lol
Here are pictures of documents which reveal the real dates when exhibits mentioned were found.
(https://i0.wp.com/scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/boutflour-silencer.jpg?ssl=1&w=450)
(https://i1.wp.com/scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/davidson-ds-davidson-silencer.png?ssl=1&w=450)
(https://i2.wp.com/scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/oakey-collection-of-silencer.jpg?ssl=1&w=450)
The fact that David Boutflour made his statement on September 12th strongly suggests that the whole performance of finding a silencer on September 11th (to be backdated in witness statements) was set up.
The police must have explained the purpose behind the deception. The relatives play acting shows they knew what the police required and what it was for. The way the relatives all make statements corroborating the finding on the 10th of August with each noticing the blood and paint on it and so on, shows that they willingly participated in the framing of Jeremy Bamber.
The fact that the statement recording the "finding" was ready to be signed only a day after it was found makes it seem likely that the plan involved telling the relatives to go to the farm on September 11th to collect items which had been deliberately left there by the police. The police must have explained the plan to the relatives. David Boutflour was to look in the gun cupboard and find a silencer along with other items with the exhibit references given above. Then he was to sign a statement dated September 12 claiming to have found those things on August 10th.
The Perjury of Ann Eaton and David Boutflour
The "finding" was set up. The relatives must have been told to go to Whitehouse Farm on September 11th and to collect items planted there by the police (probably things that they had already collected themselves) plus one other thing-an identical silencer to the one found by the police on August 7th-which had been contaminated to incriminate Jeremy Bamber.
Then on the 12th September after the visit to the farm, David Boutflour and his sister Ann Eaton each signed fraudulent witness statements in which they relate how the silencer and guns and ammunition were found on August 10th. They simply backdated the events of the previous day, according to instructions given to them by the police. We know this because police records exist which tell the real truth about when the items described were found and when they were collected.
On several later occasions fraudulent witness statements corroborating David Boutflour's account were signed by the other relatives including Ann and Peter Eaton, Robert Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter. All of those liars tell the same story about David finding the silencer, the telescopic sight and boxes of ammunition on August 10th.
Some people seem to believe that repetition and copying are the test of truthfulness. It's rather like arguing that what is said in a newspaper report must be true because of how many copies were printed. Others exclaim "How can all those people be lying?"
We now know that Bamber's relatives signed fraudulent witness statements and that all of the statements of the police which seem to corroborate the finding of the silencer on August 10th are also fraudulent. Industrial scale conspiracy! The facts speak for themselves.
The Perjury of Ann Eaton and David Boutflour
The "finding" was set up. The relatives must have been told to go to Whitehouse Farm on September 11th and to collect items planted there by the police (probably things that they had already collected themselves) plus one other thing-an identical silencer to the one found by the police on August 7th-which had been contaminated to incriminate Jeremy Bamber.
Then on the 12th September after the visit to the farm, David Boutflour and his sister Ann Eaton each signed fraudulent witness statements in which they relate how the silencer and guns and ammunition were found on August 10th. They simply backdated the events of the previous day, according to instructions given to them by the police. We know this because police records exist which tell the real truth about when the items described were found and when they were collected.
On several later occasions fraudulent witness statements corroborating David Boutflour's account were signed by the other relatives including Ann and Peter Eaton, Robert Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter. All of those liars tell the same story about David finding the silencer, the telescopic sight and boxes of ammunition on August 10th.
Some people seem to believe that repetition and copying are the test of truthfulness. It's rather like arguing that what is said in a newspaper report must be true because of how many copies were printed. Others exclaim "How can all those people be lying?"
We now know that Bamber's relatives signed fraudulent witness statements and that all of the statements of the police which seem to corroborate the finding of the silencer on August 10th are also fraudulent. Industrial scale conspiracy! The facts speak for themselves.
SJ found the silencer on 7th of August.
So you think David Boutflour found a telescopic sight twice, once on August 10th and again on September 11th and also identical batches of ammunition and stuff on two occasions.
Your duplication theory does not work. The relatives did not find those same exhibits twice. How do you reconcile the statements of David Boutflour and DC Oakey?
SBJ/1----original murder/suicide documents.
The fact that David Boutflour made his statement on September 12th strongly suggests that the whole performance of finding a silencer on September 11th (to be backdated in witness statements) was set up.
The police must have explained the purpose behind the deception. The relatives play acting shows they knew what the police required and what it was for. The way the relatives all make statements corroborating the finding on the 10th of August with each noticing the blood and paint on it and so on, shows that they willingly participated in the framing of Jeremy Bamber.
The fact that the statement recording the "finding" was ready to be signed only a day after it was found makes it seem likely that the plan involved telling the relatives to go to the farm on September 11th to collect items which had been deliberately left there by the police. The police must have explained the plan to the relatives. David Boutflour was to look in the gun cupboard and find a silencer along with other items with the exhibit references given above. Then he was to sign a statement dated September 12 claiming to have found those things on August 10th.
He made the statement then because it was JUST after Bamber was arrested. What do you mean by "the statement recording the "finding" was ready to be signed only a day after it was found"?
1. David Boutflour found the silencer, telescopic sight and ammo in August.
2. He takes them to the Eaton Farm the same day.
3. Stan Jones collects the silencer from the Eaton farm a few days later.
4. The telecopic sight and ammo remain at Eatons farm.
5. In september Oakey then vists Eaton farm and collects the sight, ammo and the box that contained the silencer that DB found the month prior.
