Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackieD on September 07, 2017, 01:39:PM
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tLeIK00f7kI
-
There was no 999 call.
-
OMG! ;D ;D No one said they were talking to Jeremy with a loud hailer! The log makes a clear distinction between being in conversation with 'a person' inside the FARM and 'before' challenges were made to the HOUSE! Several officers noted that they were in conversation with JEREMY in their statements! This is followed by challenges to 'persons' inside the 'house' were met with no response.
-
She said 'the press aren't interested'. Not surprised. They fell for Nevill's Chelmsford police phone call in 2010. Once biten...
It was a bit late for Sheila to dial 999. She was 'going crazy' 3 hours earlier.
So the police are claiming they were having conversationw with Bamber via loud speaker. And there was me thinking they would be attempting to contact Sheila.
It is surprising how passionate & determined the supporters are. A 999 call at 6.09am. Really.
-
OMG! ;D ;D No one said they were talking to Jeremy with a loud hailer! The log makes a clear distinction between being in conversation with 'a person' inside the FARM and 'before' challenges were made to the HOUSE! Several officers noted that they were in conversation with JEREMY in their statements! This is followed by challenges to 'persons' inside the 'house' were met with no response.
No response could also indicate that a person could have been alive but had refused to respond ?
-
No response could also indicate that a person could have been alive but had refused to respond ?
Well it could except they are arguing that the police had been in conversation with Sheila but the reference is to Jeremy and no one said they were talking to him through a loud hailer. The conversation with Jeremy, took place just before they challenged the house.
-
She should definitely change her name!!! ;D
-
Well it could except they are arguing that the police had been in conversation with Sheila but the reference is to Jeremy and no one said they were talking to him through a loud hailer. The conversation with Jeremy, took place just before they challenged the house.
Not having watched the video,I'd have thought that police would first have handed the loudhailer to Jeremy for him to speak to his sister,as happens when there's a siege situation. That would have clinched the whole case.
The thing that makes me believe that Sheila was alive,are the notes she wrote about " police being there ",which was a pre-emptive move on her part.
-
She should definitely change her name!!! ;D
Or you Harts. ;D
-
No response could also indicate that a person could have been alive but had refused to respond ?
It would have been better for Bamber if there was a response from inside WHF.
-
Not having watched the video,I'd have thought that police would first have handed the loudhailer to Jeremy for him to speak to his sister,as happens when there's a siege situation. That would have clinched the whole case.
The thing that makes me believe that Sheila was alive,are the notes she wrote about " police being there ",which was a pre-emptive move on her part.
The police handing the loud speaker to Bamber. I wasn't aware that was police protocol.
Bamber told the police him & Sheila didn't like each other. So not sure how Sheila hearing Bamber's voice will calm her down.
-
dident see anything new there.
-
Well it could except they are arguing that the police had been in conversation with Sheila but the reference is to Jeremy and no one said they were talking to him through a loud hailer. The conversation with Jeremy, took place just before they challenged the house.
Jeremy is already identified in that log as "son of Mr Bamber" As you already know the document does not say "firearms team in conversation with son of Mr Bamber"
-
Does anyone know the name of the officer that allegedly monitored the call?
It is claimed in the interview that this officer has never been known of previously but that his name is known. Does anyone know whether this is true or not?
-
Does anyone know the name of the officer that allegedly monitored the call?
It is claimed in the interview that this officer has never been known of previously but that his name is known. Does anyone know whether this is true or not?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1211.0;attach=6238;image)
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1211.0;attach=6238;image)
It's not what they are claiming at all is it? ???
-
It's not what they are claiming at all is it? ???
Nope.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1211.0;attach=6238;image)
Thanks Hartley. Do you know if this is the information referred to in the video? Do you know when this statement became available and did it come to light in the Stokenchurch enquiry?
-
Thanks Hartley. Do you know if this is the information referred to in the video? Do you know when this statement became available and did it come to light in the Stokenchurch enquiry?
I'm not sure Gringo, I don't watch the videos.
I originally posted this in 2011, in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1211.0.html
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1211.0.html)
-
Clearly, it isn't. The video refers to the Stokenchurch enquiry and several references to a 999 call. However, it would be necessary to see the relevant document(s) to judge whether these are significant or worded slightly differently from what was suggested.
The "in conversation" quote refers to the log entry "0525 - Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm." The next entry seems to be "29 fm CA7 - Challange to persons inside house met with no response." If the conversation was with Jeremy, the wording "a person" seems quite strange. Also, where's any confirmation that any member of the firearms team was talking to Jeremy at 05:25? If the log continues, we don't seem to have seen the continuation.
-
Clearly, it isn't. The video refers to the Stokenchurch enquiry and several references to a 999 call. However, it would be necessary to see the relevant document(s) to judge whether these are significant or worded slightly differently from what was suggested.
The "in conversation" quote refers to the log entry "0525 - Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm." The next entry seems to be "29 fm CA7 - Challange to persons inside house met with no response." If the conversation was with Jeremy, the wording "a person" seems quite strange. Also, where's any confirmation that any member of the firearms team was talking to Jeremy at 05:25? If the log continues, we don't seem to have seen the continuation.
Is this not it below:
I think the use of the word 'conversation' is simply erroneous. They are are referring to loud speaker challenges to the house only, it has nothing to do with JB.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3206;image)
-
Maybe, but that page is written on a proper Wireless Message Log form, and the handwriting, even if it matches (which I haven't checked), has changed from something of a scrawl to be much neater.
-
Maybe, but that page is written on a proper Wireless Message Log form, and the handwriting, even if it matches (which I haven't checked), has changed from something of a scrawl to be much neater.
Yeah, that's probably from the other log.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1211.0;attach=6238;image)
Surely this is not the document being used to claim a 999 call was made by Sheila.
I know Yvonne Hartley is very passionate but making up evidence never has & never will work. Unless it's part of an industrial frame.
-
I know Yvonne Hartley is very passionate but making up evidence never has & never will work.
Think you need to start taking your own advice Adam. ;D
-
Think you need to start taking your own advice Adam. ;D
Perfectly clean hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Bamber/Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries - Not disputed - FORUM.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.
No better massacre weapon options - Not disputed - FORUM.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
Items around the kitchen window being moved after housekeeper had left - Not disputed - WILKES'S BOOK.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.
June not waking/getting shot in bed - Not disputed - COA.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
June & the twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
The found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Execution period 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
-
Hopefully David will supply the new developments on the aga scratches today. They were first due two days ago.
The 'forensic evidence breakthrough', Bamber's 6 letters, the 5th Sheila scenario & the 3D re construction of the kitchen fight are all dead ducks & won't be supplied.
-
Of course 54 pieces of forensic evidence could have been made up by the police, experts, professors etc. As part of the industrial frame.
I wouldn't know. However it's all published evidence.
-
Not having watched the video,I'd have thought that police would first have handed the loudhailer to Jeremy for him to speak to his sister,as happens when there's a siege situation. That would have clinched the whole case.
The thing that makes me believe that Sheila was alive,are the notes she wrote about " police being there ",which was a pre-emptive move on her part.
NOT a wise move, as, according to him, he didn't like her and she didn't like him.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1211.0;attach=6238;image)
So Inspector D Burrell didn't actually HEAR a dog barking on line. He simply received a report of a dog barking? It also appears that claims are erroneous of a 999 call being made from inside WHF.
-
Jeremy is already identified in that log as "son of Mr Bamber" As you already know the document does not say "firearms team in conversation with son of Mr Bamber"
So he's referred to as that in one sentence so has to be referred to as such throughout? ;D ;D ;D Information was coming trough from different sources not the same source, one guy wasn't walking around taking notes! There is a CLEAR distinction made between FARM and FARM HOUSE and 'PERSON' and 'PERSONS', No one was talkimg to Sheila because Sheila was dead!
-
So he's referred to as that in one sentence so has to be referred to as such throughout? ;D ;D ;D Information was coming trough from different sources not the same source, one guy wasn't walking around taking notes! There is a CLEAR distinction made between FARM and FARM HOUSE and 'PERSON' and 'PERSONS'
The log consists of the same handwriting throughout. Thus "Mr Bamber Junior" and "a Person" are not one of the same.
-
No one was talkimg to Sheila because Sheila was dead!
What evidence do you have to support this? and don't say "coz Jeremy dunnit" because you have no evidence to support that either.
-
The log consists of the same handwriting throughout. Thus "Mr Bamber Junior" and "a Person" are not one of the same.
I'm not talking about the person writing it, I'm talking about the 'people' providing it! There were various things and said and actions taken but not ALL by the same person!
-
What evidence do you have to support this? and don't say "coz Jeremy dunnit" because you have no evidence to support that either.
You have none that he's innocent, you just make spurious posts, supported by part documents, few links to original sources and you provide you own posts often as evidence. By the way, I looked on the red forum for the evidence you said you posted and couldn't find it.
