Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on August 01, 2018, 04:29:PM
-
https://youtu.be/CY9ei70E70k
-
https://youtu.be/CY9ei70E70k
CT vids? Really Roch? ;D
-
CT vids? Really Roch? ;D
Some CT vids have been decent tbf. 8)
-
https://youtu.be/CY9ei70E70k
good vid rouch thanks.
-
good vid rouch thanks.
You're welcome. I probably just noticed it before anyone else.
-
Well that was clear enough wasn't it ?
-
Well that was clear enough wasn't it ?
I thought so yes
-
I still feel that I'm being hoodwinked to see the Defence's point of view. What are these missing photographs going to show? How can we possibly say whether Jeremy thrust the rifle into Sheila's hand and guided it to pull the trigger? What would blood on Sheila's right sole prove other than she walked over her mother's dead body?
-
I still feel that I'm being hoodwinked to see the Defence's point of view. What are these missing photographs going to show? How can we possibly say whether Jeremy thrust the rifle into Sheila's hand and guided it to pull the trigger? What would blood on Sheila's right sole prove other than she walked over her mother's dead body?
it doesn't matter they still should of been shown to the jury.
-
it doesn't matter they still should of been shown to the jury.
Yes they should. I'm assuming that they contain the state of the twins' bodies which has never been disclosed, the lounge area where the Junior Scrabble board was displayed on the mahogany table along with the colouring books of the boys, the toy guns and the tampon container. Were there more photographs of the Aga area which depicted a scratch-free surface: who knows?
-
After 33 years none of the millions of released documents has shown Bamber to be innocent, or got him a technicality.
So the only option is to say that undisclosed documents do.
-
Yes they should. I'm assuming that they contain the state of the twins' bodies which has never been disclosed, the lounge area where the Junior Scrabble board was displayed on the mahogany table along with the colouring books of the boys, the toy guns and the tampon container. Were there more photographs of the Aga area which depicted a scratch-free surface: who knows?
Ooooh, I wouldn't want to see any bodies Steve. The rest of the rooms would interest me more along with a close-up of the broken shotgun ( as per AE's statement ) as it seems that's where the piece of wood on the kitchen floor came from.
-
Forum posters are very similar to how they claim the police are.
David, Roch, JackieD, Mike & Bill say they have information they won't disclose. While Nugs creates threads on new facts he has no source for or impossible questions.
-
I still feel that I'm being hoodwinked to see the Defence's point of view. What are these missing photographs going to show? How can we possibly say whether Jeremy thrust the rifle into Sheila's hand and guided it to pull the trigger? What would blood on Sheila's right sole prove other than she walked over her mother's dead body?
I think it's called propaganda, Steve. It's hardly going to be slanted in favour of the prosecution.
-
I think it's called propaganda, Steve. It's hardly going to be slanted in favour of the prosecution.
so if theres nothing in those photos that helps the defence why were they not disclosed to the defence.
-
so if theres nothing in those photos that helps the defence why were they not disclosed to the defence.
Well now, Nugs. There's another letter for you to write ;D
-
Well now, Nugs. There's another letter for you to write ;D
so you cant acully think of answer for why were not disclosed I see.
-
https://youtu.be/CY9ei70E70k
Scandalous .
-
so you cant acully think of answer for why were not disclosed I see.
I can think of one or two, Nugs, but experience tells me it a waste of time sharing anything with you because you're determined to disagree with everything which doesn't further a conspiracy theory.
-
I can think of one or two, Nugs, but experience tells me it a waste of time sharing anything with you because you're determined to disagree with everything which doesn't further a conspiracy theory.
how do you know that you argument might be be so good that I couldn't possibly dispute it but I'm guessing know it isn't.thats why you wont say it.
-
Scandalous .
scandalous but hardly surprising.
-
how do you know that you argument might be be so good that I couldn't possibly dispute it but I'm guessing know it isn't.thats why you wont say it.
Nugs, I believe we've yet to see the day when you don't dispute everything anti Bamber. I believe that conspiracy is your raison d'etre. Of course, it SOUNDS convincing. Given who's behind it, one wouldn't expect it to be otherwise. However, making something sound convincing doesn't make it true. I remain cognisant of the phrase "I've told the truth. Just not ALL the truth".
-
Nugs, I believe we've yet to see the day when you don't dispute everything anti Bamber. I believe that conspiracy is your raison d'etre.
well ive yet to see the day when the guilters camee up with a credible argument.
if your argument was any good it couldent be disputed could it.
-
so if theres nothing in those photos that helps the defence why were they not disclosed to the defence.
The photos proved Bamber was innocent Nugs. That is why they were apparently not disclosed at trial.
Nugs is now frothing at the mouth.