All in all your theory depends on poorly written paperwork. Furthermore it makes no logical sense. If the police were involved in an industrial scale and planted the silencer, There is no need for the relatives to even be in the picture. The police could stand up in court and say they found the silencer and it was all there credible honest detective work. Not give instructions to people who will be seen with suspicion due to the financial implications of a conviction.
I personally don't think the police even expected Jeremy to be found guilty. Its was merely a formality to resolve the accusations being made.
1. David Boutflour found the silencer, telescopic sight and ammo in August.
2. He takes them to the Eaton Farm the same day.
3. Stan Jones collects the silencer from the Eaton farm a few days later.
4. The telecopic sight and ammo remain at Eatons farm.
5. In september Oakey then vists Eaton farm and collects the sight, ammo and the box that contained the silencer that DB found the month prior.
Three points
1 Police records show that the items referred to in this statement of David Boutflour were actually found on September 11th and collected on that day or shortly after. Talking about slack paperwork doesn't cut it, because there are several mutually corroborative documents involving several police officers including DS Davidson DI Wright and DC Oakey. So they all made the same mistakes! Who would really believe that?
"All in all your theory depends on poorly written paperwork."
Talking about slack paperwork doesn't cut it, because there are several mutually corroborative documents involving several police officers including DS Davidson DI Wright and DC Oakey. So they all made the same mistakes! Who would really believe that?
Not sure how they knew the kitchen crime scene photos did not contradict them & show an 'unscratched' aga. I doubt the photos had even been processed then.
How do you explain the cut out film strips?
It's worth noting that back in 1985 the photos were developed manually not digitally. The origional photo bundles would unlikley show scratches unless they were focused on.
In 2011 the films were re-developed using modern computer methods. Back in 1985 there was no such thing as mega pixels ect.
If you showed me a 1985 photo showing the underside of the aga taken from the centre of the room. You probably would not notice any scratches even if they are there. Remember this would be a photo in my hand. Zooming in is not an option.
How would the relatives know the crime scene photos did not have close up pictures of the aga ?
The aga covered a big area.
Why would the crime scene photographer take close up pictures of the underside of the mantle on the day of the murders? Furthermore that exact area was partially obscured by a jacket on the washing line. As far as I know the jacket was still on the line when the relatives entered the house . So it would be the least riskiest place to put the scratches. And lo and behold that's exactly were they are located!
Cut out strips ? So the police were involved in the frame.
Why would the crime scene photographer take close up pictures of the underside of the mantle on the day of the murders? Furthermore that exact area was partially obscured by a jacket on the washing line. As far as I know the jacket was still on the line when the relatives entered the house . So it would be the least riskiest place to put the scratches. And lo and behold that's exactly were they are located!Do you accept that there was a scuffle in the kitchen and how do you account for the broken ceiling light?
No. Its a post verdict conspiracy. Essex police have committed themselves to the verdict and there is no going back. Its a simple case of destroy, withhold or "misplace" anything that would bring them into disrepute.
Of course. The post verdict conspiracy.
The police were not involved in the silencer fabrication. Just all the other incriminating evidence.
Do you accept that there was a scuffle in the kitchen
and how do you account for the broken ceiling light?
What " other incriminating evidence " would that be ?
No. Nevill was already shot four times before he entered the kitchen. The two shots to his jaw were fatal and one arm was broken and could not be moved. It was a one sided whacking.
Since the kitchen ceiling light was on when the police arrived I have no broken light to account for.
No. Nevill was already shot four times before he entered the kitchen. The two shots to his jaw were fatal and one arm was broken and could not be moved. It was a one sided whacking.The smashed lightshade suggests to me that there was a scuffle, Nevill getting a grip on the weapon and with his last remaining strength managing to raise it above head height to leave a trace of his presence.
Since the kitchen ceiling light was on when the police arrived I have no broken light to account for.
The smashed lightshade suggests to me that there was a scuffle, Nevill getting a grip on the weapon and with his last remaining strength managing to raise it above head height to leave a trace of his presence.
Sheila would have appeared ungainly while tearing around shooting because of her overall condition being mentally disturbed so would have been clumsy in her state.I can't see it really because of her serene state in death, as if she had been just woken from a deep sleep. I suppose Jeremy would have had to reckon on Nevill being either asleep on the sofa in the lounge or in the master bedroom, whereas Sheila had the benefit of being in situ, but all the same a slightly built recovering anorexic with mobility problems is hardly the person who would be able to run up and downstairs in order to reload.
Forensic evidence only -
1. Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2. One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3. Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4. Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5. No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6. Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7. No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8. No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9. No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10. No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11. Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.
12. No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13. No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14. Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15. Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16. Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER
17. No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18. No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
19. Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20. No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21. No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22. No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23. No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
24. Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - FORUM.
25. Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
26. Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
27. Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28. Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
29. Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
30. Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .
31. Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
32. Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
33. No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
34. Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35. Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36. A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
37. Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE.
38. Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39. Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
40. Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41. Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.
42. Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.
43. No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44. Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45. Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
46. Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.
47. June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48. Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME.
49. 2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50. The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
51. Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
52. Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.
53. Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54. No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55. Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.
56. Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.
57. Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58. Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.
59. Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60. Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61. Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.
62. Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63. Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64. Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65. Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66. Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67. Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - CRIME SCENE PICTURES.
68. Dried blood on Sheila - PATHOLOGIST.
--------------
Have no time to create a list of circumstantial evidence.
I said on the Red forum that of course there is sourced evidence on a man who has spent 33 years in prison.
Hopefully David takes it like a man & doesn't start posting his images, banners, diagrams, abuse or 'gish gash' in response.
"The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.
During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate."
Adam if you dont want me to expose your fallacious and dishonest debating methods. Simply debate properly. I cant help pointing out Gish Gallops if you keep posting them.
Can't you wait until the experts tell you ? Your theories don't hold water !
