have even spoken to her.
Yes it does . And they have been pointed out before . Not going there again.
And don't you think it is morally wrong to omit the fact that allegedly he had tried to think of plots to kill his parents before , on More than one occasion?
-
Yes it does . And they have been pointed out before . Not going there again.
And don't you think it is morally wrong to omit the fact that allegedly he had tried to think of plots to kill his parents before , on More than one occasion?
Her statement of 08/08/1985 is economical with the truth to coin a phrase, it may be misleading but there are no downright lies as far as I can make out.
-
Her statement of 08/08/1985 is economical with the truth to coin a phrase, it may be misleading but there are no downright lies as far as I can make out.
Julie's first WS just says who she is & that Bamber rang her at 3am. It's only a page long.
Bamber may have even suggested the police interview her to back up Bamber's claim he received a call from Nevill.
Julie started betraying Bamber 20 days later while still with him. By telling five other people. Then approached the police & created a WS for court.
Jan just automatically disputes everything I say as I'm the supporters biggest danger. Then says she doesn't want to discuss it further, as she did today with June's injuries.
-
Her statement of 08/08/1985 is economical with the truth to coin a phrase, it may be misleading but there are no downright lies as far as I can make out.
Yes she did . She changed the whole wording of the call to Jeremy to her in the evening.
She changed times of calls .
I could go on
-
Yes she did . She changed the whole wording of the call to Jeremy to her in the evening.
She changed times of calls .
I could go on
She omitted "everything is going well" to save his back. As for the timings she didn't know for sure (as nobody could be sure) but she was allowed to telephone her friends at Caterham Road in an attempt to verify.
-
She omitted "everything is going well" to save his back. As for the timings she didn't know for sure (as nobody could be sure) but she was allowed to telephone her friends at Caterham Road in an attempt to verify.
Steve what source do we have for the statement "everything is going well"
-
Steve what source do we have for the statement "everything is going well"
Well it's in Julie's subsequent statement when she realized that not only had she been strung along romance-wise for almost two years but he was also the perpetrator of the five murders.
-
She omitted "everything is going well" to save his back. As for the timings she didn't know for sure (as nobody could be sure) but she was allowed to telephone her friends at Caterham Road in an attempt to verify.
To me if someone is asked what happened on the night of a murder and she changed the whole reason and wording of the call then that is a lie. It was not some cosy conversation . She said what her interpretation of the call in her second statement . She said as she put the phone down she knew what he meant.
She did not suddenly wake up later . She said she knew what he had done.
She lied .
-
To me if someone is asked what happened on the night of a murder and she changed the whole reason and wording of the call then that is a lie. It was not some cosy conversation . She said what her interpretation of the call in her second statement . She said as she put the phone down she knew what he meant.
She did not suddenly wake up later . She said she knew what he had done.
She lied .
You're making the accusation. You must prove what you've said.
-
had they been incrimating i think you can safely asume that they would of been used be the proscution at trail so can also safely asume they werent incriminating.
-
After Julie had claimed Jeremy used a bike to commit the murders, PC Bird had taken a soil sample from the trail between WHF and Hyde farm.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7564.msg356878.html#msg356878 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7564.msg356878.html#msg356878)
It also mentions the bike in the same notes. I can safely assume the intention was to compare the soil on the wheels of the bike to that of the sample taken.
I wonder what happened or if any results were produced? I have hardly seen any documents except for PC Birds notes on this subject.
i think the story about the bike might have somthing to do with the fact witness could confirm he hadent used his car and the idea of him walking there might seem a tad implausable to a jury.
-
After Julie had claimed Jeremy used a bike to commit the murders, PC Bird had taken a soil sample from the trail between WHF and Hyde farm.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7564.msg356878.html#msg356878 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7564.msg356878.html#msg356878)
It also mentions the bike in the same notes. I can safely assume the intention was to compare the soil on the wheels of the bike to that of the sample taken.
I wonder what happened or if any results were produced? I have hardly seen any documents except for PC Birds notes on this subject.
maybe its in the eithheld pii douments.
-
maybe its in the eithheld pii douments.
I'm sure the police have kept all evidence exonerating Bamber & highlighting an industrial frame. As you do.
-
or maybe it was estroyed with other evdence it certanly dident make it court.
and there must be a reason the samles dident mae it to court if they strengthened the proscution case they would of certanly made it to court.
so i have to asume they did the complete reverse.
-
I'm sure the police have kept all evidence exonerating Bamber & highlighting an industrial frame. As you do.
Does it make a difference if it's a small frame up or an industrial frame up ? Just wondered as it's your favourite saying at the moment .