Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on October 25, 2017, 03:41:PM
-
How does jeremys repeated cliam that he saw a male figure in the house sqaure with him trying to frame sheila.
-
How does jeremys repeated cliam that he saw a male figure in the house sqaure with him trying to frame sheila.
If you read his own letters, he didn't actually see anybody.
-
I thought a figure was mistakedly seen. Not sure how anyone can determine if it was a man or woman.
Anyway, it was determined as a trick of the light.
-
Bamber saying he saw someone in the window, even if he said it was a man, supports Sheila being alive inside WHF.
A reason why Sheila would decide to stay alive until the police entered WHF nearly 4 hours later, has never been given.
-
but why does he say it at all if was trying to frame his sister.
-
I thought a figure was mistakedly seen. Not sure how anyone can determine if it was a man or woman.
Anyway, it was determined as a trick of the light.
It probably -at the time- ran along the lines of
Jeremy. "What was that?"
Police. "What? Where?"
Jeremy. "In the bedroom. I think I saw something! Look! There it is again!! Can you see it?"
Police. "I can't be certain. Maybe it's a trick of light?"
Jeremy. "No, no! It could be someone moving"
Police. "Maybe you thought you saw something but there's nothing there now"
By the time it came to relaying it, no one could recall who said what. There had been a conversation but nothing concrete was established.
-
but why does he say it at all if was trying to frame his sister.
Show me the source that he said he saw a man in the window.
Not that it matters. As he just wanted to give the police the impression there was someone inside.
-
Show me the source that he said he saw a man in the window.
Not that it matters. As he just wanted to give the police the impression there was someone inside.
but why say a man when your trying to frame a woman.
-
If you read his own letters, he didn't actually see anybody.
that's what he says now because he probely belives it was a trick of the light.
-
but why say a man when your trying to frame a woman.
He'd have needed very clear sight to say whether it was a male or female. It HIS sight had been that clear it would have been obvious to others it wasn't just a trick of light.
-
but why say a man when your trying to frame a woman.
Show me the source. Second request.
-
that's what he says now because he probely belives it was a trick of the light.
Okay then.
-
It was an officer who'd described it as being the " figure of a male "-------so it was repeated as being such.
-
It was an officer who'd described it as being the " figure of a male "-------so it was repeated as being such.
So Nugs's thread post was wrong. No wonder he didn't supply a source.
-
It was an officer who'd described it as being the " figure of a male "-------so it was repeated as being such.
PC Myall I think, though I can't find any reference to it in CAL's book.
-
PC Myall I think, though I can't find any reference to it in CAL's book.
Myall and Bews. Saxby wrote about the sighting in his notes.
-
It probably -at the time- ran along the lines of
Jeremy. "What was that?"
Police. "What? Where?"
Jeremy. "In the bedroom. I think I saw something! Look! There it is again!! Can you see it?"
Police. "I can't be certain. Maybe it's a trick of light?"
Jeremy. "No, no! It could be someone moving"
Police. "Maybe you thought you saw something but there's nothing there now"
By the time it came to relaying it, no one could recall who said what. There had been a conversation but nothing concrete was established.
That's not what happened according to DS Bews. He said that another officer said he saw movement - I forget which one. Then they decided it was a trick of the light. It wasn't Jeremy who first mentioned movement though .
-
That's not what happened according to DS Bews. He said that another officer said he saw movement - I forget which one. Then they decided it was a trick of the light. It wasn't Jeremy who first mentioned movement though .
Kaldin have you watched the video on YouTube of this officer telling the story and lying?
-
Ah yes, it was PC Myall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPRd912xv9M
3:40
-
Kaldin have you watched the video on YouTube of this officer telling the story and lying?
Is it the video I just posted Lucy?
-
Is it the video I just posted Lucy?
[/quote
No I found it on the Jeremy bamber site it's about 2 and a half minutes long, he says 2 different things in 2 different interviews
-
No, I haven't Lucy - I've only seen the one I posted.
-
No, I haven't Lucy - I've only seen the one I posted.