The team wouldn't even be talking about an appeal if they thought there was no new evidence.
The team wouldn't even be talking about an appeal if they thought there was no new evidence.
They have been talking about an appeal since the last one! ;D ;D ;D ;D
No they do not. Police records show that Ann Eaton handed over DRB/2 and DRB/3 in on the 11th of September.
Any reasonable person would realise that DRB/2 and DRB/3 had been at the Eaton residence since David Boutflour brought them there on the 10th of August. Its written in DS Jones pocket book that he collected the silencer (DRB/1) at the Eaton Farm on the 12th of August. No mention of collecting DRB/2 and DRB/3. Which explains why the silencer appears on the early lab records and DRB/2 and DRB/3 do not. Because they remained at the Eaton farm as they were not considered important.
From the Statement of Ann Eaton, September 8th to 12th. The section below concerning events which allegedly took place on August 10th was recorded on September 12th, according to DS Davis who interviewed Ann Eaton.
"Mr. COCK decided that he would need to speak to the farm secretary Barbara WILSON. He telephoned her and she agreed to come to the farm.
On arrival at the farm Barbara WILSON was very emotional and she conferred with Mr. COCK.
My father. David and I started to have a look around the house.
My brother David collected all the guns around the house so that we could take possession of them for safe keeping. This was on the authority of Mr Cock
My brother, DAVID. then went into the downstairs office and I stood in the doorway and saw David open the gun cupboard. He got onto his knees and he then checked the cupboard.
David then took out a silencer and a telescopic sight and a carrier bag of ammunition. David said to me that the silencer and telescopic sight belonged to the rifle which had killed the BAMBERS and the CAFFELL twins.
The items were put into the kitchen with other guns and ammunition ready to be conveyed to my house for safe keeping...."
Both Ann Eaton and David Boutflour are describing in their statements of September 12th events which actual happened only a day earlier, according to police records shown in previous posts.
It is notable that Ann Eaton mentions Basil Cock. According to Robert Boutflour, who was also there, Basil Cock was uninterested in the silencer, but expressed annoyance at the the fingerprint dust which was all around the house. Whitehouse Farm was not fingerprinted until after September 7th when the case became a murder investigation.
These posts are from 2011 and yet people are still talking about the relatives finding the silencer on August 10th 1985
That's because the theory does not stand up to scrutiny.
You have to argue that thousands of documents across Essex Police, The Forensic Science Service, Huntingdon Lab and The City of London Police are all backdated forgeries. Not only that but backdated forgeries that all happen to fit together and all the witnesses whent ahead with it. A conspiracy of this magnitute is not possible to sustain. People involved would sooner or later speak out.
I have just had a post deleted. I would like to draw the attention of Mike Tesko to this, assuming Mike wasn't responsible. It quotes an important post of his and a reply from Roch.Sorry Harry was using my mobile removing some posts and your post was deleted by mistake. I have put it back onto the thread as it was never my intention to interfere with your o p onion. Hope this is acceptable to you.
Interference like this is intolerable. Moderators should not be allowed to delete posts to try to manipulate the debate.
It was a post which in my view contains important information, although it has been in the public domain for sometime. I have noticed that in a reply to this post by David1819, the quote which would have contained the deleted post has also been edited.
I don't know whether David himself edited the post or whether the same administrator who deleted the original post has also edited David's reply.
Ordinarily when a Moderator deletes a post, any replies to it are also deleted. What's going on in this case is that the reply has been allowed to stand while the post it was a reply to has been carefully edited, allowing a person hostile to to my position to merely dismiss the subject without addressing the point at issue.
David's reply merely avoids the main point in the now deleted post which was that the fingerprint dust basically proves that the visit to the farm must have taken place later than September 7th 1985.
Details can prove things. Sloppy generalizations cannot.
I thought it was Jeremy who complained about the fingerprint dust that the Police hadn't been thorough enough?
That's because the theory does not stand up to scrutiny.
You have to argue that thousands of documents across Essex Police, The Forensic Science Service, Huntingdon Lab and The City of London Police are all backdated forgeries. Not only that but backdated forgeries that all happen to fit together and all the witnesses whent ahead with it. A conspiracy of this magnitute is not possible to sustain. People involved would sooner or later speak out.
From the statement of DC Oakey dated October 25th 1985.
There is slight change in the exhibit references from
DBR to DRB but the items mentioned such as the telescopic sight DBR/2 or DRB/2 show they are equivalent in the statements of David Boutflour and DC Oakey.
"At 1820 hours. on Wednesday, 11th September 1985, I was on duty, when I went to Oak Farm, Loamy Hill Road, Tolleshunt Major. I received from Mrs Ann Eaton one Nikko Stirling Telescopic Sight in box (Exhibit DRB/2 and an ABU carrier bag, containing seven boxes of fifty Eley Subsonic Hollowpoint .22 bullets and one empty .22 bullet box (Exhibit DRB/3)
At 1500 hours. on Saturday. 14th September 1985, I was on duty. at Witham Police Station, when I received from Mr David BOUTFLOUR one Raker cartridges box. containing fourteen smaller boxes. each containing twenty-five rounds of 12 bore ammunition (Exhibit DRB/4).
On top of one of the smaller boxes was a spot of what appeared to be blood. I later caused this smaller box, the Telescopic Sight box from Exhibit DBR/2 and the empty .22 bullet box from Exhibit DRB/3 to be forwarded to the Home Office Forensic science Laboratory. Huntingdon."