-
You have none that he's innocent, you just make spurious posts, supported by part documents, few links to original sources and you provide you own posts often as evidence. By the way, I looked on the red forum for the evidence you said you posted and couldn't find it.
spurious posts supported by part docyments now were have i had that concersation i think theres another poster that does that.
-
You have none that he's innocent, you just make spurious posts, supported by part documents, few links to original sources and you provide you own posts often as evidence.
Lack of hypostasis and rigour mortis supports Sheila being alive. You believing Jeremy walked back from WHF to Goldhanger widens the time-frame even more. He would have to leave around 1:30am if he walked. From that basis its impossible for DI Cook to have moved her arm and PC Birds photos showing no hypostasis in Sheila. Your own version of events prevents Sheila being dead. You have to believe he used a bike and left just before 3:00am cycling really fast. To even make it a slim chance of Sheila being dead.
By the way, I looked on the red forum for the evidence you said you posted and couldn't find it.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg301199#msg301199 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg301199#msg301199)
-
Since when did Hartley's aunty get involved? ???
-
You'd be surprised :)) :)) :)) :)) Uncle Tom Cobley's there somewhere too.
-
You'd be surprised :)) :)) :)) :)) Uncle Tom Cobley's there somewhere too.
And what a useless bunch were he and his crew!!!
-
And what a useless bunch were he and his crew!!!
Not surprising really for yokels.
-
Not surprising really for yokels.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lack of hypostasis and rigour mortis supports Sheila being alive. You believing Jeremy walked back from WHF to Goldhanger widens the time-frame even more. He would have to leave around 1:30am if he walked. From that basis its impossible for DI Cook to have moved her arm and PC Birds photos showing no hypostasis in Sheila. Your own version of events prevents Sheila being dead. You have to believe he used a bike and left just before 3:00am cycling really fast. To even make it a slim chance of Sheila being dead.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg301199#msg301199 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg301199#msg301199)
That isn't evidence, that BS you cobble together from grainy old pictures ;D ;D ;D ;D. You have just prived my point!
As to the red forum stuff, you told Adam you changed your mind in 2015!
-
Of course 54 pieces of forensic evidence could have been made up by the police, experts, professors etc. As part of the industrial frame.
I wouldn't know. However it's all published evidence.
When the reality is it's been made up by yourself. Published nowhere other than your own posts.
How to make a list of 50 pieces like Adam.
Step 1: Take 10 pieces of outdated and refuted evidence.
Step 2: Turn those 10 pieces into bullshit by claiming they are undisputed.
Step 3: Turn those 10 pieces of Bullshit into 40 by rewording those 10 pieces of bullshit 4 times over.
Step 4: Sprincle 10 pieces of factual evidence that don't prove anything in order to make the other 40 pieces of bullshit look honest.
Done.
-
When the reality is it's been made up by yourself. Published nowhere other than your own posts.
How to make a list of 50 pieces like Adam.
Step 1: Take 10 pieces of outdated and refuted evidence.
Step 2: Turn those 10 pieces into bullshit by claiming they are undisputed.
Step 3: Turn those 10 pieces of Bullshit into 40 by rewording those 10 pieces of bullshit 4 times over.
Step 4: Sprincle 10 pieces of factual evidence that don't prove anything in order to make the other 40 pieces of bullshit look honest.
Done.
and if somebody does bother to refute it ignore them and post it agian.
-
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) Sad isn't it ?
-
and if somebody does bother to refute it ignore them and post it agian.
And again and again and again.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU)
-
When the reality is it's been made up by yourself. Published nowhere other than your own posts.
How to make a list of 50 pieces like Adam.
Step 1: Take 10 pieces of outdated and refuted evidence.
Step 2: Turn those 10 pieces into bullshit by claiming they are undisputed.
Step 3: Turn those 10 pieces of Bullshit into 40 by rewording those 10 pieces of bullshit 4 times over.
Step 4: Sprincle 10 pieces of factual evidence that don't prove anything in order to make the other 40 pieces of bullshit look honest.
Done.
It's actually 63 pieces now. Please correct me if Bamber has disputed any of them -
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Bamber/Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries - Not disputed - FORUM.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.
No better massacre weapon options - Not disputed - FORUM.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.
June not waking/getting shot in bed - Not disputed - COA.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
June & the twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
The found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Execution period 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- WS, WILKES'S BOOK.
-
and if somebody does bother to refute it ignore them and post it agian.
Keep up the conspiracy theories.
A killer hiding in the loft theory, the killer climbing through Nevill's bedroom window theory & whether Claire Powell knew Brett Collins will get Bamber released soon.
-
It's actually 62 pieces now. Please correct me if Bamber has disputed any of them -
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Bamber/Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries - Not disputed - FORUM.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.
No better massacre weapon options - Not disputed - FORUM.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
Items around the kitchen window being moved after housekeeper had left - Not disputed - WILKES'S BOOK.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.
June not waking/getting shot in bed - Not disputed - COA.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
June & the twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
The found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Execution period 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
How to make a list of 62 pieces like Adam.
Step 1: Take 10 pieces of outdated and refuted evidence.
Step 2: Turn those 10 pieces into bullshit by claiming they are undisputed.
Step 3: Turn those 10 pieces of Bullshit into 50 by rewording those 10 pieces of bullshit fives times over.
Step 4: Sprincle 10 pieces of factual evidence that don't prove anything in order to make the other 50 pieces of bullshit look honest.
Step 5: Make up four more pieces of bullshit
Step 6: Make up a source for each piece of Bullshit by misquoting or misattributing the infomation to a any particular person.
Done.
-
How David shows Bamber is innocent -
Step 1:
Create a forensic evidence breakthrough but not say what it is.
Step 2:
Create his own diagrams of bouncing bullets.
Step 3:
Say RB & Julie imagined MM between them.
Step 4:
Say Bamber has wriiten 6 letters to him but refuse to post them.
Step 5:
Create 5 Sheila scenarios because the other 4 were rubbish (so was the 5th).
Step 6:
Say he had a meeting with Bamber's legal advisors which he cycled to.
Step 7:
Deny ever being a guilter.
Step 8:
Say the COA is not a valid source because it was in 2002 ?
Step 9:
Claim Julie should have been wired up after splitting up with Bamber.
Step 10:
Say he is are going to submit 3D diagrams of the kitchen fight & devolpments on the aga scratches. Then don't.
Does anyone want another 10 ?
-
You do ? Ok here is another 10 from David -
Change stance because of one post from Scipio.
Say it takes 100 minutes to walk 3 miles.
Say it takes 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark.
Make up something & believe putting up a picture of Ricky Gervaise will mean the other poster won't bother checking.
Say there are sources that the police moved the bible onto Sheila's arm before photos were taken. But not provide them.
Say the relatives could get Sheila's blood from wet clothes in a bucket.
Say the police didn't tell Bamber about Nevill's call to the police so they could frame him.
Dispute 6 out of 62 pieces of sourced forensic evidence & forget about the other 56 pieces.
Argue that a 999 call was made from WHF at 6.09am.
Say the conviction was due to 'forgery & perjury'. Then say it wasn't.
-
You're getting more desperate by the day it's embarrassing. :-[ :-[
If you want answers try the legal team at CT.
-
That isn't evidence, that BS you cobble together from grainy old pictures ;D ;D ;D ;D. You have just prived my point!
My photos are not grainy at all. In fact they are so good I can even see the spots on Sheila's feet as you already know! 8)
As to the red forum stuff, you told Adam you changed your mind in 2015!
Why do you assume I posted it the second I found it ???
-
You do ? Ok here is another 10 from David -
Change stance because of one post from Scipio.
Say it takes 100 minutes to walk 3 miles.
Say it takes 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark.
Make up something & believe putting up a picture of Ricky Gervaise will mean the other poster won't bother checking.
Say there are sources that the police moved the bible onto Sheila's arm before photos were taken. But not provide them.
Say the relatives could get Sheila's blood from wet clothes in a bucket.
Say the police didn't tell Bamber about Nevill's call to the police so they could frame him.
Dispute 6 out of 62 pieces of sourced forensic evidence & forget about the other 56 pieces.
Argue that a 999 call was made from WHF at 6.09am.
Say the conviction was due to 'forgery & perjury'. Then say it wasn't.
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/63944669/oh-youre-mad-did-it-hit-a-nerve.jpg)
-
You do ? Ok here is another 10 from David -
Say it takes 100 minutes to walk 3 miles.
Say it takes 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark.
I didn't just say it. I also backed my claim up (with the help of the google maps) and maths
If Jeremy walked back. That is a 1 hour and 25 minutes walk. That is assuming Jeremy is going by the average daytime walking speed on a flat surface. Once you apply Naismith's rule/Aitken corrections you are looking at a 1 hour and fifty-five minute walk from WHF back to Goldhanger. Making Sheila's TOD over 8 hours from when the photos were taken. Proving his innocence even more.
Not to mention all the time it will take Jeremy to put the silencer away, stage everything, construct his blood dam, put the coat over the mantle scratches and then climb outside to rearrange the items on the window seal before walking off.