-
well ive yet to see the day when the guilters camee up with a credible argument.
if your argument was any good it couldent be disputed could it.
You see, you've just outlined your determination to keep the conspiracy going.
-
The photos proved Bamber was innocent Nugs. That is why they were apparently not disclosed at trial.
Nugs is now frothing at the mouth.
if they don't at least help the defence why would the prosecution not want to disclose them.
-
well ive yet to see the day when the guilters camee up with a credible argument.
if your argument was any good it couldent be disputed could it.
The forensic evidence Nugs. All 70 pieces. And all with at least 1 source.
Oh and the circumstantial evidence. So much of it I can't face making a list.
No argument needed.
-
if they don't at least help the deence why would the prosecution not want to disclose them.
Have you got a source the prosecution withheld photographs ?
A credible source, not a CT properganda video.
-
Have you got a source the prosecution withheld photographs ?
A credible source, not a CT properganda video.
yes its at the top the thread.
-
Just the usual guff
-
Although I did find the stuff about the bible interesting. I thought they had released undisclosed pictures of the bible but it seems all that's been discovered is a reference to other pictures. Now that IS interesting!
-
Although I did find the stuff about the bible interesting. I thought they had released undisclosed pictures of the bible but it seems all that's been discovered is a reference to other pictures. Now that IS interesting!
They disclosed the "Love one another" note, which is purported to have been written by June. What else are they withholding?
-
They disclosed the "Love one another" note, which is purported to have been written by June. What else are they withholding?
They certainly did but that video still claims it's withheld.
-
https://youtu.be/CY9ei70E70k
Interesting to see that Peter Tatchell is getting more involved. His narration seemed lacklustre to me, given his experience in public speaking, but he is high profile so his apparent growing involvement in the campaign should give it a boost.
The mendacity of EP is exposed for anyone who cares to look. Full strips of negatives in 2001 turning into partial and sliced strips by 2012 along with explanations which contradict earlier claims. The CCRC acceptance of the the explanations offered by Mr. Eastbrook, on behalf of EP, show the CCRC as nothing more than gatekeepers.
The following gem from the CCRC cannot be left unremarked.
"As stated above, on the occasions when the negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction"
The exact protocols used by the CCRC to discern that photographs they hadn't seen from negatives that no longer existed were of no evidential value is something we can only guess at. Even worse though is the admission shoved into brackets as if it doesn't matter.
The tacit admission that the negative strips of the gun cupboard were not only cut short but were of "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction".
So the CCRC are aware that strips have been cut some time between 2001 and 2012. They apply some mysterious test which shows that the missing negatives are not important, except for the ones that are, but dismiss the ones that are, even though they themselves concede that these missing negatives are of evidential value. No further reasoning is offered.
I am sure that it is all a huge coincidence that the negative strips containing pictures of the gun cupboard have been cut short. I imagine EP and those relatives involved in the "finding of the silencer" ::) must be disappointed that the pictures showing the gun cupboard were cut short. They would be able to prove once and for all that the silencer had been there all along and that it wasn't a fabrication by dishonest and greedy relatives with the connivance of dishonest officers. If only... ;D
The gun cupboard and its contents are clearly of the utmost importance in this case given the dubious and much disputed chain of custody of the contents of said cupboard. That the CCRC dismiss the fact of the missing negatives without explanation, despite recognising the "significance to the safety of the conviction", does nothing to inspire confidence in either their integrity or competence.
-
Interesting to see that Peter Tatchell is getting more involved. His narration seemed lacklustre to me, given his experience in public speaking, but he is high profile so his apparent growing involvement in the campaign should give it a boost.
The mendacity of EP is exposed for anyone who cares to look. Full strips of negatives in 2001 turning into partial and sliced strips by 2012 along with explanations which contradict earlier claims. The CCRC acceptance of the the explanations offered by Mr. Eastbrook, on behalf of EP, show the CCRC as nothing more than gatekeepers.
The following gem from the CCRC cannot be left unremarked.
"As stated above, on the occasions when the negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction"
The exact protocols used by the CCRC to discern that photographs they hadn't seen from negatives that no longer existed were of no evidential value is something we can only guess at. Even worse though is the admission shoved into brackets as if it doesn't matter.
The tacit admission that the negative strips of the gun cupboard were not only cut short but were of "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction".
So the CCRC are aware that strips have been cut some time between 2001 and 2012. They apply some mysterious test which shows that the missing negatives are not important, except for the ones that are, but dismiss the ones that are, even though they themselves concede that these missing negatives are of evidential value. No further reasoning is offered.