It is notable that Oakey has omitted any mention of DRB/1 in this statement. This seems illogical as the other exhibit references imply the existence of a DRB/1. It's a bit like somebody telling us who was second and third in a race, but not telling us who won. Of course there must have been a winner. Similarly, Oakey or someone else must also have collected a DRB/1 at some time otherwise the other exhibit references would not make logical sense.
And we know that Oakey did collect it, because other records indicate that DBR/1 which was the reference for the silencer was in fact collected along with the other exhibits with DRB references by DC Oakey from Ann and Peter Eaton on September 11th 1985.
(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour has found a silencer with blood on it’
(Doc P35) Action Report 88 reads: ‘Collection of silencer AE (Ann Eaton) 11th September to Wright items obtained by DC Oakey’
(Doc P34) Action Report 181 allocated to DS Davidson, 13th September 1985: “Examine the following for blood fibres and finger prints. 2/ cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition. 3/ Check silencer for fibres”
You have made no attempt to explain how the fingerprint dust could have been all around the house on August 10th even though the house not not fingerprinted until later than September 6th 1985 when the case became a murder investigation.
The basic point is that an "anomaly" such as this provides conclusive proof that a whole bunch of witness statements are fraudulent, unless you have evidence that the house was fingerprinted before then.
And apart from that, it is clearly documented that DC Oakey collected a silencer and other items from Ann Eaton on September 11th 1985.
(Doc P35) Action Report 88 reads: ‘Collection of silencer AE (Ann Eaton) 11th September to Wright. items obtained by DC Oakey’
No it is clearly document that on September 11th, DC Oakley collected the box that contained the silencer discovered on August 10th.
Action Report 88 also reads "Why Oakley when S Jones collects?". This is because whoever wrote that spreadsheet has misunderstood the documents about the box containing the silencer.
AE/1 and AE/2 is the same item as DRB/2 and DRB/3. This is in Millers notes also.
Several straight forward possibilities.
1. Six years after the even, Robert Boutflour's recollection of the event is wrong.
2. It was brought up at trial that the boxes in the cupboard where dusty. So what Basil Cook was complaining about was ordinary dust and RWB misunderstood him.
3. Basil Cook was actually complaining that the police had not fingerprinted the house yet. And the whole thing is yet another silly misinterpretation.
How did EP know that the rifle found on Sheila's body was the killer weapon ?
How did EP know which silencer was which from those which were present ?
However, disregarding the above the main point I maintain to prove innocence beyond doubt is the phone-call from Nevill--------nothing else. Though I'd wonder at Jeremy having lied about it when he must have known that lying would have had him arrested immediately, so why would he have done ?
Eh? ;D ;D - because it was found on her body and the bullets fired were fired from THAT weapon!
Jeremy DID lie about the call from Nevil and he was arreseted! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Because the rifle had been found on her body doesn't mean that it was the one used in the murders-----unless you know differently.
I thought JB was arrested at Dover for something unconnected to the murders ?? On the pretext of nailing him for the murders.
Have you ever bothered to find out who killed her other than Jeremy ?? ::) Staunch guilter !
Have you ever bothered to find out who killed her other than Jeremy ?? ::) Staunch guilter !
Have you ever bothered to find out who killed her other than Jeremy ?? ::) Staunch guilter !
Tsk, can't any of you speak for yourselves ? ::)
We are speaking for ourselves. The fact that you back yourself into a corner isn't anyone else's fault. TSK!
You're randomly answering regardless of who the post was aimed at.
Unless you address a poster by name, how can one be sure whom you're speaking to. Random posts get answered randomly.
Because you mean Jack to me that's why !! I've no respect for you------
Then STOP whinging about random responses. It's a debating forum..................oh! and the feeling is entirely mutual. Those who refuse to own their own behaviours -putting the blame on others- disgust me.
Because the rifle had been found on her body doesn't mean that it was the one used in the murders-----unless you know differently.
I thought JB was arrested at Dover for something unconnected to the murders ?? On the pretext of nailing him for the murders.
I think the chronology is out here. Jeremy was arrested at Dover by DI Miller, Stan Jones and Mick Clark on Sunday 29 September 1985. He was free to go abroad because during the first interrogation on Sunday 8 September he didn't crack as the Police had hoped he would. He was charged with the Osea Road burglary the following day and appeared at Chelmsford Magistrates Court on 13 September, but was granted bail until October, which gave him the window of opportunity to holiday in France.
The top and bottom of it was that EP had nothing on JB as admitted by Stan Jones who was running around like a scalded cat in order to justify his " gut-feeling " so was prepared to create mayhem wherever he went in order to secure his tin-pot conviction. The man was desperate.
That's because the theory does not stand up to scrutiny.
You have to argue that thousands of documents across Essex Police, The Forensic Science Service, Huntingdon Lab and The City of London Police are all backdated forgeries. Not only that but backdated forgeries that all happen to fit together and all the witnesses whent ahead with it. A conspiracy of this magnitute is not possible to sustain. People involved would sooner or later speak out.
If all this doesn't make anyone feel sick then there's something radically wrong with them !!
This is fraud and deception at its worst and makes for uncomfortable reading besides disbelief that people will do anything in the name of greed.
<<Not feeling sick!>>
Ah well--------where there's no sense,etc etc.
The evidence of the photographic specialist, Peter Sutherst, is supported by a large number of documents, which also prove that the scratches were made the following month, and not on the 7th August 1985.
No. The evidence from Peter Sutherst simply shows the scratches on the mantle shelf that appear on photos taken on the 10th of September do not appear on the photos taken on the 7th of August. Not that they were actually created on the 10th of September.
Like the silencer the scratches weren't noticed/seen by EP on the 7th while investigating.Simples.
There seems to me to be no sense or logic in " finding " scratches a month later. The same as DB " finding " a silencer after 5 ? officers had searched the gun cupboard.