-
70~ minute walk by day 100~ minute walk by night.
Report to moderator Logged
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
-
Say there are sources that the police moved the bible onto Sheila's arm before photos were taken. But not provide them.
That has been posted on here enough times. Why is such an important document not in your 'library'?
Say the relatives could get Sheila's blood from wet clothes in a bucket.
I didn't say that. They did! Read the trial transcipts
Say the police didn't tell Bamber about Nevill's call to the police so they could frame him.
Argue that a 999 call was made from WHF at 6.09am.
I never said any of that as you already know. This is an attempt to smear me that no one is buying.
Dispute 6 out of 62 pieces of sourced forensic evidence & forget about the other 56 pieces.
That's because you only listed 6 pieces. The other 56 were either the same 6 pieces reworded 8 times over combined with a dozen facts that don't prove anything to give credence to the bullshit.
-
My photos are not grainy at all. In fact they are so good I can even see the spots on Sheila's feet as you already know! 8)
Why do you assume I posted it the second I found it ???
Because you can't help trying to set yourself up as an expert on EVERYTHING. You mock Adam but your claims are not superior!
-
Obviously I've touched a nerve with David.
Both with the 62 pieces of 'sourced' evidence & me quoting the made up BS he has created. Which he's now trying to defend.
I'm not sure how he can accuse me of posting BS when I post the 62 pieces of forensic evidence. It's all published evidence which I've given 62 sources for.
But appreciate David will focus on me rather than the 62 pieces & their sources.
With so much evidence against Bamber it is creepy that David supports him, let alone changed stance. I know Lookout needs a purpose & Nugs is a conspiracy theorist. What's David's reason, one post from Scipio ?
-
I didn't just say it. I also backed my claim up (with the help of the google maps) and maths
If Jeremy walked back. That is a 1 hour and 25 minutes walk. That is assuming Jeremy is going by the average daytime walking speed on a flat surface. Once you apply Naismith's rule/Aitken corrections you are looking at a 1 hour and fifty-five minute walk from WHF back to Goldhanger. Making Sheila's TOD over 8 hours from when the photos were taken. Proving his innocence even more.
Not to mention all the time it will take Jeremy to put the silencer away, stage everything, construct his blood dam, put the coat over the mantle scratches and then climb outside to rearrange the items on the window seal before walking off.
It's 3 and a half miles between the two places as the crow flies. Jeremy knew the short cuts so I reject your time frame.
-
And again and again and again.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU)
David you're not a philistine after all..
-
It's 3 and a half miles between the two places as the crow flies. Jeremy knew the short cuts so I reject your time frame.
Its a 4~ mile journey on the route that he could not be seen. The average daylight walking speed on a flat surface is 3.1 mph. When you include Naismith's rule/Aitken corrections (rough surface and night time) you have a speed around 2.1mph so you do the maths.
Besides Julie said that Jeremy said he said to her that he used a bike. Since her words are gospel truth from an angel in your perspective why does this even bother you?
-
Its a 4~ mile journey on the route that he could not be seen. The average daylight walking speed on a flat surface is 3.1 mph. When you include Naismith's rule/Aitken corrections (rough surface and night time) you have a speed around 2.1mph so you do the maths.
Besides Julie said that Jeremy said he said to her that he used a bike. Since her words are gospel truth from an angel in your perspective why does this even bother you?
Her words are what Bamber reported to her and should be taken in that light. He knew the fields and farm tracks like the back of his hand, and in the darkness replete with mask had no difficulty in traversing the terrain unobserved.
-
Its a 4~ mile journey on the route that he could not be seen. The average daylight walking speed on a flat surface is 3.1 mph. When you include Naismith's rule/Aitken corrections (rough surface and night time) you have a speed around 2.1mph so you do the maths.
Besides Julie said that Jeremy said he said to her that he used a bike. Since her words are gospel truth from an angel in your perspective why does this even bother you?
Yes maybe the bike was used.
I'm not sure that your reliance on rules and averages is sound.
I live exactly 1 mile from town. It should take me 21 minutes by your calculations, I do it in 13 minutes at a brisk walk, or when out running I do it in 5-6 minutes.
The various routes from WHF, are mostly made up of gravel farm tracks rather than rough ground. Applying somebody's mathematical equation sounds really clever, but I don't think it's particularly relevant.
-
Yes maybe the bike was used.
I'm not sure that your reliance on rules and averages is sound.
I live exactly 1 mile from town. It should take me 21 minutes by your calculations, I do it in 13 minutes at a brisk walk, or when out running I do it in 5-6 minutes.
The various routes from WHF, are mostly made up of gravel farm tracks rather than rough ground. Applying somebody's mathematical equation sounds really clever, but I don't think it's particularly relevant.
70~ minute walk by day 100~ minute walk by night. ;D
--------------
If you live around there, tell us the route you believe Bamber cycled. How long it would take, the chances of him being seen & the amount of resonable cycle friendly tracks there were on route.
Thank you.
-
70~ minute walk by day 100~ minute walk by night. ;D
--------------
If you live around there, tell us the route you believe Bamber cycled. How long it would take, the chances of him being seen & the amount of resonable cycle friendly tracks there were on route.
Thank you.
No answer. Which is disappointing.
However Hartley does say the routes to/from WHF are mostly gravel farm tracks. Which will be easy to cycle on. This corresponds with Trudies video where the tracks were so defined it even had a track side bench on. Bob Miller said 'no one would have seen Bamber in a month of Sundays' while RB said the route passed no dwellings.
All this contradicts posts from supporters who give the impression that Bamber would have to climb mountains, swim through swamps, cut through jungle terrain & avoid half of Essex on his bike in order to get to/from WHF at 2am.
Anyway it would take a around 15 minutes to cycle 3 miles on empty farm tracks. Which corresponds with Julie's WS.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3Fqid%3D20101127110337AAnMPQD&ved=0ahUKEwiXpPPdlaTWAhUHUlAKHeVtBsQQFggqMAI&usg=AFQjCNEqg59US_Jli5kwR0PMkNSjOeoy9Q
-
No answer. Which is disappointing.
However Hartley does say the routes to/from WHF are mostly gravel farm tracks. Which will be easy to cycle on. This corresponds with Trudies video where the tracks were so defined it even had a track side bench on. Bob Miller said 'no one would have seen Bamber in a month of Sundays' while RB said the route passed no dwellings.
All this contradicts posts from supporters who give the impression that Bamber would have to climb mountains, swim through swamps, cut through jungle terrain & avoid half of Essex on his bike in order to get to/from WHF at 2am.
Anyway it would take a around 15 minutes to cycle 3 miles on empty farm tracks. Which corresponds with Julie's WS.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3Fqid%3D20101127110337AAnMPQD&ved=0ahUKEwiXpPPdlaTWAhUHUlAKHeVtBsQQFggqMAI&usg=AFQjCNEqg59US_Jli5kwR0PMkNSjOeoy9Q
The road to WHF be treacherous ;D
(https://static.businessinsider.com/image/5506e57f6da811a63d4b7c4a/image.gif)
-
Come to think of it, didn't nocturnal lions & tigers roam the Essex fields between WHF & Bamber's cottage ?
-
Goblins live in the mud.
-
Maybe someone really did hide in the WHF loft & Bamber really was at home sleeping 'like a log'.
Surely no one dares enter the Essex farm land after 10pm.
-
Goblins live in the mud.
Come to think of it, didn't nocturnal lions & tigers roam the Essex fields between WHF & Bamber's cottage ?
The road to WHF be treacherous ;D
(https://static.businessinsider.com/image/5506e57f6da811a63d4b7c4a/image.gif)
::)
"A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:
1.Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate
2.Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man)
-
This image shows some of the tracks and private roads across the fields.
Who knows which route he took, if any.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.pinterest.com/amp/pin/135671007498750093/
Lets not forget this fellow who goes owl poaching after 10pm in Essex. But I'm sure he would prefer to get his teeth into a handsome young man.
-
This image shows some of the tracks and private roads across the fields.
Who knows which route he took, if any.
It seems RB was right. The route passes no dwellings. Sorry Nugs.
Anyway it seems Bamber had loads of route options. Obviously he would take one which passed no dwellings & which he could cycle.
-
::)
"A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:
1.Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate
2.Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man)
You need to take a long hard look at what you post because more than ANYONE, the above applies to you. The fact that you can't even see that. speaks volumes!
-
ive completly lost track of this thread what were we talking about agian.
-
You need to take a long hard look at what you post because more than ANYONE, the above applies to you. The fact that you can't even see that. speaks volumes!
I cannot see it because it's simply not true.
-
This image shows some of the tracks and private roads across the fields.
Who knows which route he took, if any.
The sea wall route seems the easiest. Just go along it then straight up. The 'shortcuts' look like more like a hassle and way to get lost imo.
-
Yes maybe the bike was used.
I'm not sure that your reliance on rules and averages is sound.
I live exactly 1 mile from town. It should take me 21 minutes by your calculations, I do it in 13 minutes at a brisk walk, or when out running I do it in 5-6 minutes.
