Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on November 14, 2017, 12:18:PM
-
as all the officers deny using the office doesnt that mean that nevile must of made the call if it was made.
-
as all the officers deny using the office doesnt that mean that nevile must of made the call if it was made.
No.
-
No.
its just that i cant see why the raid team would deny using the phone if they had used it at the same time i cant see why ainsly would sugest they had used it if they hadent. unless of course he was trying to explian a call that had been made to the station from that phone.
-
its just that i cant see why the raid team would deny using the phone if they had used it at the same time i cant see why ainsly would sugest they had used it if they hadent. unless of course he was trying to explian a call that had been made to the station from that phone.
A) Not all the original raid team statements have been disclosed.
B) Nevill calling the police would have almost certainly prevented Jeremy from being convicted in the first place. The relatives would be unable to persuade the police.
C) The police would surely have mentioned such a call to stop the relatives pestering them. Advocates of the Nevill phoned the police theory, fail to give any reasonable explanation as to why police would remain silent. The only explanation that makes sense is - there was no call.
D) Its a Paradox. i.e the police are honest when denying they used the phone but dishonest about Nevill's call.
-
A) Not all the original raid team statements have been disclosed.
B) Nevill calling the police would have almost certainly prevented Jeremy from being convicted in the first place. The relatives would be unable to persuade the police.
C) The police would surely have mentioned such a call to stop the relatives pestering them. Advocates of the Nevill phoned the police theory, fail to give any reasonable explanation as to why police would remain silent. The only explanation that makes sense is - there was no call.
D) Its a Paradox. i.e the police are honest when denying they used the phone but dishonest about Nevill's call.
there had no realreason to deny using the phone.
there is an explantion if he called them and they failed to respound or take it seriously then he has to phone jeremy then jeremy phones them. it would mean they could of possbly prevented the mascare but failed to do so not somthing they would want to admit to.
-
as all the officers deny using the office doesnt that mean that nevile must of made the call if it was made.
For all of the reason mentioned previously - NO!
-
For all of the reason mentioned previously - NO!
so in that case must of done it.
-
so in that case must of done it.
Only in your world
-
Only in your world
no its not that is acording to ainsly.
-
no its not that is acording to ainsly.
The same guy who half of you call a liar and accuse him of framing Bamber?
-
The same guy who half of you call a liar and accuse him of framing Bamber?
yes the very same
-
yes the very same
Like I said, in your world.
-
According to the CT. It was DCS Harris that called DCC Simpson.
-
According to the CT. It was DCS Harris that called DCC Simpson.
did dcs harris admit to this.
-
did dcs harris admit to this.
...
-
...
are thankyou mike.
-
A) Not all the original raid team statements have been disclosed.
B) Nevill calling the police would have almost certainly prevented Jeremy from being convicted in the first place. The relatives would be unable to persuade the police.
C) The police would surely have mentioned such a call to stop the relatives pestering them. Advocates of the Nevill phoned the police theory, fail to give any reasonable explanation as to why police would remain silent. The only explanation that makes sense is - there was no call.
D) Its a Paradox. i.e the police are honest when denying they used the phone but dishonest about Nevill's call.
Can you explain what the material difference is between Nevill telephoning Police and him telephoning Jeremy, or why you believe one event occurred but not the other..
-
if harris used the phone then that accounts for a call to the police station so that means theres no proof nevile phoned the police.
-
if harris used the phone then that accounts for a call to the police station so that means theres no proof nevile phoned the police.
So where is the proof that he phoned Jeremy?
-
So where is the proof that he phoned Jeremy?
well if di phoned the police then there isn't you cant realy prove who phoned just that the station was phoned.
-
This is just it,everyone is,and has jumped to conclusions about every aspect of the case,including the police. It's been done to suit whichever side you happen to be on,particularly by the " follow my leader " brigade.
-
of course if nevile had phoned the police and not got a response. that would explain him phonin Jeremy instead.
-
of course if nevile had phoned the police and not got a response. that would explain him phonin Jeremy instead.
One might have hoped he'd have had the sense to call 999. I'm perfectly certain he'd have got a response.
-
of course if nevile had phoned the police and not got a response. that would explain him phonin Jeremy instead.