I don't buy any of these two " findings " and find it very difficult to reach any real conclusion that doesn't sound far-fetched.
They found the silencer after 3 days and the police did search the gun cupboard but A. they weren't looking for a silencer and B. they didn't look in the box - why would they?I would have thought it was the police's job to thoroughly search everywhere in the house. No they would not be specifically looking for a silencer they should have been searching every inchour for anything which may have been relative. All a bit slap dash in such a horrendous case. Sounds as if they 'looked' rather than searched. Wonder why the relatives searched so thoroughly if the police had already done so. It all sounds at the least unconvincing and incompetent. Taken together with the conflicting statements from the family and the whole event is very difficult to accept imo
They found the silencer after 3 days and the police did search the gun cupboard but A. they weren't looking for a silencer and B. they didn't look in the box - why would they?I thought it was propped up against the box.
I would have thought it was the police's job to thoroughly search everywhere in the house. No they would not be specifically looking for a silencer they should have been searching every inchour for anything which may have been relative. All a bit slap dash in such a horrendous case. Sounds as if they 'looked' rather than searched. Wonder why the relatives searched so thoroughly if the police had already done so. It all sounds at the least unconvincing and incompetent. Taken together with the conflicting statements from the family and the whole event is very difficult to accept imo
I'll accept it was probably a cursory look. What on earth would they have been searching for? After 3 days it was still a case od "It wuz Sheila wot dun it". The weapon used was there for all to see, lain across her person.So do you accept the silencer as fact Jane? I cannot conceive why anyone as cold a calculating as JB had to be to kill his family in that way would go to the trouble of putting it in a box and hiding it at the back of the cupboard without even cleaning it even leaving a white hair stuck on there and days later when found there is still a blob of red blood on it. Whether the police did their job properly or not is not the crux of the argument, the finding of it by the relatives is farcical. Whether he is guilty or innocent I cannot believe the silencer evidence, it's obviously contrived.
Is there proof that it was the killer weapon just because it was found on her body ?
No MORE so than had they seen someone standing over a body with a gun in their hand. However, in THIS case, we have to remember what preceded their find. A phone call from Jeremy relaying an alleged phone call fro Nevill saying Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun, followed by Jeremy giving them a full and somewhat exaggerated version of her mental history, her gun toting capabilities, and her previous suicide attempts. What were the supposed to conclude, when once inside a house secured from the inside, they discover a dead Sheila with a gun across her body? I don't care HOW often it's suggested. I DON'T believe it wuz Crispy!!!
So do you accept the silencer as fact Jane? I cannot conceive why anyone as cold a calculating as JB had to be to kill his family in that way would go to the trouble of putting it in a box and hiding it at the back of the cupboard without even cleaning it even leaving a white hair stuck on there and days later when found there is still a blob of red blood on it. Whether the police did their job properly or not is not the crux of the argument, the finding of it by the relatives is farcical. Whether he is guilty or innocent I cannot believe the silencer evidence, it's obviously contrived.
The phone-call had been hours previous to the rifle having been found so during those hours we certainly don't know what was happening.
I imagine EP were acting on the phone-call they'd received from Nevill which would have been more " believed " and which had prompted more police and the firearms.
When it can be proved that Nevill had made a call to police I'll be prepared to listen. Until then, it's a fantasy covered by Mike's favourite prefix "There is evidence that..........." I repeat. The police found EXACTLY what Jeremy had spent hours suggesting they'd find.
Maggie, I'm ambivalent. EITHER it wasn't used at all, OR having cocked up shooting Sheila the first time, it suddenly dawned on him that she wouldn't have been able to shoot herself with it on -incidentally, my gun expert has said it wouldn't have been easy for her to do it without it- and was momentarily thrown by it, resulting in him taking it off and getting it out of sight as quickly as possible without putting serious thought to it.I agree we may never know the truth whether the silencer was used but there are massive questions over how it was 'found'. It is thoroughly unconvincing and yet stood as main evidence in the case. How can that be right?
I agree we may never know the truth whether the silencer was used but there are massive questions over how it was 'found'. It is thoroughly unconvincing and yet stood as main evidence in the case. How can that be right?..because there was supplementary evidence in the case.
I agree we may never know the truth whether the silencer was used but there are massive questions over how it was 'found'. It is thoroughly unconvincing and yet stood as main evidence in the case. How can that be right?
You can't really call it " fantasy ". Everyone's input in this case is their personal belief and valuable to them. Mike isn't on his own by any means who believes such a phone-call took place.
You pride yourself in never once having changed your mind from the moment you first made it up. There are some here who have changed what they believe to have occurred -and presented it as true fact- too many times for any of what they say to be believed. Mike isn't on his own in this particular belief. You believe him.
CT have got the proof. I'll be speaking to those who KNOW when I attend their meeting in October.
'COURSE they have ::) "The proof" has, allegedly, been around for about as long as I've been on this forum. If it's been so well known for so long, it would have found it's way into the public domain before next October.
But it wasn't believed until now !
CT have got the proof. I'll be speaking to those who KNOW when I attend their meeting in October.
But it wasn't believed until now !
No one was given the chance. It was simply "evidence exists". As for the CT, I guess it's the way they tell'm.
And how gullible someone is to believe it ;D
After some of the twaddle they let through, it's not surprising they've become synonymous with exaggerated truth bending ::)
And how gullible someone is to believe it ;D
I'm not gullible as people will see when they meet me. ;D
Thing is, Lookout, gullibility, like psychopathy, isn't instantly detectable on meeting someone.