The various routes from WHF, are mostly made up of gravel farm tracks rather than rough ground. Applying somebody's mathematical equation sounds really clever, but I don't think it's particularly relevant.
Good running pace 😊 Come and run London marathon with me next year 😉
-
The sea wall route seems the easiest. Just go along it then straight up. The 'shortcuts' look like more like a hassle and way to get lost imo.
but as Barbra DEath pointed out the fight fisherman would of seen him.
-
The sea wall route seems the easiest. Just go along it then straight up. The 'shortcuts' look like more like a hassle and way to get lost imo.
How can you 'get lost' in a place you had lived and worked for most of your life?
-
How can you 'get lost' in a place you had lived and worked for most of your life?
in the dark yes easily.
-
It's been established that Bamber could spend 15 minutes cycling on one of the several tracks to/from WHF without being seen or attacked by lions.
The claim now is he would get lost in the 3 miles between where he currently lived, & where he currently worked & used to live.
-
How can you 'get lost' in a place you had lived and worked for most of your life?
Some people's sense of direction is bad enough in daylight :o
-
and id imagene walking in the pitch dark wasnt somthing he would of done often especally if you own a car.
i mean driving around the area and walking around it a very diffrent.
-
and id imagene walking in the pitch dark wasnt somthing he would of done often especally if you own a car.
i mean driving around the area and walking around it a very diffrent.
Oh! C'mon Nugs. Apart from not being born there, he'd lived there ALL his life. The people who owned the nearby farms were neighbours. It's unlikely the Bambers would have used the main road to get to them. The seawall was where he'd have been taken for walks as a child. We're talking about a radius of a few miles. Home territory. Waffle all you want, but you're NOT going to persuade anyone that he'd get lost walking those fields at night, OR lose all sense of direction.
-
Oh! C'mon Nugs. Apart from not being born there, he'd lived there ALL his life. The people who owned the nearby farms were neighbours. It's unlikely the Bambers would have used the main road to get to them. The seawall was where he'd have been taken for walks as a child. We're talking about a radius of a few miles. Home territory. Waffle all you want, but you're NOT going to persuade anyone that he'd get lost walking those fields at night, OR lose all sense of direction.
but as barbra pointed he would of been seen if he had gone via the sea wall.
-
How can you 'get lost' in a place you had lived and worked for most of your life?
Me and a group of friends have done just that. And that was in broad daylight! :-[
-
Good running pace 😊 Come and run London marathon with me next year 😉
Which end of the rhino do you want to be? ;)
-
but as barbra pointed he would of been seen if he had gone via the sea wall.
By whom? How often had this Barbara, NOT a local, I believe, walked that route, in the small hours of the morning, to be able to know who may, or NOT, be abroad?
-
but as barbra pointed he would of been seen if he had gone via the sea wall.
Hartleys diagram posted today on this thread shows there were a lot of route options.
You have to accept that Bamber could have spent 15 minutes cycling to/from WHF along the tracks without being seen.
-
By whom? How often had this Barbara, NOT a local, I believe, walked that route, in the small hours of the morning, to be able to know who may, or NOT, be abroad?
she went on holday there so probaly very often.
and why would she make that up.
-
she went on holday there so probaly very often.
and why would she make that up.
So she spent the occasional holiday there? I wonder why she'd have gone walkabout along the seawall in the small hours of the morning. Osea Holiday Park -which is, I believe, where she stayed- is several miles from Goldhanger, let alone the extra mileage from there to WHF. I VERY much doubt she knows what she's talking about.
-
Hartleys diagram posted today on this thread shows there were a lot of route options.
You have to accept that Bamber could have spent 15 minutes cycling to/from WHF along the tracks without being seen.
The exact route he took is unimportant, whether he walked, ran, cycled or drove.
The possibility that the journey could have been made, allowed him to remain a suspect.
-
So she spent the occasional holiday there? I wonder why she'd have gone walkabout along the seawall in the small hours of the morning. Osea Holiday Park -which is, I believe, where she stayed- is several miles from Goldhanger, let alone the extra mileage from there to WHF. I VERY much doubt she knows what she's talking about.
I'm not so sure that people fish along that part of the sea wall, the tide only comes up that far for a short time.
On another irrelevant subject, if anybody watched a drama called 'Liar' that was on this week, the salt marsh scenes on the opening shots were all filmed in Tollesbury.
-
I'm not so sure that people fish along that part of the sea wall, the tide only comes up that far for a short time.
On another irrelevant subject, if anybody watched a drama called 'Liar' that was on this week, the salt marsh scenes on the opening shots were all filmed in Tollesbury.
Not sure that people fish at 2pm. Don't tell me the fish are nocturnal as well as the lions & tigers.
-
So she spent the occasional holiday there? I wonder why she'd have gone walkabout along the seawall in the small hours of the morning. Osea Holiday Park -which is, I believe, where she stayed- is several miles from Goldhanger, let alone the extra mileage from there to WHF. I VERY much doubt she knows what she's talking about.
then why would she say it.
-
I'm not so sure that people fish along that part of the sea wall, the tide only comes up that far for a short time.
On another irrelevant subject, if anybody watched a drama called 'Liar' that was on this week, the salt marsh scenes on the opening shots were all filmed in Tollesbury.
Oh, I agree, H. I was simply trying to point out that the woman in question probably knows next to nothing about who does what on any given part of the sea wall beyond her immediate horizon during daylight hours.
Yeah, I did know part of "Liar" was shot in Tollesbury.
-
then why would she say it.
Why not? Many things are said here. They're not all true.
-
then why would she say it.
Because she wasn't very happy about having to shift her caravan.
-
Because she wasn't very happy about having to shift her caravan.
I think the point Barbara De'Ath made was that there were several midnight parties going on in August and somebody would have seen him had he made the bicycle ride along the sea wall. As Caroline intimates after Nevill and June died the goodwill died alongside and the park took on a more money-grubbing aspect when the relatives took over.
-
Not sure that people fish at 2pm. Don't tell me the fish are nocturnal as well as the lions & tigers.
And people with psychosis/schizophrenia.
-
And people with psychosis/schizophrenia.
And people who want to inherit early but knocking off their family.
-
I think the point Barbara De'Ath made was that there were several midnight parties going on in August and somebody would have seen him had he made the bicycle ride along the sea wall. As Caroline intimates after Nevill and June died the goodwill died alongside and the park took on a more money-grubbing aspect when the relatives took over.
They absolutely wouldn't, Steve. WHF lays in the opposite direction to Osea Holiday Park with Goldhanger between the two. The seawall meanders round inlets, creating 'bays'. I don't believe GH can be seen from OHP. It would be impossible to see anyone travelling between GH and WHF.
-
They absolutely wouldn't, Steve. WHF lays in the opposite direction to Osea Holiday Park with Goldhanger between the two. The seawall meanders round inlets, creating 'bays'. I don't believe GH can be seen from OHP. It would be impossible to see anyone travelling between GH and WHF.
Oh thanks for letting me know Jane.
-
I think the point Barbara De'Ath made was that there were several midnight parties going on in August and somebody would have seen him had he made the bicycle ride along the sea wall. As Caroline intimates after Nevill and June died the goodwill died alongside and the park took on a more money-grubbing aspect when the relatives took over.
You're learning Steve. I thought that woman was treated appallingly by the jumped-up toffs of Osea.
-
You're learning Steve. I thought that woman was treated appallingly by the jumped-up toffs of Osea.
I don't believe she was treated any differently from the way she'd have been treated by other sites. Caravans have a finite life and owners are requested to move them, either off site, OR somewhere less prominent on site. They cannot be left there indefinitely or sites would end up looking like a scrap yard.
-
I don't believe she was treated any differently from the way she'd have been treated by other sites. Caravans have a finite life and owners are requested to move them, either off site, OR somewhere less prominent on site. They cannot be left there indefinitely or sites would end up looking like a scrap yard.
That's true but the hike in fees demanded was extortionate, though I don't recall the figures offhand. There's a brouhaha going on at the moment with Prince Charles and his Duchy of Cornwall, where some tenants in the Scilly Isles want to buy the freehold of their cottages but aren't being allowed to.
-
I don't believe she was treated any differently from the way she'd have been treated by other sites. Caravans have a finite life and owners are requested to move them, either off site, OR somewhere less prominent on site. They cannot be left there indefinitely or sites would end up looking like a scrap yard.
I can't stand people like that ! It's discriminatory. They probably treat people the same.
-
Why not? Many things are said here. They're not all true.
so what possible reason would she have to make it up what does she have to gain.
-
so what possible reason would she have to make it up what does she have to gain.
I just told you, she was hacked off about having to move her caravan!
-
I just told you, she was hacked off about having to move her caravan!
what so hacked of she would hold a grudge all these years later i doubt it.
your saying would lie to try and help get a guilty man out of prison just over that.
-
so what possible reason would she have to make it up what does she have to gain.