Wasn't one station closed ?
-
Wasn't one station closed ?
This is the debate about whether he telephoned Witham, which PC West claims Jeremy said but which has been denied by Jeremy at all times.
-
Can you explain what the material difference is between Nevill telephoning Police and him telephoning Jeremy, or why you believe one event occurred but not the other..
I already have.
-
I already have.
Where is the proof he called Jeremy?
-
Where is the proof he called Jeremy?
Sheila found dead having shot herself inside a house secured from the inside.
Jeremy's account supplemented by a polygraph examination.
Lack of livor mortis and rigour mortis indicates a late time of death for Sheila.
All of these by implication prove the call happened.
-
Sheila found dead having shot herself inside a house secured from the inside.
Jeremy's account supplemented by a polygraph examination.
Lack of livor mortis and rigour mortis indicates a late time of death for Sheila.
All of these by implication prove the call happened.
Sheila's body was staged managed by Jeremy
Polygraph is NOT proof of anything! As an already convicted man, Bamber had no stress when taking the test (which is what the test actually measures) - why should he? He had nothing to lose and a psychopath wouldn't have a problem with the test anyway. You're going to say that he has previously beenn tested but the test is only as good as the tester and he had previously been diagnosed as a classic case of psychopathy.
Lack of livor mortis is your claim - you can see that it has formed on Sheila
All of these by implication prove the call didn't happen!
-
Sheila's body was staged managed by Jeremy
Polygraph is NOT proof of anything! As an already convicted man, Bamber had no stress when taking the test (which is what the test actually measures) - why should he? He had nothing to lose and a psychopath wouldn't have a problem with the test anyway. You're going to say that he has previously beenn tested but the test is only as good as the tester and he had previously been diagnosed as a classic case of psychopathy.
Lack of livor mortis is your claim - you can see that it has formed on Sheila
All of these by implication prove the call didn't happen!
erm how can he stage lack of rigour mortis.
-
Rigor/Livor mortis can occur within two hours of death of someone who'd been active before death.
-
erm how can he stage lack of rigour mortis.
Who said there was a lack of rigor mortis compared with other victims?
-
Rigor/Livor mortis can occur within two hours of death of someone who'd been active before death.
It is subjective - not all bodies develope livor/rigor mortis at the same time. There are lots of factors involved BUT Sheila does show signs of livor mortis.
-
It is subjective - not all bodies develope livor/rigor mortis at the same time. There are lots of factors involved BUT Sheila does show signs of livor mortis.
Debateable. Because the signs were there,it's not to say that she hadn't died just 2 hours before being first seen. Subjective ? Certainly. Though my guess and belief is that Sheila had indeed been very active prior to death.
-
Whilst I remain confident that our judicial system is probably the best there is, I'm becoming more and more convinced that it only takes a clever defence barrister, to sow enough seeds of doubt into the minds of the jury, for guilty defendants to walk free. It's of no moment HOW much doubt is put in peoples' minds. It will never make a guilty person an innocent one.
-
Whilst I remain confident that our judicial system is probably the best there is, I'm becoming more and more convinced that it only takes a clever defence barrister, to sow enough seeds of doubt into the minds of the jury, for guilty defendants to walk free. It's of no moment HOW much doubt is put in peoples' minds. It will never make a guilty person an innocent one.
Quite true Jane, take that Arthur Collins, he was caught on camera throwing acid in a night club, his defence was he didn’t know what was in the bottle/jar, he’s even been shown telling his mum in a text to watch that acid, he said he thought it was date rape drug, he injured 22 people, he got convicted on a 10/2 majority, how the hell two jurors thought he hadn’t intended to do it is a mystery, one more and he would have got off. He had a good defence and he was good looking, I bet he will be another one appealing his prison sentence and costing us tax payers. This is where our money is wasted on pricks like him, throw the key away and make him eat shit.
-
Whilst I remain confident that our judicial system is probably the best there is, I'm becoming more and more convinced that it only takes a clever defence barrister, to sow enough seeds of doubt into the minds of the jury, for guilty defendants to walk free. It's of no moment HOW much doubt is put in peoples' minds. It will never make a guilty person an innocent one.
can you name any examples of that actually happening.