Oe something a gullible person is likely to admit ;D
Thing is, Lookout, gullibility, like psychopathy, isn't instantly detectable on meeting someone.
On balance, it might be easier to confess to being an alcoholic...............or even a psychopath?
Can't wait to hear the PROOF about the phone call! ;D ;D
Me too ! ;D
Oh it is you know.
Or something a gullible person is likely to admit ;D
Nope: I'm not your " yes sir no sir three bags full sir " person as you've found out which is why my popularity ratings are zero !!
Nope: I'm not your " yes sir no sir three bags full sir " person as you've found out which is why my popularity ratings are zero !!
Your popularity ratings are zero NOT because you speak your mind, but because of HOW you choose to speak it.
To be honest Lookout, I haven't even considered it. My only thoughts on you is that you get a lot of things wrong, you won't admit it when you do and you take things personally when you lose the debate. You make yourself sound as though you are some powerful adversary and you're not that.
Whenever a supporter comes along---not just me, the battle commences. You just don't like what any supporter has to say at all and that's why they've all gone :oThat might be partly right lookout but have they done the spadework other members of both sides have done?
There's not only myself who allegedly " gets things wrong " as when others do it's hurriedly covered over by saying that it's me who's wrong. Don't think I don't notice the tactics that you use !
I don't " lose the debate " which is the whole problem here as my " losing the debate " is invariably when I've said something that you don't wish to hear being a guilter.
See, here is a good example. Instead of "Okay, perhaps I do", you throw the responsibility for YOUR behaviour, back onto others. YOU? Lose a debate? Never. It's never YOUR fault, it's others' fault because they don't like what YOU say?!!!!!!!! THEN you have the temerity to say you don't see yourself as a powerful adversary.
I certainly don't see myself as some " powerful adversary "--------it's all in your mind, not mine ! Laughable.
That might be partly right lookout but have they done the spadework other members of both sides have done?
Well if gringo's last post on the other thread is anything to go by then as a supporter he's well and truly done the spadework. If only it would come out of my mouth in the same way as his, though it's easy to tell that he's a professional person who knows what he's talking about whether you agree or disagree.
Ha, ha! What spadework? You're too easily impressed by idiots and Bamber followers!
Your popularity ratings are zero NOT because you speak your mind, but because of HOW you choose to speak it.
wow do we have popularity ratings on this forum ? 8)
why did JB put the silencer /moderator back in the gun cupboard ? why not just take it with him and dispose of it as his leisure ? no one would have known it was missing
Well, I don't think he used it - I still think he's guilty though.
how do you explain the blood in the chamber of it then?The allegation is that Robert Boutflour dripped his own blood into it from a pipette.
The allegation is that Robert Boutflour dripped his own blood into it from a pipette.
:o wtf?Well the Defence at trial couldn't state that in so many words but Geoffrey Rivlin QC asked Robert Boutflour whether he had cut his finger..
Well the Defence at trial couldn't state that in so many words but Geoffrey Rivlin QC asked Robert Boutflour whether he had cut his finger..
well i guess that would have been one way blood could have got there ?
Indeed. Because it happened to have been the exact blood group of Sheila's which included the AK1 enzyme.
Ya forgot it's shared with the majority of the population.
I know that because all the Boutflours had it !
And all rabbits too !
So what are you suggesting such proves? Sounds like you're trying very hard to make two and two make 5.
That it's NOT unusual to find blood such as this on and around a rifle/moderator used for killing vermin. Why does/did it have to be Sheila's ?
Lookout, given the absolute ludicrousy of someone going to the trouble of cutting themselves deeply enough to bleed enough blood into a pipette -and we all have one of those to hand, don't we?- then to extracted by means of a dropper and dripped it into a silencer, I'd have said there's the likelihood that it may not have been. Even so, despite such an act being underhand, it does not negate Jeremy being the killer.
This all started through a cock-up which had been created by EP and it just went on and on like a lie that you can't get out of so it goes on ad-infinitum.
The top and bottom of this whole case s that EP had absolutely nothing on Jeremy because they knew he wasn't the murderer. The whole fiasco was " Much Ado about Nothing "------but to EP had to be made into something to justify their incompetency with previous cases.
That absolutely isn't the case, Lookout. Individually, they were probably as divided as are we. As a unit, they went with whatever were the orders. From the off, as a unit, they believed what Jeremy had said because none had reason not to. Then the family said Sheila couldn't have done it -since when, I believe the only person who has labeled her violent is you. NO one, but no one, has come forward to say she did anything to suggest she may have been- and then there was Jeremy's very out of context with grieving son behaviour and attitude, ONLY displaying grief when he remembered that circumstances dictated such might be appropriate. It HAD to have made them wonder.
Until RWB stepped in there was no division between EP as to who'd been responsible for the murders which had been Sheila.
Jeremy had told the truth from day one. Why wouldn't he have done in such a tragedy involving a whole family ? It was then entered onto the Holmes computer system of which half of what Jeremy had said hadn't been relayed to the jury, manly that which had mattered greatly in being convicted or walking away a free man. This is information which is still under wraps. Totally unfair as any human would admit whether he was guilty or not.
BW knew the fostering scenario was true but had remained silent as did EP who also stayed silent. All had relied on the relatives saying that such a thing was nonsense. Even though June had been frantically searching for someone to look after the twins just before the murders as her friends gave statements to that effect.
In effect EP hid all information apart from what the relatives had to say so making Jeremy unbelievable on every count.