Nugs there were lots of routes along tracks Bamber could cycle along & not get seen at 2am. As Hartleys diagram showed. Maybe he used a combination of routes.
You need to move onto whether Claire Powell knew Brett Collins.
-
so what possible reason would she have to make it up what does she have to gain.
What possible reason does anyone here have to make things up? It doesn't stop them, though, does it?
-
oh i see so how people who have abslutly nothing to gain are lying.
but people with a shit load of cash to gain must be telling the truth.
guilter logic you cant beat it.
-
oh i see so how people who have abslutly nothing to gain are lying.
but people with a shit load of cash to gain must be telling the truth.
guilter logic you cant beat it.
No. You very clearly DON'T see.
-
Nugs there were lots of routes along tracks Bamber could cycle along & not get seen at 2am. As Hartleys diagram showed. Maybe he used a combination of routes.
You need to move onto whether Claire Powell knew Brett Collins.
He's still straw clutching.
-
I can't stand people like that ! It's discriminatory. They probably treat people the same.
I guess it's in the T&Cs if they bother to read them. I'm sure you'd be the first to say that rules have to be adhered to. The alternative is anarchy.
-
I guess it's in the T&Cs if they bother to read them. I'm sure you'd be the first to say that rules have to be adhered to. The alternative is anarchy.
My alternative would have been a tin of paint.
-
My alternative would have been a tin of paint.
A lot of use that would be when the caravan was disintegrating. It's perfectly understandable that site owners don't want old and tatty vans on sight, NOR do other van owners. If the site starts to look run down, it discourages others from wanting to holiday there.
-
oh i see so how people who have abslutly nothing to gain are lying.
but people with a shit load of cash to gain must be telling the truth.
guilter logic you cant beat it.
What did Julie have to gain by setting Bamber up for Murder?
-
What did Julie have to gain by setting Bamber up for Murder?
all charges against her dropped and 25 thousand pounds.
-
all charges against her dropped and 25 thousand pounds.
What charges ? The police didn't know about anything until she told them or until after she completed her WS.
New answer please.
-
What charges ? The police didn't know about anything until she told them or until after she completed her WS.
New answer please.
how do you know they dident.
-
how do you know they dident.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8584.msg409313.html#msg409313
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8584.msg409313.html#msg409313
oh a link to to one of your own posts I see.
-
oh a link to to one of your own posts I see.
Yes. Confirming she had nothing to gain by approaching the police.
The 25k was offerred to her over a year afterwards. During the trial.
The only thing Julie had to gain was to get revenge because Bamber apparently jilted her & she was totally devastated & psychotic.
We've all been there - get jilted, then seek revenge by trying to single handedly frame ex partner of committing murder.
-
Yes. Confirming she had nothing to gain by approaching the police.
The 25k was offerred to her over a year afterwards. During the trial.
The only thing Julie had to gain was to get revenge because Bamber apparently jilted her & she was totally devastated & psychotic.
We've all been there - get jilted, then seek revenge by trying to single handedly frame ex partner of committing murder.
a link to one of your own posts confirms absolutely sod all other than complete desperation.
-
all charges against her dropped and 25 thousand pounds.
She had no newspaper deal at that point and what charges? She told them about the cheque book fraud, they didn't know about it until she told them.
-
What did Julie have to gain by setting Bamber up for Murder?
You really know better than to ask a question like that.
As you well know, it was Liz Rimmington and not Julie Mugford who went to the police. Mugford probably only meant to spread rumors but, as you put it, got more than she bargained for.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg218911.html#msg218911
Julie fed both Liz Rimmington and Susan Battersby JUST enough info to make them believe Jeremy was responsible. She probably didn't think that LR would call the police but simply wanted to drip feed a little poison so there would always be doubt in the minds of people he knew - I'd say that was revenge!! She got a LOT more than she bargained for!!
The police were already trying to form a case against Bamber before Julie Mugford showed up. By then DCI Thomas "Taff" Jones had already been replaced by Mike Ainsley. The investigation of Bamber with a view to charging him had already begun. They weren't going to let her off the hook. Once they had her cornered she had to go along with their plans to save herself.
-
Supporters cling to the point that Liz Rimmington rang the police. After Julie had told her (& 4 other people) what she knew. Where was Julie ? Oh yes she was in the same room as Liz Rimmington.
Julie then told the police everything she knew regarding the case & Bamber's caravan break in.
The police found out about the 1984 minor cheque book fraud a long time after she had completed her WS. This crime was nothing to do with the massacre.
-
Witnesses in criminal trials don't tell the police about their non related crimes they have committed from months or years ago. Espescially if it's a minor crime & they hadn't been caught.
So I don't see why Julie should have brought up her minor cheque book fraud, which was nothing to do with the massacre.
-
Revenge attacks on all sides I'd have said. Each person had an axe to grind in one way and another, from EP who " didn't like Jeremy ::) ",JM who Jeremy had dumped and the relatives of course who couldn't bear the thought of JB ruling the roost. Plenty of motives there to get rid of the man.
How folk can live their lives full of revenge,I'll never know-----------lack of a conscience and nil emotions !
-
Revenge attacks on all sides I'd have said. Each person had an axe to grind in one way and another, from EP who " didn't like Jeremy ::) ",JM who Jeremy had dumped and the relatives of course who couldn't bear the thought of JB ruling the roost. Plenty of motives there to get rid of the man.
How folk can live their lives full of revenge,I'll never know-----------lack of a conscience and nil emotions !
You obviously believe there was an industrial frame.
-
You obviously believe there was an industrial frame.
I know nothing about industrial framing so prefer not to comment on something I know nothing about.
What I do know about is domestic violence,and emotional abuse which Sheila was a victim of and virtually no information was researched when the crime was first given as a murder/suicide as to what had been behind the terrible tragedy.
-
I know nothing about industrial framing so prefer not to comment on something I know nothing about.
What I do know about is domestic violence,and emotional abuse which Sheila was a victim of and virtually no information was researched when the crime was first given as a murder/suicide as to what had been behind the terrible tragedy.
The relatives & Julie couldn't have framed Bamber alone. They needed the police.
The police needed experts to create 62 pieces of false published forensic evidence & even more circumstantial evidence.
Therefore you believe there was an industrial frame.
-
how do you know they dident.
By reading the case details - so again, what was Julie's motive?
-
You really know better than to ask a question like that.
As you well know, it was Liz Rimmington and not Julie Mugford who went to the police. Mugford probably only meant to spread rumors but, as you put it, got more than she bargained for.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg218911.html#msg218911
The police were already trying to form a case against Bamber before Julie Mugford showed up. By then DCI Thomas "Taff" Jones had already been replaced by Mike Ainsley. The investigation of Bamber with a view to charging him had already begun. They weren't going to let her off the hook. Once they had her cornered she had to go along with their plans to save herself.
Wow! You certainly put some heavy reliance on what I used to believe. I guess I should be flattered. Do you have any theories of your own to add or are you just going to repost my old posts?
Believing Bamber is innocent, leads you to make assumptions in order to explain some really odd behaviour. You have to believe that Julie is a monster and capable of sending an innocent man who she once loved, to prison for the rest of his life. They had nothing on Julie - she told them about the cheque book fraud and the Osea robbery and she was nowhere near WHF on the night of the murders.
When the fog lifted, I had to ask what I would do - no matter how much I resented someone, I'd never do that. I don't imagine she's that much different to the rest of us on that score. However, boot on the other foot, if she had done that to me, I have to ask what kind of letter I would have sent to her - it certainly wouldn't end 'love you stinker'. Odd thing is, I can put myself in Julie's shoes to a certain extent and understand some of the behaviours she expressed - can't do that with Bamber.
-
" Common characteristics of a victim of emotional abuse ", quote :
" They have a low self-esteem "
" They have a submissive personality "
" They feel inferior to others "
" They depend on others emotionally and financially "
" They feel they don't deserve to be respected as human beings "
" They have unrealistic expectations "
" They feel they need to be controlled ( or protected ) by others "
" They are excessively tolerant and accommodating "
" They don't stand for their rights "
" They deceive themselves in thinking that--one day--magically,the abuser will change "
" They blame themselves on other people's problems,or they blame it on the world,or life,or luck,or a given situation.
" They are not aware of the fact that they allow abuse to occur "
"They don't feel they are capable to succeed by themselves "
" They tend to have a difficult time setting boundaries and saying " NO ".
In between times Sheila lived with depression through lack of self-achievement, and frustration because of the continuous controlling and belittling attitude from her mother.
Quite often,the victim will allow the abuse to continue because they feel that they have nothing to live for.
The abusers themselves have mental health issues and also display inadequate behaviours whether the victim is present or not. Theirs is a personality disorder.
Sheila had been a healthy child but on growing into adulthood didn't have a particularly good relationship with her mother. Her salvation in this household was her father who she relied on for emotional support, and up to a point she'd have been able to control her emotions of the psychological abuse,but not those of her abuser.
If Sheila's father hadn't been around,I doubt very much that Sheila would ever have visited WHF.