I'll try and find it give me 5
-
https://youtu.be/ohcCMvLrFm0 kaldin here you go
-
https://youtu.be/ohcCMvLrFm0 kaldin here you go
Thanks Lucy. I knew that he had said PC Myall thought he saw movement, but he also claimed that it was Jeremy who said it, which I didn't know.
-
Thanks Lucy. I knew that he had said PC Myall thought he saw movement, but he also claimed that it was Jeremy who said it, which I didn't know.
What do you believe, I can't keep up with all this changing lol
-
I'm not sure it matters either way because Bews decided that it was a trick of the light. I thought I read somewhere though that they'd ducked behind a hedge because they thought someone was in there moving.
-
Thanks Lucy. I knew that he had said PC Myall thought he saw movement, but he also claimed that it was Jeremy who said it, which I didn't know.
What do you believe, I can't keep up with all this changing lol
It probably -at the time- ran along the lines of
Jeremy. "What was that?"
Police. "What? Where?"
Jeremy. "In the bedroom. I think I saw something! Look! There it is again!! Can you see it?"
Police. "I can't be certain. Maybe it's a trick of light?"
Jeremy. "No, no! It could be someone moving"
Police. "Maybe you thought you saw something but there's nothing there now"
By the time it came to relaying it, no one could recall who said what. There had been a conversation but nothing concrete was established.
You COULD try believing that my scenario gets somewhere close to being accurate, Lucy :)
-
I'm not sure it matters either way because Bews decided that it was a trick of the light. I thought I read somewhere though that they'd ducked behind a hedge because they thought someone was in there moving.
Yes, and Mike repeatedly enjoys highlighting the results of their fear in a way I'm not going to. However, their fear must come into the equation when it comes to remembering exactly who said exactly what.
-
I'm not sure it matters either way because Bews decided that it was a trick of the light. I thought I read somewhere though that they'd ducked behind a hedge because they thought someone was in there moving.
Yes I've read that to, can't remember where though? I'm sure it's in a statement? Maybe jeapes I think?
-
You COULD try believing that my scenario gets somewhere close to being accurate, Lucy :)
Could be jane, can't be dismissed totally
-
Yes I've read that to, can't remember where though? I'm sure it's in a statement? Maybe jeapes I think?
Jeapes wasn't there for another 2 or 3 hours, so I don't think it was her.
-
Jeapes wasn't there for another 2 or 3 hours, so I don't think it was her.
I can't remember who it was Hartley, I'll have a look tomorrow.
-
I can't remember who it was Hartley, I'll have a look tomorrow.
It can only be JB, Bews or Myall.
-
It can only be JB, Bews or Myall.
Myall and Bews. Read Saxby's statement.
-
Myall and Bews. Read Saxby's statement.
Myall and Bews what? Lookout? ???
-
Myall and Bews what? Lookout? ???
Were the officers who saw the figure. Is this what you're talking about ?
-
No I found it on the Jeremy bamber site it's about 2 and a half minutes long, he says 2 different things in 2 different interviews
First clip: When we were doing the perimeter check, Jeremy said "Hang on, is that movement up there?" ...
Second clip: As we go round, Steve Myall says "Oh, hang on, stop. I think I saw someone move" ...
-
Nugs's thread post should be amended.
I would have been surprised if Bamber said he saw a male figure & twice asked Nugs for a source.
I didn't get a source but Nugs never provides sources to support his claims.
However there was still a very slim chance of there being a source that Bamber said he saw a 'male' in the window.
Now Lookout & other posters are saying it wasn't even Bamber who saw a figure in the window, but a police officer who saw one.
-
The officer/s saw the figure first. I didn't say that Jeremy hadn't seen it. ::)
-
The officer/s saw the figure first. I didn't say that Jeremy hadn't seen it. ::)
You need to provide sources. To support Nug's thread post that -
Bamber saw a figure in the window.
Bamber told the police the figure he saw was a male.
If there are no sources, why did Nugs create a thread based on something that didn't happen ?
-
If a thread was created pertaining to this--------then it was TRUE !! .Stop being so belligerent.