I am sure that it is all a huge coincidence that the negative strips containing pictures of the gun cupboard have been cut short. I imagine EP and those relatives involved in the "finding of the silencer" ::) must be disappointed that the pictures showing the gun cupboard were cut short. They would be able to prove once and for all that the silencer had been there all along and that it wasn't a fabrication by dishonest and greedy relatives with the connivance of dishonest officers. If only... ;D
The gun cupboard and its contents are clearly of the utmost importance in this case given the dubious and much disputed chain of custody of the contents of said cupboard. That the CCRC dismiss the fact of the missing negatives without explanation, despite recognising the "significance to the safety of the conviction", does nothing to inspire confidence in either their integrity or competence.
Not sure what those pictures could reveal, given that DB said he found the silencer in a box at the back of the cupboard? The likelihood is, there would have been at least one box in the cupboard, most cupboards have boxes in them. I doubt the silencer was sat on a silk cushion awaiting discovery.
I do however agree, that the photograph negatives should never have been cut, regardless of whether they contained material that was unusable.
-
One thing which occurred to me on Peter Tatchell's narration ( by the way he's had the same delivery since the Bermondsey by-election in 1983) was when he mentioned the sound moderator changing the pitch of the sound, which got me thinking as to whether any dog inside the house might be less disposed to react to it.
-
Could be Steve, like the sound of a Christmas cracker of which the dog would have been used to hearing, or a kid's cap-gun being that a toy gun was found.
-
Not sure what those pictures could reveal, given that DB said he found the silencer in a box at the back of the cupboard? The likelihood is, there would have been at least one box in the cupboard, most cupboards have boxes in them. I doubt the silencer was sat on a silk cushion awaiting discovery.
I do however agree, that the photograph negatives should never have been cut, regardless of whether they contained material that was unusable.
The pictures could reveal that DB is lying. We don't know whether the box was in the cupboard or not to begin with. The chain of custody for the silencer/s is dubious and it should not even be admissable as evidence, tainted as it is. It was also noted by the CCRC that the missing negatives were of, "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction" ; surely an understatement.
It is not believable that these negatives were cut out by accident. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the strips were deliberately cut in order to cover what was shown by them. Given that EP cut the strips and then lied to the CCRC about it, it also seems reasonable to conclude that the negatives would show something that blows a hole in the DB story of discovery.
Was everything in the cupboard photographed? Do the negatives establish that the prosecution case re: the silencer/s is a lie. Nobody expects to see a silencer on a cushion but the photos could show if DB's version of events re the "finding" are consistent with the photographic evidence.
Given the circumstances, only a biased approach would or could give the benefit of doubt to the prosecution here.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks; it's a duck.
If it looks like a cover up, walks...
-
The pictures could reveal that DB is lying. We don't know whether the box was in the cupboard or not to begin with. The chain of custody for the silencer/s is dubious and it should not even be admissable as evidence, tainted as it is. It was also noted by the CCRC that the missing negatives were of, "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction" ; surely an understatement.
It is not believable that these negatives were cut out by accident. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the strips were deliberately cut in order to cover what was shown by them. Given that EP cut the strips and then lied to the CCRC about it, it also seems reasonable to conclude that the negatives would show something that blows a hole in the DB story of discovery.
Was everything in the cupboard photographed? Do the negatives establish that the prosecution case re: the silencer/s is a lie. Nobody expects to see a silencer on a cushion but the photos could show if DB's version of events re the "finding" are consistent with the photographic evidence.
Given the circumstances, only a biased approach would or could give the benefit of doubt to the prosecution here.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks; it's a duck.
If it looks like a cover up, walks...
Gringo you make a valid point but do we know how many pictures were taken of the gun cupboard?
-
The pictures could reveal that DB is lying. We don't know whether the box was in the cupboard or not to begin with. The chain of custody for the silencer/s is dubious and it should not even be admissable as evidence, tainted as it is. It was also noted by the CCRC that the missing negatives were of, "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction" ; surely an understatement.
It is not believable that these negatives were cut out by accident. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the strips were deliberately cut in order to cover what was shown by them. Given that EP cut the strips and then lied to the CCRC about it, it also seems reasonable to conclude that the negatives would show something that blows a hole in the DB story of discovery.
Was everything in the cupboard photographed? Do the negatives establish that the prosecution case re: the silencer/s is a lie. Nobody expects to see a silencer on a cushion but the photos could show if DB's version of events re the "finding" are consistent with the photographic evidence.
Given the circumstances, only a biased approach would or could give the benefit of doubt to the prosecution here.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks; it's a duck.
If it looks like a cover up, walks...
It could be a small goose good at impressions? ;D ;D
-
Gringo you make a valid point but do we know how many pictures were taken of the gun cupboard?
We don't know, Steve.
All we do know is that the pictures that existed were in full strips in 2001 but became cut by 2012 and that the CCRC themselves acknowledge the significance of the missing photos.