-
I thought the police found out about the minor cheque book fraud. A long time after Julie's WS had been completed. Bamber probably told his defence lawyers & the news got back to the police.
Julie & Susan Battersby then paid back the money & the bank didn't press charges.
-
By reading the case details - so again, what was Julie's motive?
I think Nugs gets carried away with his conspiracy theories.
-
Wow! You certainly put some heavy reliance on what I used to believe. I guess I should be flattered. Do you have any theories of your own to add or are you just going to repost my old posts?
Believing Bamber is innocent, leads you to make assumptions in order to explain some really odd behaviour. You have to believe that Julie is a monster and capable of sending an innocent man who she once loved, to prison for the rest of his life. They had nothing on Julie - she told them about the cheque book fraud and the Osea robbery and she was nowhere near WHF on the night of the murders.
When the fog lifted, I had to ask what I would do - no matter how much I resented someone, I'd never do that. I don't imagine she's that much different to the rest of us on that score. However, boot on the other foot, if she had done that to me, I have to ask what kind of letter I would have sent to her - it certainly wouldn't end 'love you stinker'. Odd thing is, I can put myself in Julie's shoes to a certain extent and understand some of the behaviours she expressed - can't do that with Bamber.
It's a centuries old phenomenon that one ALWAYS hurts the one they love ! Rarely fails.
-
It's a centuries old phenomenon that one ALWAYS hurts the one they love ! Rarely fails.
How many times have you done that? They should have used that old adage in court, Jeremy might be free now ::)
-
How many times have you done that? They should have used that old adage in court, Jeremy might be free now ::)
I'm not talking about me,so why ask ? ::)
-
By reading the case details - so again, what was Julie's motive?
we allready know what her motive was money.
and chardges droped we know thats what happend.
-
we allready know what her motive was money.
and chardges droped we know thats what happend.
Julie approached the police for money ? As you do.
Julie hadn't been charged with anything by EP when she approached them. EP were not interested & didn't know about her selling low grade drugs in New Cross which Bamber gave her. They didn't even cover New Cross anyway.
-
Julie approached the police for money ? As you do.
Julie hadn't been charged with anything by EP when she approached them. EP were not interested & didn't know about her selling low grade drugs in New Cross which Bamber gave her. They didn't even cover New Cross anyway.
well davids allready coverd this.
-
Wow! You certainly put some heavy reliance on what I used to believe. I guess I should be flattered. Do you have any theories of your own to add or are you just going to repost my old posts?
Why should someone bother taking the time to explain something to you that you have already worked out yourself? Unless you have totally forgotten everything you wrote, it shows you are not here for an honest debate.
Changing your mind does not change the evidence. And the reasons you have given certainly does not nullify the evidence either.
-
Why should someone bother taking the time to explain something to you that you have already worked out yourself? Unless you have totally forgotten everything you wrote, it shows you are not here for an honest debate.
Changing your mind does not change the evidence. And the reasons you have given certainly does not nullify the evidence either.
What evidence has changed since you said this -
'The forensics point to him in all directions despite the police errors and inconsistencies.
-
What evidence has changed since you said this -
'The forensics point to him in all directions despite the police errors and inconsistencies.
Nothing. I said that under the impression the silencer was used and that is all the 'forensics' there is. Much like the Jury I was misled. Once I realised Scipio's argument was flawed I revised my position accordingly.
-
Nothing. I said that under the impression the silencer was used and that is all the 'forensics' there is. Much like the Jury I was misled. Once I realised Scipio's argument was flawed I revised my position accordingly.
So you've based you're guilt & then innocence stance on one piece of forensic evidence. And now believe the police & relatives fabricated the silencer.
Did you previously not believe the rest of the published incriminating evidence was based on 'perjury & forgery' ?
-
Why should someone bother taking the time to explain something to you that you have already worked out yourself? Unless you have totally forgotten everything you wrote, it shows you are not here for an honest debate.
Changing your mind does not change the evidence. And the reasons you have given certainly does not nullify the evidence either.
Like you changed your mind? How could I forget what I wrote? You have adopted most of it!
By the way, I have no wish for you to explain anything to me. I wasn't talking to you!
-
" Common characteristics of a victim of emotional abuse ", quote :
" They have a low self-esteem "
" They have a submissive personality "
" They feel inferior to others "
" They depend on others emotionally and financially "
" They feel they don't deserve to be respected as human beings "
" They have unrealistic expectations "
" They feel they need to be controlled ( or protected ) by others "
" They are excessively tolerant and accommodating "
" They don't stand for their rights "
" They deceive themselves in thinking that--one day--magically,the abuser will change "
" They blame themselves on other people's problems,or they blame it on the world,or life,or luck,or a given situation.
" They are not aware of the fact that they allow abuse to occur "
"They don't feel they are capable to succeed by themselves "
" They tend to have a difficult time setting boundaries and saying " NO ".
In between times Sheila lived with depression through lack of self-achievement, and frustration because of the continuous controlling and belittling attitude from her mother.
Quite often,the victim will allow the abuse to continue because they feel that they have nothing to live for.
The abusers themselves have mental health issues and also display inadequate behaviours whether the victim is present or not. Theirs is a personality disorder.
Sheila had been a healthy child but on growing into adulthood didn't have a particularly good relationship with her mother. Her salvation in this household was her father who she relied on for emotional support, and up to a point she'd have been able to control her emotions of the psychological abuse,but not those of her abuser.
If Sheila's father hadn't been around,I doubt very much that Sheila would ever have visited WHF.
You missed out the part where, without help, they'll never experience a relationship which isn't emotionally/psychologically abusive, because they lack the emotional tools to do so. Many DO achieve, but don't recognize it because their abuser belittles the achievement. The abuser can't afford to allow their victim any success because they'll lose their hold on them. Without help, the victim doesn't know how to stop the abuse from happening. The abuser's behaviour is always inappropriate although it may, on occasions be "inadequate". It's highly likely that the abuser will also have been a victim. Had Sheila's relationship with June not broken down until she was an adult, she'd have had the 'tools' to cope. The relationship is likely, always, to have been one of controller/controlled. Sheila, in all likelihood, would have continued to visit June even if Nevill hadn't been there. She'd have gone out of the sense of gratitude and duty she'd been indoctrinated with, but more importantly, because she'd have hoped -vainly- that during one of those visits June would have shown her the love she longed for.
-
You missed out the part where, without help, they'll never experience a relationship which isn't emotionally/psychologically abusive, because they lack the emotional tools to do so. Many DO achieve, but don't recognize it because their abuser belittles the achievement. The abuser can't afford to allow their victim any success because they'll lose their hold on them. Without help, the victim doesn't know how to stop the abuse from happening. The abuser's behaviour is always inappropriate although it may, on occasions be "inadequate". It's highly likely that the abuser will also have been a victim. Had Sheila's relationship with June not broken down until she was an adult, she'd have had the 'tools' to cope. The relationship is likely, always, to have been one of controller/controlled. Sheila, in all likelihood, would have continued to visit June even if Nevill hadn't been there. She'd have gone out of the sense of gratitude and duty she'd been indoctrinated with, but more importantly, because she'd have hoped -vainly- that during one of those visits June would have shown her the love she longed for.
I didn't miss anything out when you read into it. It's you,because you always now feel that it's a rite of passage that you have to pick holes in everything I post.
-
I didn't miss anything out when you read into it. It's you,because you always now feel that it's a rite of passage that you have to pick holes in everything I post.
Where did I say there was anything wrong with what you wrote? Actually, it was factual, unsentimental and you didn't made wild claims, but you failed to make clear something which is hugely important. There's a difference between adding a point and picking holes.
Regarding Sheila's relationship with Nevill. I get why she turned to him. He supported her against June's harshness but it seems it almost became a game of good parent/bad parent. Almost like each was vying with the other for control of her with June being the dominant parent. I wonder why Nevill didn't discuss, with June, why it was that she was so rigid with Sheila?
-
Where did I say there was anything wrong with what you wrote? Actually, it was factual, unsentimental and you didn't made wild claims, but you failed to make clear something which is hugely important. There's a difference between adding a point and picking holes.
Regarding Sheila's relationship with Nevill. I get why she turned to him. He supported her against June's harshness but it seems it almost became a game of good parent/bad parent. Almost like each was vying with the other for control of her with June being the dominant parent. I wonder why Nevill didn't discuss, with June, why it was that she was so rigid with Sheila?
I can bet that there were umpteen rows going on over Sheila between the parents. This is possibly why June could have been at breaking point during those last weeks of her own life. I'd be interested to have known when June penned her letter to the family.
-
I can bet that there were umpteen rows going on over Sheila between the parents. This is possibly why June could have been at breaking point during those last weeks of her own life. I'd be interested to have known when June penned her letter to the family.
We have no idea if Sheila saw June and Nevill, at any time other than the designated visit, prior to her death, so it's not possible to say that rows between them were the cause of June having "been at breaking point".