-
If a thread was created pertaining to this--------then it was TRUE !! .Stop being so belligerent.
You or Nugs needs to provide sources. Rather than you saying there is a thread, so it must be true.
JackieD created a thread saying Julie visited the mortuary twice, but failed to provide a source.
Why are supporters creating threads saying things were said or done, that were not ?
-
You or Nugs needs to provide sources. Rather than saying there is a thread, so it must be true.
JackieD created a thread saying Julie visited the mortuary twice, but failed to provide a source.
Why are supporters creating threads saying things were said or done, that were not ?
Where do you think we got the information from ? Where does your information come from ?
-
Where do you think we got the information from ? Where does your information come from ?
I provide sources. Espescially if creating a thread & saying a person said something.
Hopefully Nugs will provide his source to support his thread post. Third request.
-
I provide sources. Espescially if creating a thread & saying a person said something.
Hopefully Nugs will provide his source to support his thread post. Third request.
Most repeat of who said what,admitted by yourself,so where does that information come from ?
-
Most repeat of who said what,admitted by yourself,so where does that information come from ?
I have no idea what that means.
-
How does jeremys repeated cliam that he saw a male figure in the house sqaure with him trying to frame sheila.
Hopefully Nugs will provide his sources for his thread statement.
Forth request.
-
I have no idea what that means.
Of course you know what I mean.It's your pugnaciousness getting in the way again.
-
Hopefully Nugs will provide a source for his created thread. Fifth request.
Otherwise why create a thread on something that wasn't said ?
-
Oh do shut up about the threads. There are others besides yourself who are permitted you know ::)
-
Oh do shut up about the threads. There are others besides yourself who are permitted you know ::)
There doesn't seem to be a source.
You have spent two pages defending Nugs's thread. However failed to provide the required source.
I just don't know why Nugs would create a thread question on something he knew Bamber didn't say.
-
There doesn't seem to be a source.
You have spent two pages defending Nugs's thread. However failed to provide the required source.
I just don't know why Nugs would create a thread question on something he knew Bamber didn't say.
What a moaning old fart you are. Dear me. The same reason you create threads saying things that Bamber supposedly/allegedly said.
Why do you feel that you have to be top dog in threads ?
-
What a moaning old fart you are. Dear me. The same reason you create threads saying things that Bamber supposedly/allegedly said.
Why do you feel that you have to be top dog in threads ?
Seeing that you're over 50 years older than me, and have been complaining about Bamber being in prison for the last 32 years, I would say you're the 'moaning old fart'.
I just want to know why Nugs creates thread questions on something that was not said. He's done it before.
-
Seeing that you're over 50 years older than me, and have been complaining about Bamber being in prison for the last 32 years, I would say you're the 'moaning old fart'.
I just want to know why Nugs creates thread questions on things that were not said. He's done it before.
There's nothing wrong with the thread ( apart from the fact that you're moaning because you didn't start it )
I'll repeat,that besides being in JB's statement,it's also in Saxby's that ALL THREE saw the outline of a figure at the window.
-
There's nothing wrong with the thread ( apart from the fact that you're moaning because you didn't start it )
I'll repeat,that besides being in JB's statement,it's also in Saxby's that ALL THREE saw the outline of a figure at the window.
So the police & Bamber saw a person in the window. Surprised it was passed off as a 'trick of the light'.
Why would Bamber have to tell the police it was a male he saw, if the police also saw it ?
Where in Bamber's or the police's WS does it say Bamber told the police it was a 'male' person he saw ?
-
So the police & Bamber saw a person in the window. Surprised it was passed off as a 'trick of the light'.
Why would Bamber have to tell the police it was a male he saw, if the police also saw it ?
Where in Bamber's or the police's WS does it say Bamber told the police it was a 'male' person he saw ?
It was one of the officers who'd described the figure as being a male,not JB.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6179.msg274750.html#msg274750
I'm still waiting for a source from Nugs that the police said to Matthew Macdonald 'we know you called Jeremy from WHF'.
So I am not expecting a source from Nugs that Bamber told the police he saw a 'male' in the window. Despite 5 requests.