-
can you name any examples of that actually happening.
Try OJ
-
can you name any examples of that actually happening.
I have no need. It's a given that those who have engaging personalities, who are good with words and have a sense of conviction, can sell. It's happening every day, in every walk of life, and probably in any situation you care to name.
-
Whilst I remain confident that our judicial system is probably the best there is, I'm becoming more and more convinced that it only takes a clever defence barrister, to sow enough seeds of doubt into the minds of the jury, for guilty defendants to walk free. It's of no moment HOW much doubt is put in peoples' minds. It will never make a guilty person an innocent one.
Except that there seems to be too many innocents facing guilty verdicts in this day and age judging by the backlog of work being done by the CCRC.
-
I have no need. It's a given that those who have engaging personalities, who are good with words and have a sense of conviction, can sell. It's happening every day, in every walk of life, and probably in any situation you care to name.
"Engaging personalities " ? All criminals ?
-
I have no need. It's a given that those who have engaging personalities, who are good with words and have a sense of conviction, can sell. It's happening every day, in every walk of life, and probably in any situation you care to name.
can you provide any example of a guilty man walking free from court after a smooth talking lawyer got him off.
because hundreds of examples of the reverse happening.
-
Try OJ
That happened in America.
-
Try OJ
one what that happened and 2 it only happened because a policeman took the fith when being asked weather he had planted evidence.
its hardly unreasonable for a jury to think a policeman planted evidence if he wont even deny doing it.
-
Yes,this is 2017 and it still happens !!
-
one what that happened and 2 it only happened because a policeman took the fith when being asked weather he had planted evidence.
its hardly unreasonable for a jury to think a policeman planted evidence if he wont even deny doing it.
Exactly. If I was on that Jury and going only on what was presented in-front of me. Id find him not guilty also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isDPecYKEjM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isDPecYKEjM)
-
can you provide any example of a guilty man walking free from court after a smooth talking lawyer got him off.
because hundreds of examples of the reverse happening.
I'm inclined to believe that most of the guilty who walk free have had the advantage of counsel who knows how to sell themselves to a jury. Once they can do that, they can also sell whatever story they're telling.
-
I'm inclined to believe that most of the guilty who walk free have had the advantage of counsel who knows how to sell themselves to a jury. Once they can do that, they can also sell whatever story they're telling.
but can any examples so far you haven't.
-
"Engaging personalities " ? All criminals ?
You appear to be making one and one add up to five.
-
but can any examples so far you haven't.
No, but I have enough working knowledge of human behaviour to know -and it makes no difference whether it's a barrister or a barman- that the first thing necessary for success is self presentation. Why do you think -in certain professions- behavioral psychologists are employed to arrange role plays for trainees?
-
No, but I have enough working knowledge of human behaviour to know -and it makes no difference whether it's a barrister or a barman- that the first thing necessary for success is self presentation. Why do you think -in certain professions- behavioral psychologists are employed to arrange role plays for trainees?
In other words, you are talking garbage.
-
That happened in America.
And
-
Exactly. If I was on that Jury and going only on what was presented in-front of me. Id find him not guilty also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isDPecYKEjM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isDPecYKEjM)
This clearly demonstrates what a bad judge of character you are then.
-
but can any examples so far you haven't.
As Jane said it's happening every day, not necessarily on murder charges but clever barristers getting their clients off on a technicality. Isn't there a guy who makes a living getting drink drivers off..http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/who-is-nick-freeman-loophole-13711566
I can also think of George Carman QC who got Ken Dodd off tax evasion and Peter Adamson off indecent assault, the case of Lisa and Michelle Taylor, where in my opinion justice wasn't served, then there was the case of Lavinia Woodford, who stabbed her boyfriend and still didn't land in jail.
-
As Jane said it's happening every day, not necessarily on murder charges but clever barristers getting their clients off on a technicality. Isn't there a guy who makes a living getting drink drivers off..http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/who-is-nick-freeman-loophole-13711566
I can also think of George Carman QC who got Ken Dodd off tax evasion and Peter Adamson off indecent assault, the case of Lisa and Michelle Taylor, where in my opinion justice wasn't served, then there was the case of Lavinia Woodford, who stabbed her boyfriend and still didn't land in jail.