June's letter MAY have been written at a time when she felt ill and may have believed she was going to die imminently. Were not her words something like "If I should have to leave you (suddenly?)..............."
-
So you've based you're guilt & then innocence stance on one piece of forensic evidence. And now believe the police & relatives fabricated the silencer.
Did you previously not believe the rest of the published incriminating evidence was based on 'perjury & forgery' ?
No answer.
It seems David changed stance after realising the police & relatives together had the capacity to fabricate the silencer. In other words one piece of evidence.
This automatically results in him now trying to dismiss all the other published incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence which as a hardcore guilter, he had previously supported.
-
We have no idea if Sheila saw June and Nevill, at any time other than the designated visit, prior to her death, so it's not possible to say that rows between them were the cause of June having "been at breaking point".
June's letter MAY have been written at a time when she felt ill and may have believed she was going to die imminently. Were not her words something like "If I should have to leave you (suddenly?)..............."
According to the pathologist,June was a healthy woman ? Pity he couldn't have seen inside her mind.
-
According to the pathologist,June was a healthy woman ? Pity he couldn't have seen inside her mind.
OR it could have been the most unbelievable piece of guilt inducement. "I kept telling you all that I wasn't well"!!!!!
-
Wow! You certainly put some heavy reliance on what I used to believe. I guess I should be flattered. Do you have any theories of your own to add or are you just going to repost my old posts?
Believing Bamber is innocent, leads you to make assumptions in order to explain some really odd behaviour. You have to believe that Julie is a monster and capable of sending an innocent man who she once loved, to prison for the rest of his life. They had nothing on Julie - she told them about the cheque book fraud and the Osea robbery and she was nowhere near WHF on the night of the murders.
When the fog lifted, I had to ask what I would do - no matter how much I resented someone, I'd never do that. I don't imagine she's that much different to the rest of us on that score. However, boot on the other foot, if she had done that to me, I have to ask what kind of letter I would have sent to her - it certainly wouldn't end 'love you stinker'. Odd thing is, I can put myself in Julie's shoes to a certain extent and understand some of the behaviours she expressed - can't do that with Bamber.
They are not your theories. I came to certain conclusions before you did.
I don't think Jeremy hates Julie Mugford, the reason being that he realises fully that she agreed to co-operate because she was threatened with a long jail sentence if she didn't. Demonising Julie Mugford is a basic mistake. The whole woman scorned seeking revenge thing is a myth. According to Liz Rimmington, Julie did not want to go to the police and had to be pushed into it.
What probably happened is something like this. Once Liz Rimmington had betrayed her trust, Julie faced the prospects of a long jail term as an accomplice of Bamber. Suppose for the sake of argument she had tried to back out saying "But I just made up those things, because I was angry with Jeremy". It would not have worked. The police had gained the advantage that they had been looking for and were not going to let it slip. DS Jones would have explained to Mugford that her only chance of avoiding prison was to co-operate fully, so what you basically have in Mugford is a puppet witness who was terrified and literally fighting for her life.
The way that Mugford and Battersby lied on the instructions of the police in describing the vist to the bank shows what had been going on right from the beginning. The girls were told to say that they had gone there of their own volition and not accompanied by a police officer (as was attested by the manager Alan Dovey).
Earlier, the police had told Battersby to say that Mugford had told her she knew that Jeremy was the culprit even before she had told Liz Rimmington. That incident with Battersby larking about at a party and squeezing cream on Jeremy gives the lie to that story. It is predated by the time Julie allegedly told her friend that she knew Jeremy was the killer.
Susan would not have been laughing and joking with Jeremy if she knew he was a child killer. To comprehend the real status of Mugford and Battersby as witnesses, you should start with the visit to the bank. Their "evidence" was the result of intructions from dodgy Stan Jones.
The Court of Appeal in 2002 rejected the claim by Bamber's defence that Dovey's account proves that Mugford and Battersby were lying.
-
They are not your theories. I came to certain conclusions before you did.
I don't think Jeremy hates Julie Mugford, the reason being that he realises fully that she agreed to co-operate because she was threatened with a long jail sentence if she didn't. Demonising Julie Mugford is a basic mistake. The whole woman scorned seeking revenge thing is a myth. According to Liz Rimmington, Julie did not want to go to the police and had to be pushed into it.
What probably happened is something like this. Once Liz Rimmington had betrayed her trust, Julie faced the prospects of a long jail term as an accomplice of Bamber. Suppose for the sake of argument she had tried to back out saying "But I just made up those things, because I was angy with Jeremy". It would not have worked. The police had gained the advantage that they had been looking for and were not going to let it slip. DS Jones would have explained to Mugford that her only chance of avoiding prison was to co-operate fully, so what you basically have in Mugford is a puppet witness who was terrified and fighting for her life.
The way that Mugford and Battersby lied on the instructions of the police in describing the vist to the bank shows what had been going on right from the beginning. The girls were told to say that they had gone there of their own volition and not accompanied by a police officer (as was attested by the manager Alan Dovey).
Earlier, the police had told Battersby to say that Mugford had told her she knew that Jeremy was the culprit even before she had told Liz Rimmington. That incident with Battersby larking about at a party and squeezing cream on Jeremy gives the lie to that story. It is predated by the time Julie allegedly told her friend that she knew Jeremy was the killer.
Susan would not have been laughing and joking with Jeremy if she knew he was a child killer. To comprehend the real status of Mugford and Battersby as witnesses, you should start with the visit to the bank. Their "evidence" was the result of intructions from dodgy Stan Jones.
The Court of Appeal in 2002 rejected the claim by Bamber's defence that Dovey's account proves that Mugford and Battersby were lying.
This is well argued but had Julie been fighting for her life so to speak she would not have introduced the fantastic Matthew McDonald hitman scenario, but laid all the blame on Jeremy. I think this also explains why Susan Battersby, again probably young and immature, was larking about with the other guests at the party, one of whom happened to be child killer Jeremy Bamber.
As far as Alan Dovey is concerned he was probably guided by Head Office as to the final decision not to prosecute, which in turn would have been contacted by DS Jones or his superior. Julie and Susan may have met the Police Officer on the day at the bank so whether he "accompanied" them is really immaterial and just playing with words. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1165.0.html
-
The reason that JM had introduced MM into the equation was to steer her mind away from the FACT that she'd KNOWN Jeremy WASN'T guilty,so she made up the name of someone who'd been mentioned in a conversation at some time. It wouldn't have mattered who it was so long as she could pick a name out of a hat as it were,to cover herself from her and everyone else blaming Jeremy.
JM knew it wasn't Jeremy and to save any embarrassment on her part towards him thinking that she'd even thought of him as a murderer,she plumped for MM---------as simple as that,but it all blew up in her face.
-
The reason that JM had introduced MM into the equation was to steer her mind away from the FACT that she'd KNOWN Jeremy WASN'T guilty,so she made up the name of someone who'd been mentioned in a conversation at some time. It wouldn't have mattered who it was so long as she could pick a name out of a hat as it were,to cover herself from her and everyone else blaming Jeremy.
JM knew it wasn't Jeremy and to save any embarrassment on her part towards him thinking that she'd even thought of him as a murderer,she plumped for MM---------as simple as that,but it all blew up in her face.
She didn't know MM - Jeremy did. What would be the point of naming someone else? It's a big sticking point in Julie's story (supposedly to frame Jeremy as a woman scored) that she didn't just name Bamber isn't it? Fact is, she wouldn't have mentioned MM unless someone had told her.
-
She didn't know MM - Jeremy did. What would be the point of naming someone else? It's a big sticking point in Julie's story (supposedly to frame Jeremy as a woman scored) that she didn't just name Bamber isn't it? Fact is, she wouldn't have mentioned MM unless someone had told her.
" pulled out of a hat " was the clue to what you've posted.
-
" pulled out of a hat " was the clue to what you've posted.
As she didn't know the guy, it's very strange that it was his name she pulled from a hat. Naming someone else, anyway, hardly fits with the version of her ratting on Jeremy out of revenge because he'd cheated on her. Surely, it would have been Jeremy she wanted to get into trouble, NOT a guy she didn't even know?
-
As she didn't know the guy, it's very strange that it was his name she pulled from a hat. Naming someone else, anyway, hardly fits with the version of her ratting on Jeremy out of revenge because he'd cheated on her. Surely, it would have been Jeremy she wanted to get into trouble, NOT a guy she didn't even know?
Him cheating on her was the gist of JM's plan,but it went further than she'd anticipated as I'm sure her anger and revenge didn't want to go as far as it did.
JM has not yet answered yay or nay concerning a question which was put to her,I quote, " You weren't altogether truthful in your testimony were you ?",unquote. This was asked of her by xxx xxxxxxxx,and no answer came the firm reply.
-
I'd like to know more about that - I can't find any reference to it anywhere.
The information is from a poster who's involved with the CT--------he's done a lot of research over the years and I'm sure he'd furnish the information if you contacted him.
-
I am locking this thread while I remove some posts. This argument has little or nothing to do with the debate. Please try to keep to the subject and avoid personal squabbles.