Yes, Sheila did have violent tendencies whether you or anyone else doesn't believe it. TWO women have committed murders this last week due to Premenstrual Dysphoria ! It's EASILY mistaken for schizophrenia as the symptoms are the same but WORSE for PD in that these poor women go through Hell for two weeks before menstruating and also during. Very little is known about this " disabling illness " so medication is sketchy except that in known cases IUD's are fitted in the hope that the hormone contained will ease symptoms.
Only Colin would have known about the severe mood swings that Sheila had but because he hadn't opened up about their life together it's difficult to know how he must have suffered. Though after their short marriage I can guess !
Not according to the Home Office database if you wish to enquire about it. The Holmes system has a lot to answer for-------no wonder nobody will part with the documents.
Eh?
Rubbish, SJ thought it was Jeremy from day one.
Until RWB stepped in there was no division between EP as to who'd been responsible for the murders which had been Sheila.
Jeremy had told the truth from day one. Why wouldn't he have done in such a tragedy involving a whole family ? It was then entered onto the Holmes computer system of which half of what Jeremy had said hadn't been relayed to the jury, manly that which had mattered greatly in being convicted or walking away a free man. This is information which is still under wraps. Totally unfair as any human would admit whether he was guilty or not.
BW knew the fostering scenario was true but had remained silent as did EP who also stayed silent. All had relied on the relatives saying that such a thing was nonsense. Even though June had been frantically searching for someone to look after the twins just before the murders as her friends gave statements to that effect.
In effect EP hid all information apart from what the relatives had to say so making Jeremy unbelievable on every count.
Yes, Sheila did have violent tendencies whether you or anyone else doesn't believe it. TWO women have committed murders this last week due to Premenstrual Dysphoria ! It's EASILY mistaken for schizophrenia as the symptoms are the same but WORSE for PD in that these poor women go through Hell for two weeks before menstruating and also during. Very little is known about this " disabling illness " so medication is sketchy except that in known cases IUD's are fitted in the hope that the hormone contained will ease symptoms.
Only Colin would have known about the severe mood swings that Sheila had but because he hadn't opened up about their life together it's difficult to know how he must have suffered. Though after their short marriage I can guess !
Was it SJ or was it RM who, in the early stages, asked Ann Eaton 'what if an innocent man goes to prison?' (or words to that effect). I cannot remember. But it implies doubt within the team, regarding any substance to relatives' suspicion.
Was it SJ or was it RM who, in the early stages, asked Ann Eaton 'what if an innocent man goes to prison?' (or words to that effect). I cannot remember. But it implies doubt within the team, regarding any substance to relatives' suspicion.
EP have testimonies from June's friends who say that she was asking if anyone knew who would look after the twins. Holmes 73/38. You appear to give your own reasons to make me look bad ( all the time )
EP had initially ignored Jeremy about the fostering until those who knew came forward !
It was after a month that RWB started complaining that nothing had been suggested that it " was JB " to which Simpson appointed Kenneally to review the investigation which along with Kenneally,Ainsley, then presented their report to Bunyard and Ainsley,who was head of CID at the time.
The final conclusion which was minuted was: "That all the evidence indicated that Sheila WAS responsible ".
So----if your friend's husband "thought him guilty from the outset", how/why is it that you came to the forum as a staunch supporter ?? And why is it you haven't gleaned any information as proof of his guilt ?
Who better to know than a cop who was there at the scene ??
BW DID know about the fostering but like the " all people are bad and should be killed " knowledge, it was edited out of her statement Holmes 73/38.
Why don't you learn that whatever I post is relevant to the thread in progress and NOT about remarks I've made pertaining to other threads. YOU always bang on about David when he brings up old posts--------but YOU'RE doing exactly the same. Will you ever learn ? No, because you can't help reminding me that which I know I've already said just to big yourself.
Who provided that information Lookout? Was it Jeremy? ;D ;D
EP have testimonies from June's friends who say that she was asking if anyone knew who would look after the twins. Holmes 73/38.
EP have testimonies from June's friends who say that she was asking if anyone knew who would look after the twins. Holmes 73/38. You appear to give your own reasons to make me look bad ( all the time )
EP had initially ignored Jeremy about the fostering until those who knew came forward !
It was after a month that RWB started complaining that nothing had been suggested that it " was JB " to which Simpson appointed Kenneally to review the investigation which along with Kenneally,Ainsley, then presented their report to Bunyard and Ainsley,who was head of CID at the time.
The final conclusion which was minuted was: "That all the evidence indicated that Sheila WAS responsible ".
So----if your friend's husband "thought him guilty from the outset", how/why is it that you came to the forum as a staunch supporter ?? And why is it you haven't gleaned any information as proof of his guilt ?
Who better to know than a cop who was there at the scene ??
BW DID know about the fostering but like the " all people are bad and should be killed " knowledge, it was edited out of her statement Holmes 73/38.
Why don't you learn that whatever I post is relevant to the thread in progress and NOT about remarks I've made pertaining to other threads. YOU always bang on about David when he brings up old posts--------but YOU'RE doing exactly the same. Will you ever learn ? No, because you can't help reminding me that which I know I've already said just to big yourself.
Why does it suggest that? It simply suggests that they didn't want interference.
How on earth do you know what may have been responsible for "doubt within the team" OR for how long it had been there. Do you believe ALL members of said team A) only had one brain between them B) thought as they we instructed?
If SJ said 'what if an innocent man goes to prison' (or words to that effect) then it doesn't sit well with him apparently suspecting Jeremy from day one. If Bob Miller said it, then it would imply that Miller was still firmly on board with Taff Jones; and still at a stage where he is uninfluenced by the relatives' clamour.