It is worth noting that the reason we don't know how many are missing is because EP have lied consistently about the photographic evidence and when finally forced to disclose by the CCRC they have disclosed evidence which has clearly been tampered with after 2001 but before 2012.
The inescapable conclusion is that EP have tampered with evidence.
The silencer/s issue is already much disputed given the "unusual" chain of custody. That the photos relating to these anomalous circumstances have also been tampered should be a big red flashing light to anyone with a modicum of sense.
-
We don't know, Steve.
All we do know is that the pictures that existed were in full strips in 2001 but became cut by 2012 and that the CCRC themselves acknowledge the significance of the missing photos.
It is worth noting that the reason we don't know how many are missing is because EP have lied consistently about the photographic evidence and when finally forced to disclose by the CCRC they have disclosed evidence which has clearly been tampered with after 2001 but before 2012.
The inescapable conclusion is that EP have tampered with evidence.
The silencer/s issue is already much disputed given the "unusual" chain of custody. That the photos relating to these anomalous circumstances have also been tampered should be a big red flashing light to anyone with a modicum of sense.
We don't even know if the negatives taken of the gun cupboard have been cut.
-
We don't even know if the negatives taken of the gun cupboard have been cut.
The CCRC state unequivocally that the negative strip showing the gun cupboard has been cut. It is not in dispute that they have been cut short. The explanation offered by Mr. Eastbrook on EP's behalf seems, at best, misleading given that the strips were in complete uncut form in 2001.
-
The CCRC state unequivocally that the negative strip showing the gun cupboard has been cut. It is not in dispute that they have been cut short. The explanation offered by Mr. Eastbrook on EP's behalf seems, at best, misleading given that the strips were in complete uncut form in 2001.
Where does it state that?
-
Where does it state that?
About 9 minutes in. Prior to this at about 8 minutes is the evidence of the strips being complete in 2001. The anomalies in Mr. Eastbrook's statement are left unaddressed.
-
About 9 minutes in. Prior to this at about 8 minutes is the evidence of the strips being complete in 2001. The anomalies in Mr. Eastbrook's statement are left unaddressed.
OK, will have another look, the guys voice is irritating so had to keep moving it forward.
-
OK, will have another look, the guys voice is irritating so had to keep moving it forward.
I found the narration irritating too. The monotonous delivery surprised me from Peter Tatchell who you would imagine to be more engaging. Steve's comments on this noted but I expected a more engaging delivery.
-
I found the narration irritating too. The monotonous delivery surprised me from Peter Tatchell who you would imagine to be more engaging. Steve's comments on this noted but I expected a more engaging delivery.
I think he delivered it deliberately slowly to make sure the full meaning of what he was saying was grasped.
-
I found the narration irritating too. The monotonous delivery surprised me from Peter Tatchell who you would imagine to be more engaging. Steve's comments on this noted but I expected a more engaging delivery.
OK, I have read the CCRC statement on the video and to be honest, it's not very clear - I can't make out if they are saying that it really wouldn't matter if photo's had been cut from section other than the gun cupboard, which means none were cut OR that some were cut and ............ :-\
-
I think he delivered it deliberately slowly to make sure the full meaning of what he was saying was grasped.
Well that didn't work because I had to fast forward him before I fell into a coma! ;D ;D
-
Nothing wrong with his speaking voice. Which is why I first said it was clear enough.
-
Nothing wrong with his speaking voice. Which is why I first said it was clear enough.
That's your opinion. Had to fast forward to relieve the boredom.
-
Well that didn't work because I had to fast forward him before I fell into a coma! ;D ;D
Wasn't he supposed to have been 'en ector' at one time? Wonder which drama school he went to?
-
I'd rather listen to an educated voice any day !
If it had been some area dialect you'd have still moaned. It's more about the content isn't it ?
-
I'd rather listen to an educated voice any day !
If it had been some area dialect you'd have still moaned. It's more about the content isn't it ?
Don't mind a dialect, I'm not that judgemental - Gringo didn't like his voice either - nothing to say to Gringo? ::)
-
Don't mind a dialect, I'm not that judgemental - Gringo didn't like his voice either - nothing to say to Gringo? ::)
What I posted applied to everyone whoever they may be !!
-
I don't have a problem telling anyone including those who support JB. Why should I ?
-
I don't have a problem telling anyone including those who support JB. Why should I ?
If you say so ::)
-
what does it matter what he sounded like? what matters is the information given in the video
imo the prosecution should have disclosed the unused photos , full disclosure is the basis of a fair trial , what happened to the photos of the 5 rooms that they didnt disclose?
-
The photo's remain under PII.