Thanks for that, Steve. Whilst specifics aren't necessarily my forte, there's no aspect of human behaviour which hasn't been tried and replicated many times over.
-
As Jane said it's happening every day, not necessarily on murder charges but clever barristers getting their clients off on a technicality. Isn't there a guy who makes a living getting drink drivers off..http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/who-is-nick-freeman-loophole-13711566
I can also think of George Carman QC who got Ken Dodd off tax evasion and Peter Adamson off indecent assault, the case of Lisa and Michelle Taylor, where in my opinion justice wasn't served, then there was the case of Lavinia Woodford, who stabbed her boyfriend and still didn't land in jail.
All dependent on what it's worth to them-----much like the prosecution in this,the JB case !
-
The hail fellow well met brigade. Same ones would stab you in the back !
-
As Jane said it's happening every day, not necessarily on murder charges but clever barristers getting their clients off on a technicality. Isn't there a guy who makes a living getting drink drivers off..http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/who-is-nick-freeman-loophole-13711566
I can also think of George Carman QC who got Ken Dodd off tax evasion and Peter Adamson off indecent assault, the case of Lisa and Michelle Taylor, where in my opinion justice wasn't served, then there was the case of Lavinia Woodford, who stabbed her boyfriend and still didn't land in jail.
that links relates to driving offences hardly the same thing.
-
that links relates to driving offences hardly the same thing.
It's not the crimes which are being questioned, Nugs. It's the behaviours employed that see the guilty walk free.
-
What exactly does this " behaviour " entail ?
-
What exactly does this " behaviour " entail ?
I assume, as you claim to have greater knowledge, than I, of the psychology of human behaviours, your question is rhetorical ;D
-
It depends on what you mean by behaviour.
-
that links relates to driving offences hardly the same thing.
You asked a question and several answers were supplied to show that what you wrote was incorrect - now you're trying to shift the goal posts. Guilty people get off every day but they may not make the news, just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
-
It depends on what you mean by behaviour.
I imagine our understanding of it differs.
-
You asked a question and several answers were supplied to show that what you wrote was incorrect - now you're trying to shift the goal posts. Guilty people get off every day but they may not make the news, just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
we are asking for examples of murders like real crimanals geting away with it.
driving offences do not fall into that catogory.
appart from that there was one example of a murder that dident even happen in the ukl.
-
we are asking for examples of murders like real crimanals geting away with it.
driving offences do not fall into that catogory.
appart from that there was one example of a murder that dident even happen in the ukl.
Jane's post
Whilst I remain confident that our judicial system is probably the best there is, I'm becoming more and more convinced that it only takes a clever defence barrister, to sow enough seeds of doubt into the minds of the jury, for guilty defendants to walk free. It's of no moment HOW much doubt is put in peoples' minds. It will never make a guilty person an innocent one.
Your post
can you name any examples of that actually happening.
Where does it indicate that you were talking about 'murder' and only cases in the UK?
Also, how would you know how many guilty people walked free, if they got off with it? Are they going to admit they were guilty once they left court? Hardly given that they could be tried again!
-
hi fellow members just popped back to see how everyone is doing.nice to see you all going at it hammer and tong.bambers team have flooded youtube with loads of cock n bull stories very funny to watch.i dont think poor neville made any calls with a .22 round in his jaw. ;)
-
hi fellow members just popped back to see how everyone is doing.nice to see you all going at it hammer and tong.bambers team have flooded youtube with loads of cock n bull stories very funny to watch.i dont think poor neville made any calls with a .22 round in his jaw. ;)
Hi Sami, good to see you back! :)
-
hi fellow members just popped back to see how everyone is doing.nice to see you all going at it hammer and tong.bambers team have flooded youtube with loads of cock n bull stories very funny to watch.i dont think poor neville made any calls with a .22 round in his jaw. ;)
Hi Sami, welcome back
-
hi fellow members just popped back to see how everyone is doing.nice to see you all going at it hammer and tong.bambers team have flooded youtube with loads of cock n bull stories very funny to watch.i dont think poor neville made any calls with a .22 round in his jaw. ;)
'Lo Sami. Good to see ya :)
-
Wonderful ::) As welcome as a fart in a lift. ( I haven't changed )
Nevill would obviously have rang JB before his injuries.