Reading this post, it's as if you have replied to a different post to mine. :-\
If SJ said 'what if an innocent man goes to prison' (or words to that effect) then it doesn't sit well with him apparently suspecting Jeremy from day one. If Bob Miller said it, then it would imply that Miller was still firmly on board with Taff Jones; and still at a stage where he is uninfluenced by the relatives' clamour.
Reading this post, it's as if you have replied to a different post to mine. :-\
How, exactly do you know that EP are withholding information given them by June's friends? There is a vast difference between looking for someone to do a bit of daycare for children during holidays and putting them into permanent foster care. The twins were NEVER the Bamber's responsibility.
I'm perfectly certain that whilst they believed that Sheila was responsible their conclusion would have been that Sheila was responsible. What else would it have been?
I think I've already explained my reasons for initially believing -wanting- Jeremy to be innocent. WHY would I have needed to agree with someone else's belief? Is that not something YOU say, repeatedly, of yourself? WHY, because I knew a policeman who was there at the time, have I not got evidence of his guilt!!!? Isn't that rather like you MUST have proof of his innocence because you believe he's innocent!!! Really, Lookout. You really are a VERY stupid woman, sometimes.
So if I'm willing to accept that BW knew about fostering. Exactly WHAT sort of fostering was she talking about? She hasn't exactly earned herself a reputation as a reliable witness, has she? Might THAT be the reason her testimony has been kept under wraps, IF that's the case.
By the way. I'm not capable of making you look bad. You're more than capable of doing it, very proficiently, yourself.
No-----it wasn't I'm sorry to say.
Oh dear when all else fails I'm a " stupid woman " and the insults fly. Annoyed are you ??
Don't blame me for your own incompetence in not reading the case to suit your own mindset ::)
The twins were the joint responsibility of the Bambers while staying at the farmhouse ! You've said often enough that Sheila hadn't been capable of looking after herself never mind the twins ( to suit your agenda of course ) so while under the roof of her parents home it became a joint responsibility, or was June supposed to sit back while Sheila just sat around " lifeless ?"
How do I know if June was looking/asking around for sitters ? Because there are " hidden " statements from her friends saying so as I mentioned in my other post. EP deliberately disadvantaged the jury by leaving out BW's statement. As I'd already said that EP had known the issue of fostering to be true because it's on the Holmes.
So what else did your friend's husband say to change your mind-?---------I'm curious and NOT "a stupid woman".
You certainly ARE capable of bringing out the worst in anyone except your own sort !!
Would you like to revise that response Lookout? You got the information from Gillian's post which was copied from Jeremy's blog. It's here under page 1 of 8 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2545.msg78589.html#msg78589
It does state that JB didn't write the material as he didn't/hasn't got access to do so. If you read further posts they will explain.
That's your interpretation Roch - not theirs.
Well how else would it be interpreted, either for SJ (whom it is consistently claimed suspected JB from the off) or for Miller (who apparently expressed 'disquiet' regarding the relatives' suspicions and eventually acquiesced to the change in investigation).
It's not as if my interpretation/s lack reason.
Oh dear when all else fails I'm a " stupid woman " and the insults fly. Annoyed are you ??
Don't blame me for your own incompetence in not reading the case to suit your own mindset ::)
The twins were the joint responsibility of the Bambers while staying at the farmhouse ! You've said often enough that Sheila hadn't been capable of looking after herself never mind the twins ( to suit your agenda of course ) so while under the roof of her parents home it became a joint responsibility, or was June supposed to sit back while Sheila just sat around " lifeless ?"
How do I know if June was looking/asking around for sitters ? Because there are " hidden " statements from her friends saying so as I mentioned in my other post. EP deliberately disadvantaged the jury by leaving out BW's statement. As I'd already said that EP had known the issue of fostering to be true because it's on the Holmes.
So what else did your friend's husband say to change your mind-?---------I'm curious and NOT "a stupid woman".
You certainly ARE capable of bringing out the worst in anyone except your own sort !!
Would you like to revise that response Lookout? You got the information from Gillian's post which was copied from Jeremy's blog. It's here under page 1 of 8 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2545.msg78589.html#msg78589
Oh joy-------it's the reinforcement. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
I don't remember ever hearing of any statement from a friend of June stating she was looking for people to foster the twins. Sounds like a new creation to me. Prove me wrong and post it.
Because it's hidden ;D ;D ;D
I don't remember ever hearing of any statement from a friend of June stating she was looking for people to foster the twins. Sounds like a new creation to me. Prove me wrong and post it.
Yeah, but it's dead easy to say something -any, EVERY damn thing which supports a viewpoint- is hiddden. HOW many times without number have we heard that "evidence exists" or "I have seen/been shown........." and how many times have WE been given evidence of such? NEVER, ZERO, NADA. I rest my case.
It's so well hidden, Lookout knows about it. ;D
God you're thick !
You continuously show yourself as either unable to remember things properly of fond of making things up but then forgetting what you've made up and just denying it - so don't throw insults.
If such things existed, that matched up and confirmed Jeremy story, you can bet that they wouldn't be hidden or under PII. ;D They'd have been destroyed.
Not forgetting Lookout claims there is a hidden second COLP report.
Lookout claims there are hidden recordings of the 999 call Jeremy made that night.
;D
If only the police and courts knew what she knew. He'd be a free man!
It's so well hidden, Lookout knows about it. ;D
But they DO exist, Mat. We've been told. All that lovely, jubbly set Jeremy free info, can be provided by members of this forum who know where it's hidden! Why aren't they climbing over each other to get the key?
There must have been a bit sticking out ;D
And why don't they share it with Jeremy or his legal team, the nasty buggers.
Stuck out like a Unicorns horn.
Never mind I'll know a bit more when I go to the meeting. :o
Take your purse.