-
If you say so ::)
I'm glad/relieved it wasn't me who passed the remark in the first place or I'd have been lambasted for being homophobic :o Damned if I do damned if I don't.
-
The video claims that Bird was a professional police photographer - seems he wasn't, it was one of his roles. He was also involved in chemical fingerprinting but his main job was to prepare albums. He had two colleagues and it was 'the luck of the draw; as to which of them would be assigned what - they were on a rota. He described himself as 'the lowest of the low' as far as rank is concerned. The guy clearly was NOT a professional photographer, which makes it more likely that some of the pictures would have been unusable. I agree they shouldn't have been cut but the video is misleading! (And the guys voice is STILL dull!) :P
-
I'm glad/relieved it wasn't me who passed the remark in the first place or I'd have been lambasted for being homophobic :o Damned if I do damned if I don't.
Saying he has a boring voice isn't homophobic! If I had called him a BIG FAIRY, then I could be accused of homophobia. This comment from you is certainly rich given your recent remarks to Mat. This is WHY you get lambasted because you just don't know when to shut up!
-
Bird was finished up within the force for colluding with an informer in the Essex boys case which resulted in two guys being imprisoned under false pretences. He was a photographer in that case too.
-
Bird was finished up within the force for colluding with an informer in the Essex boys case which resulted in two guys being imprisoned under false pretences. He was a photographer in that case too.
It was ONE of his roles!
-
It was ONE of his roles!
Yeah ! ONE of many !!
-
Yeah ! ONE of many !!
So the idea that he was a professional photographer is incorrect.
-
So the idea that he was a professional photographer is incorrect.
Yes.
-
His narration seemed lacklustre.
The monotonous delivery surprised me from Peter Tatchell
I think he delivered it deliberately slowly to make sure the full meaning of what he was saying was grasped.
what does it matter what he sounded like? what matters is the information given in the video
It's good to see him involved - but although the content was interesting, the delivery was flat - and it does matter.
I cannot understand why the CT will not engage the services of Jo Kemp again - and with proper recording equipment. I can only think that the costs must be prohibitive and the funds are directed elsewhere i.e. forensics.
Nevertheless, CT, if you are reading this - PLEASE take heed. Swish presentation, studio audio and confident, professional delivery (such as JK) will serve your cause very well going forward. Please ditch these 'home made' efforts with the dodgy mic.
-
So the idea that he was a professional photographer is incorrect.
I think Bird was a relatively poor crime photographer in this case. Either that, or some of his more proficient photographs were not allowed to be seen - leaving us with the mediocre remainder. I also think that Jeremy's defence team were woeful in their ability to view and study what was available - even given they were always going to be afforded short shrift from Ainsley's team.
-
To get an even better insight into events leading up to and including the day of the trial there's a thread about the " Tonight " programme which was aired on the 29th of March 2012, posted by Gillian.
-
It's good to see him involved - but although the content was interesting, the delivery was flat - and it does matter.
I cannot understand why the CT will not engage the services of Jo Kemp again - and with proper recording equipment. I can only think that the costs must be prohibitive and the funds are directed elsewhere i.e. forensics.
Nevertheless, CT, if you are reading this - PLEASE take heed. Swish presentation, studio audio and confident, professional delivery (such as JK) will serve your cause very well going forward. Please ditch these 'home made' efforts with the dodgy mic.
Totally agree, there were some good points (although some exaggerations) but the whole tone was just monotonous and I couldn't listen to the whole thing.
-
Don't mind a dialect, I'm not that judgemental - Gringo didn't like his voice either - nothing to say to Gringo? ::)
Been busy rather than ignoring comment. I found the delivery dull but that is just an opinion. I realise, that it is about the content but good delivery helps get the message across better in my view.
I am sure that it is a better delivery than I would manage in my broad 'Ull accent, or at least more understandable. Sorry for starting a row with such a throwaway comment.
-
Been busy rather than ignoring comment. I found the delivery dull but that is just an opinion. I realise, that it is about the content but good delivery helps get the message across better in my view.
I am sure that it is a better delivery than I would manage in my broad 'Ull accent, or at least more understandable. Sorry for starting a row with such a throwaway comment.
You didn't, Lookout was just having a dig :)
-
The video claims that Bird was a professional police photographer - seems he wasn't, it was one of his roles. He was also involved in chemical fingerprinting but his main job was to prepare albums. He had two colleagues and it was 'the luck of the draw; as to which of them would be assigned what - they were on a rota. He described himself as 'the lowest of the low' as far as rank is concerned. The guy clearly was NOT a professional photographer, which makes it more likely that some of the pictures would have been unusable. I agree they shouldn't have been cut but the video is misleading! (And the guys voice is STILL dull!) :P
It seems more reasonable to infer that PC Bird and the two unnamed officers were all "specialist photographers" and had obviously had training as police photographers. Whether you agree with the term "professional" or not is beside the point when using it as an excuse for poor exposure rate.