I just can't see the point in saying something was said when it wasn't. Then creating a thread question on something that does not exist.
-
It was one of the officers who'd described the figure as being a male,not JB.
Never heard anyone describe the figure as being male - just here.
-
Never heard anyone describe the figure as being male - just here.
It does waste a lot of time if Nugs creates a thread asking a question on something that was not said. Which he does do.
If he made an error he should say so. However he just ignores source requests.
-
It does waste a lot of time if Nugs creates a thread asking a question on something that was not said. Which he does do.
If he made an error he should say so. However he just ignores source requests.
Certainly a little proof wouldn't go amiss.
-
Certainly a little proof wouldn't go amiss.
Nugs does create thread questions based on things that were never said.
Maybe he believes they would have been said if his conspiracy theory was correct.
If a source is requested on the thread post, Nugs ignores it and starts posting on another thread. He hasn't posted on this thread since I asked for a source on page 1.
-
How does jeremys repeated cliam that he saw a male figure in the house sqaure with him trying to frame sheila.
Hopefully Nugs will supply the source today. It was first requested several days ago by two posters.
It does waste a lot of time for forum members when Nugs creates thread questions on something that was never said.
-
Hopefully Nugs will supply the source today. It was first requested several days ago by two posters.
It does waste a lot of time for forum members when Nugs creates thread questions on something that was never said.
If you took your blinkers off then perhaps you'd appreciate the other side to this case------which is the reason why the forum was set up in the first place. We wouldn't be discussing it if it had been a straight forward " beyond reasonable doubt "------which it wasn't.
-
If you took your blinkers off then perhaps you'd appreciate the other side to this case------which is the reason why the forum was set up in the first place. We wouldn't be discussing it if it had been a straight forward " beyond reasonable doubt "------which it wasn't.
I've been on the other side of the case ............ perhaps you should consider the other side?
-
I've been on the other side of the case ............ perhaps you should consider the other side?
I HAVE considered the " other side ",but it gave me a bad feeling about where the truth lay and also about the type of characters who put JB away----------not one decent one among them.
-
I HAVE considered the " other side ",but it gave me a bad feeling about where the truth lay and also about the type of characters who put JB away----------not one decent one among them.
So, you have considered the guilty side from an innocent perspective? - Not the same thing! OK enough of this - off out!
-
If you took your blinkers off then perhaps you'd appreciate the other side to this case------which is the reason why the forum was set up in the first place. We wouldn't be discussing it if it had been a straight forward " beyond reasonable doubt "------which it wasn't.
Not sure what this has got to do with me asking for a source.
Anyway Nugs has finally provided a source from his 2014 thread. It seems to vary between Patti, Lookout, a book & interview transcripts.
Hopefully he will provide a link & page number for the interview transcripts. And hopefully provide a source for this thread. Which has been requested several times.
-
I HAVE considered the " other side ",but it gave me a bad feeling about where the truth lay and also about the type of characters who put JB away----------not one decent one among them.
Further proof, perhaps, of you and Jeremy being cut from the same mold?
-
Not sure what this has got to do with me asking for a source.
Anyway Nugs has finally provided a source from his 2014 thread. It seems to vary between Patti, Lookout, a book & interview transcripts.
Hopefully he will provide a link & page number for the interview transcripts. And hopefully provide a source for this thread. Which has been requested several times.
Why don't you provide a source of forensic evidence ??
-
Why don't you provide a source of forensic evidence ??
Sources in capitals.
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, PATHOLOGIST.
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, PATHOLOGIST.
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. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE.
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, TONIGHT PROGRAMME.
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.
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- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
Bloodied palm print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
Nevill's bruised feet and knees - Not disputed - FORUM.
-
Further proof, perhaps, of you and Jeremy being cut from the same mold?
Maybe we can see through people better than the norm.
-
Sources in capitals.
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
Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
Come on Adam, practice what you preach!!!
When a source is requested a link needs to be supplied. If it is a long link, the page number should be given, espescially if it's hand written, as MM's interview transcripts are.
-
Maybe we can see through people better than the norm.