-
The operator couldn't do what Burrell is suggesting. However she did manage to make a link using a different method, a short while prior to 6.09.
-
The operator couldn't do what Burrell is suggesting. However she did manage to make a link using a different method, a short while prior to 6.09.
Yes, I read the statement of the operator, and she had to use a different method. Anyway, the police managed to connect with 999 or something. That doesn't mean there was a 999 call from the farm.
-
Yes, I read the statement of the operator, and she had to use a different method. Anyway, the police managed to connect with 999 or something. That doesn't mean there was a 999 call from the farm.
But it IS being presented as meaning such.
-
But it IS being presented as meaning such.
Only by Mike, as far as I can see, and that was a while ago.
-
Yes, I read the statement of the operator, and she had to use a different method. Anyway, the police managed to connect with 999 or something. That doesn't mean there was a 999 call from the farm.
The operator couldn't patch the call through using 999. She made the connection using another method approx 6.05am. it is Met Operation Stokenchurch police who noted that a 999 call had been made at 6.09am. The CT have merely parroted Met police internal memos.
-
The operator couldn't patch the call through using 999. She made the connection using another method approx 6.05am. it is Met Operation Stokenchurch police who noted that a 999 call had been made at 6.09am. The CT have merely parroted Met police internal memos.
Yes, I did this post in another thread where the 999 call is also being discussed.
Jean Rowe was the operator who checked the line to the farm and said it was open and that the phone was off the hook. She said that the police asked her to connect the phone to police headquarters so they could monitor it. She said she was not allowed to engage the emergency police line, but she connected it in some other way. I don't understand how it all works, but it seems that the police were connected and then fiddled with the line themselves in order to monitor it.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.msg209640.html#msg209640
-
So at 05.50 the line was re-connected again. Doesn't that in itself say that someone was still alive at that time when JB had been outside for ages ? It does to me.
-
So at 05.50 the line was re-connected again. Doesn't that in itself say that someone was still alive at that time when JB had been outside for ages ? It does to me.
I don't know enough about how these things work to comment really. There was talk of the engaged tone at some point.
-
How does this mean a 999 call was made?
-
How do we know that Millbank sat patiently listening ? Or that he heard something and never let on.?
We don't know,nor do we know if it's Millbank himself who's come forward. Someone has.
-
How do we know that Millbank sat patiently listening ? Or that he heard something and never let on.?
We don't know,nor do we know if it's Millbank himself who's come forward. Someone has.
Why wouldn't he 'let on'?
Someone has always come forward - I don't believe that anyone has.
-
Jean Rowe said she heard movement at one point, but that could have been the dog.
-
Why wouldn't he 'let on'?
Someone has always come forward - I don't believe that anyone has.
In a situation such as it is with a likely appeal,it doesn't do to say,or indeed leak anything--------for obvious reasons.
No details will be given if those details involve a witness.I know it's frustrating but all that can occasionally happen is that there have been or are " hints " of things to come.
The media are like vultures as we all know and if anything was leaked that they were bound to get hold of,that's game over once again.They'd turn a sentence into a full page. It only needs a name.
-
In a situation such as it is with a likely appeal,it doesn't do to say,or indeed leak anything--------for obvious reasons.
No details will be given if those details involve a witness.I know it's frustrating but all that can occasionally happen is that there have been or are " hints " of things to come.
The media are like vultures as we all know and if anything was leaked that they were bound to get hold of,that's game over once again.They'd turn a sentence into a full page. It only needs a name.
A likely appeal? They haven't even sent in submissions yet. I'm not frustrated to find out if someone has come forward because I don't think they have. I agree though, it is a game!
-
A likely appeal? They haven't even sent in submissions yet. I'm not frustrated to find out if someone has come forward because I don't think they have. I agree though, it is a game!
Another voice of doom.Jobs Comforter.
-
How does this mean a 999 call was made?
It's factually incorrect.
-
Look at the date on Burrell's statement.
-
It's factually incorrect.
How so?
-
It's factually incorrect.
Glad you agree - no 999 call was made!
-
Who's worked this out ?
If those attached to the CT team ( legals ) have actually established that there was a call,who are we to argue that there wasn't ?
They have explained their part in saying that there was such a call,so where are the explanations here in saying that there wasn't ?
Just a simple explanation will suffice.
-
Hopefully Mike can clarify if there was a 999 call at 6.09am.
-
Who's worked this out ?
If those attached to the CT team ( legals ) have actually established that there was a call,who are we to argue that there wasn't ?
They have explained their part in saying that there was such a call,so where are the explanations here in saying that there wasn't ?
Just a simple explanation will suffice.
The WS makes it abundantly clear that it was they -HQ- who made a 999 link from an open line, which is entirely different from saying a 999 call was made from anyone at WHF. HAD such been so, the line would already have been linked to Emergency Services.
-
Who's worked this out ?
If those attached to the CT team ( legals ) have actually established that there was a call,who are we to argue that there wasn't ?
They have explained their part in saying that there was such a call,so where are the explanations here in saying that there wasn't ?
Just a simple explanation will suffice.
Jeremy has a legal team and a CT, the CT and his legal team have never had much in common in the past, I would think that would still be the same.
Who are we to argue with expert opinion? Perhaps you would do well to remember that when you question the findings of Ferguson in respect to Sheila's illness.
-
Look at the date on Burrell's statement.
And?
-
Jeremy has a legal team and a CT, the CT and his legal team have never had much in common in the past, I would think that would still be the same.
Who are we to argue with expert opinion? Perhaps you would do well to remember that when you question the findings of Ferguson in respect to Sheila's illness.
Don't worry,I had my own arguments/differences in mind when I asked those questions just to see if there were any contradictory answers. There's always a method in my questioning,which comes of having a good memory of past things that others have posted.
However,I did ask for an explanation on why you say that there was no phone-call,and not my personal version of diagnoses and medication in opposition to Ferguson which I look upon as a " get-out " for your answer.
-
Don't worry,I had my own arguments/differences in mind when I asked those questions just to see if there were any contradictory answers. There's always a method in my questioning,which comes of having a good memory of past things that others have posted.
However,I did ask for an explanation on why you say that there was no phone-call,and not my personal version of diagnoses and medication in opposition to Ferguson which I look upon as a " get-out " for your answer.
I don't think your memory is as good as you think it is - certainly NOT where your own posts are concerned. You ask others not to question expert opinion when it might favour Bamber but do the same yourself so you can shift blame from Jeremy onto Sheila.
Why do I believe that the phone call didn't take place? Because the document proves it didn't. Pretending or hoping that people have come forward, isn't evidence of a call.
-
I don't think your memory is as good as you think it is - certainly NOT where your own posts are concerned. You ask others not to question expert opinion when it might favour Bamber but do the same yourself so you can shift blame from Jeremy onto Sheila.
Why do I believe that the phone call didn't take place? Because the document proves it didn't. Pretending or hoping that people have come forward, isn't evidence of a call.
I don't do " shifting blame ".I've NEVER thought about it having been Jeremy,so how is it that I " shift blame anyway ?
If anyone's shifted blame it's yourself ? But we won't go into that,will we ?
There's nothing wrong with my memory,thank God,and yes,I DO thank God,my God ! AE's memory was never so hot for her age,was it ???
How many shonky documents are there in this case ? Half of them don't mean a thing !
-
I don't do " shifting blame ".I've NEVER thought about it having been Jeremy,so how is it that I " shift blame anyway ?
If anyone's shifted blame it's yourself ? But we won't go into that,will we ?
There's nothing wrong with my memory,thank God,and yes,I DO thank God,my God ! AE's memory was never so hot for her age,was it ???
How many shonky documents are there in this case ? Half of them don't mean a thing !
I don't do the term 'I don't do' - I think you know exactly what I was saying but I am not going around in circles talking about what you 'do' or 'don't do'.
That document is all there really is in respect to the point being made about 999 calls/lines - so that pretty much puts that to bed.
-
I don't do " shifting blame ".I've NEVER thought about it having been Jeremy,so how is it that I " shift blame anyway ?
If anyone's shifted blame it's yourself ? But we won't go into that,will we ?
There's nothing wrong with my memory,thank God,and yes,I DO thank God,my God ! AE's memory was never so hot for her age,was it ???
How many shonky documents are there in this case ? Half of them don't mean a thing !
The WS makes it abundantly clear that it was they -HQ- who made a 999 link from an open line, which is entirely different from saying a 999 call was made from anyone at WHF. HAD such been so, the line would already have been linked to Emergency Services.
Just thought I should repost this as an aide de memoire for Lookout as her own -allegedly excellent one- seems to be failing her.
-
I don't do the term 'I don't do' - I think you know exactly what I was saying but I am not going around in circles talking about what you 'do' or 'don't do'.
That document is all there really is in respect to the point being made about 999 calls/lines - so that pretty much puts that to bed.
Tell that to CT,not me.
-
Tell that to CT,not me.
I'm answering your post, should the CT ever post here, I'll answer theirs.