Think it through and it is absurd to believe that lots of pictures at a crime scene were "unusable" because the police sent some random officer with no training or experience.
It is also fairly obvious, when you consider it for more than a minute, that police photographers were not dashing to and from crime scenes all day. One of those roles where one is required on duty but often not called upon to do your "specialist" role. In fact it states this in the snippets that you posted.
The main role that they performed was obviously not the role they were employed to do and this is explicitly clear. They were photographers. They earned their living as photographers for the police. Sounds like a professional photographer to me.
-
It seems more reasonable to infer that PC Bird and the two unnamed officers were all "specialist photographers" and had obviously had training as police photographers. Whether you agree with the term "professional" or not is beside the point when using it as an excuse for poor exposure rate.
Think it through and it is absurd to believe that lots of pictures at a crime scene were "unusable" because the police sent some random officer with no training or experience.
It is also fairly obvious, when you consider it for more than a minute, that police photographers were not dashing to and from crime scenes all day. One of those roles where one is required on duty but often not called upon to do your "specialist" role. In fact it states this in the snippets that you posted.
The main role that they performed was obviously not the role they were employed to do and this is explicitly clear. They were photographers. They earned their living as photographers for the police. Sounds like a professional photographer to me.
He was police officer who was given the a role to take pictures but he clearly states that he was on a rota with other officers and they only took pictures as and when. He used the term 'luck of the draw' and 'a spare pair of hands if they need it'. It is the questioning officer who uses the term specialist and Bird seems confused.
I used to work in IT support, we were responsible for all of the DWP's desktop, software delivery and network systems. However, they had onsite CSO's (computer support officer) - the CSO's did NOT have to have experience of IT, usually they just volunteered or were coerced. Most had very limited knowledge.
Bird was no highly skilled photographer - that is clear from his COLP statement.
-
He was police officer who was given the a role to take pictures but he clearly states that he was on a rota with other officers and they only took pictures as and when. He used the term 'luck of the draw' and 'a spare pair of hands if they need it'. It is the questioning officer who uses the term specialist and Bird seems confused.
I used to work in IT support, we were responsible for all of the DWP's desktop, software delivery and network systems. However, they had onsite CSO's (computer support officer) - the CSO's did NOT have to have experience of IT, usually they just volunteered or were coerced. Most had very limited knowledge.
Bird was no highly skilled photographer - that is clear from his COLP statement.
Which of these scenarios do you consider the most likely?
1) EP put three random untrained officers on the rota for the duty of crime scene photographers, a rarely used but hugely important role, who were untrained in crime scene photography (an obviously specialist role) and that this lack of foresight, and self evidently hindsight too, led to an otherwise inexplicably large amount of "unusable" crime scene photographs;
or
2) EP had three trained specialist photographers who were on a rota, probably so that there was always a specialist photographer on duty 24/7, and whilst not performing their specialist role they performed mainly other duties. The missing negatives and full strips becoming cut up strips have more plausible and believable explanations than an incompetent untrained crime scene photographer.
It's 2, if you need assistance.
Read in full the snippets that you posted and it is crystal clear.
You highlight this: " But my main job is to produce the photographic album". You then use this out of context quote to support your theory that he wasn't a professional. Here is the part of the transcript in full that you use one out of context quote from in an attempt to bolster your weak argument:
PC Bird: Yeah, my job is to take the photographs, as i say a spare pair of hands if they need
it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
Supt. McKay: Ok, you then go to the mortuary on the same day, obviously to do your specialist
job again, take the photographs, yeah.
This is basic comprehension. The fact that he also prepared crime scene photographic albums as well as being a crime scene photographer suggests that he was something of a photography expert. The rest of the parts that you posted also support the opposite of what you are attempting to show.
-
Which of these scenarios do you consider the most likely?
1) EP put three random untrained officers on the rota for the duty of crime scene photographers, a rarely used but hugely important role, who were untrained in crime scene photography (an obviously specialist role) and that this lack of foresight, and self evidently hindsight too, led to an otherwise inexplicably large amount of "unusable" crime scene photographs;
or
2) EP had three trained specialist photographers who were on a rota, probably so that there was always a specialist photographer on duty 24/7, and whilst not performing their specialist role they performed mainly other duties. The missing negatives and full strips becoming cut up strips have more plausible and believable explanations than an incompetent untrained crime scene photographer.
It's 2, if you need assistance.
Read in full the snippets that you posted and it is crystal clear.