-
Wonderful ::) As welcome as a fart in a lift. ( I haven't changed )
Nevill would obviously have rang JB before his injuries.
You still fart in lifts? :o
So when did he ring the police?
-
You still fart in lifts? :o
So when did he ring the police?
I always used stairs where possible ( a fitness thing )
I thought this was about Nevill's call to JB ?
-
I always used stairs where possible ( a fitness thing )
I thought this was about Nevill's call to JB ?
The thread title indicates that it's the question of Nevill's alleged call to police. Do you think it was a 999 call, OR do you think he did what Jeremy did and took 20+ minutes to locate the relevant number, after all, if you say poor ickle Jeremy didn't know what to do because he'd just woken up, it can't be expected -if he was scared enough to call police- that Nevill would have remembered local opening hours/numbers off the top of his head, can it?
-
The thread title indicates that it's the question of Nevill's alleged call to police. Do you think it was a 999 call, OR do you think he did what Jeremy did and took 20+ minutes to locate the relevant number, after all, if you say poor ickle Jeremy didn't know what to do because he'd just woken up, it can't be expected -if he was scared enough to call police- that Nevill would have remembered local opening hours/numbers off the top of his head, can it?
When Nevill rang the police,it would have been a 999 call and he also would have had to have waited until the coast was clear in which to do so,i.e. Sheila being out of earshot from whichever area in the farmhouse he'd used the phone.
In JB's case when he rang his father,he'd have been disorientated waking from sleeping,so by the time you've gathered yourself together to answer the phone,downstairs,you have to then get your head around the type of call it was given the time of the morning when sleep is at its deepest.
Allowances and thought have to be put into place under such circumstances.
Nobody that I know leaps out of bed at 3am fresh as a daisy.
-
When Nevill rang the police,it would have been a 999 call and he also would have had to have waited until the coast was clear in which to do so,i.e. Sheila being out of earshot from whichever area in the farmhouse he'd used the phone.
In JB's case when he rang his father,he'd have been disorientated waking from sleeping,so by the time you've gathered yourself together to answer the phone,downstairs,you have to then get your head around the type of call it was given the time of the morning when sleep is at its deepest.
Allowances and thought have to be put into place under such circumstances.
Nobody that I know leaps out of bed at 3am fresh as a daisy.
'COURSE he'd have been 'disoriented', poor diddums. He was only 25. Too young to leave his mummy, wasn't he? ::) We're talking about an adult who'd managed himself -AND his diverse petty crimes- all over the world. It seems he'd needed to be fly enough to evade detection. I have serious doubts that a phone call would have disturbed him. Julie CLEARLY got the gist of what he said when he phoned her at silly o'clock. SHE was only 20.
-
Ive no doubt Sami, somewhere down the line, once it had gone quite, he would have bragged about the killings to big himself up to the drug world.
spot on justice.he lives in cloud cuckoo land but believes he is cleverer than anyone else many a criminal have that mind set until it all goes pear shaped and they end up doing some serious bird
-
If I remember correctly, Jeremy was specifically asked about Jeremy having received an alleged telephone call from Nevill on the morning of 7th August 1985.
At that time and in the immediate aftermath Jeremy was asked why Nevill had telephoned Jeremy as opposed to Nevill deciding to telephone the Police. I beleive, Jeremy's reply / explanation was that Nevill, as a private man, would have wanted Sheila's troubles to be kept only within the family and thus not get any of the authorities involved.
As such, Jeremy initially did not believe Nevill would have allegedly called the Police. This was not a part of Jeremy's initial version of alleged events.
Since then, apart from Jeremy being charged and hence challenged on his version of events (subsequently convicted of 5 murders) what else may have helped change Jeremy's mind/ reasoning?
-
If I remember correctly, Jeremy was specifically asked about Jeremy having received an alleged telephone call from Nevill on the morning of 7th August 1985.