Maybe you inhabit your own worlds in which the thought/belief systems held, by you, to be accurate are considered, by others, to be totally unacceptable.
-
Hopefully Nugs will provide his sources for his thread statement.
Forth request.
this is from somone who has never provided a single source for any of there claims.
I thought Jeremy was the source of unditfied male cliam apperantly it was ab policeman.
and not him.
-
this is from somone who has never provided a single source for any of there claims.
I thought Jeremy was the source of unditfied male cliam apperantly it was ab policeman.
and not him.
I post sources all the time.
Right so Bamber did not tell the police he saw a 'male' figure in the window. You're thread post was wrong.
Apparently it is now a police man who saw a 'male' figure in the window. Although I have not seen a source for this either.
Can you ensure that you're thread questions have a source when the question is based on what someone has said. Preferably include the source link in you're thread post. Ditto all you're posts.
Just making a claim you have no source for & hopeing no one asks, then ignoring source requests by posting on other threads, is not acceptable.
-
Sources in capitals.
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- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
I didn't ask for Psalm-------------just a straight answer on forensic evidence .
-
Why don't you provide a source of forensic evidence ??
Well you did ask for sources.
-
I post sources all the time.
No you don't. Writing things like 'COA' or 'NUMEROUS SOURCES' is not posting a source. You basically claiming a source merely exists. Often in a misleading fashion.
Every now and then you copy and paste from the COA 2002, but fail to provide the sources the COA relied on.
-
No you don't. Writing things like 'COA' or 'NUMEROUS SOURCES' is not posting a source. You basically claiming a source merely exists. Often in a misleading fashion.
Every now and then you copy and paste from the COA 2002, but fail to provide the sources the COA relied on.
My sources are better than you're 3D diagrams. Or letters from Bamber & 'forensic evidence breakthrough' which you are scared to disclose.
So I have to post the source the COA used ? No thanks. The COA is a good enough source on it's own.
-
I post sources all the time.
Right so Bamber did not tell the police he saw a 'male' figure in the window. You're thread post was wrong.
Apparently it is now a police man who saw a 'male' figure in the window. Although I have not seen a source for this either.
Can you ensure that you're thread questions have a source when the question is based on what someone has said. Preferably include the source link in you're thread post. Ditto all you're posts.
Just making a claim you have no source for & hopeing no one asks, then ignoring source requests by posting on other threads, is not acceptable.
you have no source for any of your claims other than saying coa over and over again if you actually bothred to read the thread in the first place what the source.
-
you have no source for any of your claims other than saying coa over and over again if you actually bothred to read the thread in the first place what the source.
My list in reply 70 of 62 pieces of incriminating evidence against Bamber has 16 different sources -
Bamber.
Court of Appeal.
Photographs.
Official site.
Scientific fact.
CCRC judicial review.
Forum.
Wilkes.
Crimes, hearts & coronets.
Interview transcripts.
Witness statements.
Youtube videos.
Pathologist.
Accepted fact.
Internet articles.
Tonight documentary programme.
Several pieces will have dozens of sources. Such as blood being in the silencer , Bamber's WHF entrance/exit options & Sheila being unmarked.
I could find more sources for each point. But do not need to.
-
So I have to post the source the COA used ? No thanks.
I do. And anyone who wants to establish the facts should do. Guess you are worried the COA is not as objective as you like to think it is.
-
My list in reply 70 of 62 pieces of incriminating evidence against Bamber has 15 different sources -
Bamber.
Court of Appeal.
Photographs.
Official site.
Scientific fact.
CCRC judicial review.
Forum.
Wilkes.
Crimes, hearts & coronets.
Interview transcripts.
Witness statements.
Youtube videos.
Pathologist.
Accepted fact.
Internet articles.
Several pieces will have dozens of sources. Such as blood being in the silencer , Bamber's WHF entrance/exit options & Sheila being unmarked.
Writing things like 'Wilkes' 'Interview transcripts' 'Accepted fact' 'Pathologist'. Is not posting a source. You basically claiming a source merely exists. Often in a misleading fashion.