You highlight this: " But my main job is to produce the photographic album". You then use this out of context quote to support your theory that he wasn't a professional. Here is the part of the transcript in full that you use one out of context quote from in an attempt to bolster your weak argument:
PC Bird: Yeah, my job is to take the photographs, as i say a spare pair of hands if they need
it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
Supt. McKay: Ok, you then go to the mortuary on the same day, obviously to do your specialist
job again, take the photographs, yeah.
This is basic comprehension. The fact that he also prepared crime scene photographic albums as well as being a crime scene photographer suggests that he was something of a photography expert. The rest of the parts that you posted also support the opposite of what you are attempting to show.
I think like the video, you are over playing his skills. And I don't need help - thanks!
-
I think like the video, you are over playing his skills. And I don't need help - thanks!
Either your comprehension skills really are that poor or you are deliberately misinterpreting plain English. Crime scene photography is a highly specialised role performed by professionals in the field.
Your highlighting of out of context quotes to bolster your argument actually highlights your own poor and biased comprehension.
It should be obvious to anyone that when Bird refers to a "spare pair of hands if they need it", he is simply pointing out that he helps with other tasks at the scene. Your contention that being on a rota with two others and the use of terms like "luck of the draw" somehow support your argument is poor.
Obviously EP had three crime scene photographers who were on a rota. I have already pointed out as do the notes that you yourself posted that Bird was a photographer and so were the other two. Bird refers to the rota saying,
"...as and when a major incident come up that they required a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us and it was just the luck of the draw which one you get"
How do you manage to interpret that as meaning three random untrained officers are on the rota?
Bird, again refers to himself as a photographer along with the other two photographers. "Luck of the draw" does not mean that they were not professional, as you seem to infer, but simply refers to the fact that if three people are on a rota then it is clearly down to the "luck of the draw" whether you are selected or not. This is basic comprehension and inferring a lack of professionalism or expertise from these statements is not supported in any way. You are simply wrong with your interpretation.
Comparing DWP IT workers with crime scene photography is bizarre. Are DWP IT workers having to present their work to courts as evidence in trials? Is the work of a DWP IT worker likely to be examined and cross examined by legal professionals in a court of law?
The three officers on the rota would all be specialists/professionals and it would obviously be the "luck of the draw", as to which one was called. You do yourself no favours with dubious interpretations like the one offered here.
-
I thought it was down to the forensics to do the photographing at a crime scene ?
-
I thought it was down to the forensics to do the photographing at a crime scene ?
Everyone realises that Bird is clearly a professional crime scene photographer, Lookout.
The idea that an exceptional amount of crime scene photos were unusable because of Birds incompetence and lack of professionalism is ridiculous. Are we to believe that three amateurs with a seeming tendency to produce unusable crime scene photographs were the go to guys for taking and compiling the photographs to be used in court and subject to examination and cross examination and nobody ever thought to get some actual professionals in for this vital role.
The interview notes that have been posted make quite clear that PC Bird is employed as a photographer. It is also clear that the role that he was employed to do, crime scene photography( for the hard of comprehension), was something that was rarely required. In fact in Bird's own words,
"...as and when a major incident come up that they require a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us..."
What leaps out here is that he only performed his role as a photographer if there was "a major incident" and they "require a photographer".
To believe that EP would delegate to three random officers duties of such importance flies in the face of reason. The fact that they were required for "major incidents" offers something of a clue. How regularly would "major incidents" occur? The fact that it was major incidents emphasises the importance and specialist nature of the task.To believe that a role that was required only when "major incidents" occurred and a photographic record was required to be examined and cross examined in a court of law was given to three random guys in chemical fingerprinting is ludicrous and everyone with basic comprehension skills can infer this. For those that are hard of learning, PC Bird helpfully refers to himself as a photographer, three times, in the excerpts shown. His interviewer also refers both times in the two questions put to PC Bird to his specialist role of photographer.
It is not really open to any other interpretation.
-
Thankyou for the explanation gringo. Much appreciated.
-
Thankyou for the explanation gringo. Much appreciated.
You're welcome, Lookout. The explanation will be less appreciated by those who actually need it.
-
Everyone realises that Bird is clearly a professional crime scene photographer, Lookout.
The idea that an exceptional amount of crime scene photos were unusable because of Birds incompetence and lack of professionalism is ridiculous. Are we to believe that three amateurs with a seeming tendency to produce unusable crime scene photographs were the go to guys for taking and compiling the photographs to be used in court and subject to examination and cross examination and nobody ever thought to get some actual professionals in for this vital role.
The interview notes that have been posted make quite clear that PC Bird is employed as a photographer. It is also clear that the role that he was employed to do, crime scene photography( for the hard of comprehension), was something that was rarely required. In fact in Bird's own words,
"...as and when a major incident come up that they require a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us..."