At that time and in the immediate aftermath Jeremy was asked why Nevill had telephoned Jeremy as opposed to Nevill deciding to telephone the Police. I beleive, Jeremy's reply / explanation was that Nevill, as a private man, would have wanted Sheila's troubles to be kept only within the family and thus not get any of the authorities involved.
As such, Jeremy initially did not believe Nevill would have allegedly called the Police. This was not a part of Jeremy's initial version of alleged events.
Since then, apart from Jeremy being charged and hence challenged on his version of events (subsequently convicted of 5 murders) what else may have helped change Jeremy's mind/ reasoning?
Hello curiousessex, good to see you posting. :)
-
If I remember correctly, Jeremy was specifically asked about Jeremy having received an alleged telephone call from Nevill on the morning of 7th August 1985.
At that time and in the immediate aftermath Jeremy was asked why Nevill had telephoned Jeremy as opposed to Nevill deciding to telephone the Police. I beleive, Jeremy's reply / explanation was that Nevill, as a private man, would have wanted Sheila's troubles to be kept only within the family and thus not get any of the authorities involved.
As such, Jeremy initially did not believe Nevill would have allegedly called the Police. This was not a part of Jeremy's initial version of alleged events.
Since then, apart from Jeremy being charged and hence challenged on his version of events (subsequently convicted of 5 murders) what else may have helped change Jeremy's mind/ reasoning?
Welcome back Curiousessex, I think I’ve read in one statement something about this only the other day. I honestly think a lot is fed into Jeremy by his supporters, you can see various things that he never said at trial and says after or vice versa, one instantance, at trial when he was asked why he left the rifle out, he said it was because he had been lapsidacical, yet in questioning he’s always said he was in a hurry, small yes, but they look for these discrepancies.
-
Nevill's 3am call to Bamber is the weirdest phone call I have ever heard about. Even the judge said it was 'difficult or impossible to understand or explain' (mysterious).
Not just because Nevill would never call Bamber in his situation. But when Bamber did eventually pick up the phone from sleeping 'like a log', Nevill spoke for 2 - 4 seconds & then put the phone down.
-
The second weirdest phone call I have ever about is Bamber's call to the 5th/6th furtest away police station, 22 miles away. The call being made 26 minutes after Nevill's call to him.
Bamber's call to Julie before Nevill's call to him is a close third.
-
Bamber calling Julie at 10am is not very stange. It is normal for a boyfriend to call his girlfriend.
The call was a bit late and Julie had not heard from Bamber since the weekend. His call is also just hours before the massacre. However supporters will say these are just coincidences.
What is strange is that Bamber can't remember a thing about the 17 minute conversation from a call he had made. Although remembers details about earlier kitchen conversations at WHF which were nothing to do with him.
-
The second weirdest phone call I have ever about is Bamber's call to the 5th/6th furtest away police station, 22 miles away. The call being made 26 minutes after Nevill's call to him.
Bamber's call to Julie before Nevill's call to him is a close third.
Maybe he was planning which station/car would be best to pick him up on route, you know, like a taxi service?
-
Someone has been reading the Red Forum!
Not me Caroline, I got accused the other day of that?
-
Ta Justice :) It seems to me that some people -all right, supporters- will accept anything, presented as factual possibility, which MIGHT turn guilt to innocence. They give no thought to any of the suggestions having lives of their own, and, as a result, consequences.
I think what benefits me you and Caroline, at least we have looked at both sides, I think that’s what gives us the edge don’t you think?
-
its pointless to let jb out now poor fella has been in the nick so long has been institutionalised he would not be able to fit back in society .far better for his sake to let him stay where he.its whats best for him
-
'Course, it seems that Lookout might be the only one who knows about it.
I must admit it’s the first I’ve heard about it Jane, I’m trying to find a source at this moment.
-
Nothing desperate about me,but there's something positively phony about you !!
In a COLP statement,it lists the crimes of JM and one of them is smuggling drugs from Canada to the UK.
Miffed,are you ??
I came across a Louise Carr is this the woman you were on about Lookout? It looks like she gave a witness statement at some stage? I couldn’t copy and past it for you (not the statement) it just said Louise Carr W/S?
-
Sorry I have locked this thread while I searate the osts into different threads as it has moved way off course. Will be quick. Thanks