What leaps out here is that he only performed his role as a photographer if there was "a major incident" and they "require a photographer".
To believe that EP would delegate to three random officers duties of such importance flies in the face of reason. The fact that they were required for "major incidents" offers something of a clue. How regularly would "major incidents" occur? The fact that it was major incidents emphasises the importance and specialist nature of the task.To believe that a role that was required only when "major incidents" occurred and a photographic record was required to be examined and cross examined in a court of law was given to three random guys in chemical fingerprinting is ludicrous and everyone with basic comprehension skills can infer this. For those that are hard of learning, PC Bird helpfully refers to himself as a photographer, three times, in the excerpts shown. His interviewer also refers both times in the two questions put to PC Bird to his specialist role of photographer.
It is not really open to any other interpretation.
So who/what exactly is Bird? If he's a "professional photographer" employed as such, we can assume he has a degree in photography, or did the police, having spent time and money on training him as a police person, then recognize where his real talents lay and pay for his degree? I would have to ask the same of the other two "on the rota". Did EP employ THREE "professional photographers" all with degrees in order to make a random pick from the rota "as and when a major incident come up and they require a photographer"? That's a lot of salary to pay on the presumption that "a major incident come up" don't you think?
-
Either your comprehension skills really are that poor or you are deliberately misinterpreting plain English. Crime scene photography is a highly specialised role performed by professionals in the field.
Your highlighting of out of context quotes to bolster your argument actually highlights your own poor and biased comprehension.
It should be obvious to anyone that when Bird refers to a "spare pair of hands if they need it", he is simply pointing out that he helps with other tasks at the scene. Your contention that being on a rota with two others and the use of terms like "luck of the draw" somehow support your argument is poor.
Obviously EP had three crime scene photographers who were on a rota. I have already pointed out as do the notes that you yourself posted that Bird was a photographer and so were the other two. Bird refers to the rota saying,
"...as and when a major incident come up that they required a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us and it was just the luck of the draw which one you get"
How do you manage to interpret that as meaning three random untrained officers are on the rota?
Bird, again refers to himself as a photographer along with the other two photographers. "Luck of the draw" does not mean that they were not professional, as you seem to infer, but simply refers to the fact that if three people are on a rota then it is clearly down to the "luck of the draw" whether you are selected or not. This is basic comprehension and inferring a lack of professionalism or expertise from these statements is not supported in any way. You are simply wrong with your interpretation.
Comparing DWP IT workers with crime scene photography is bizarre. Are DWP IT workers having to present their work to courts as evidence in trials? Is the work of a DWP IT worker likely to be examined and cross examined by legal professionals in a court of law?
The three officers on the rota would all be specialists/professionals and it would obviously be the "luck of the draw", as to which one was called. You do yourself no favours with dubious interpretations like the one offered here.
Nothing wrong with my comprehension but YOU, like the video are exaggerating the guys qualifications. The man was a POLICE OFFICER NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER and PHOTOGRAPHY WAS NOT HIS MAIN JOB. Unless you are blind, unable to read or making an attempt to deliberately have people believe he was a professional photographer - he states this in his interview! You're the one misinterpreting NO WHERE does it state that he is a specialist or a professional photographer.
You clearly know nothing about the history of the Scenes of Crime Division. Police officers moved in and out of the SOCO department before it became a civilian role (and they were given proper training). Up until that time, SOCO's had limited experience!
History
SOCOs were first introduced into the Metropolitan Police in 1968, replacing the CID officers who had previously carried out these functions. Some other forces had introduced them before that time, however.
Other police forces around the United Kingdom continued this trend of replacing the CID officers with civilians. This allowed the creation of dedicated departments within the police forces. Police officers often moved post after only a few years; the introduction of civilian Scenes of Crime Officers allowed departments to build a resource based on experience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenes_of_crime_officer
-
So who/what exactly is Bird? If he's a "professional photographer" employed as such, we can assume he has a degree in photography, or did the police, having spent time and money on training him as a police person, then recognize where his real talents lay and pay for his degree? I would have to ask the same of the other two "on the rota". Did EP employ THREE "professional photographers" all with degrees in order to make a random pick from the rota "as and when a major incident come up and they require a photographer"? That's a lot of salary to pay on the presumption that "a major incident come up" don't you think?
Your questions are easily dealt with and I am surprised that you felt the need to ask them. But here we go anyway:
1) Who/what exactly is Bird?
Let's read the excerpts and see if this question is dealt with. It appears, using the simple tools of reading and comprehending simultaneously that this is explicitly dealt with.
"Yeah, my job is to take the photographs..."
"You then go on to the mortuary...to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
"... when a major incident come up that they required a photographer..."
"And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer."
"... there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer."
Five references in seven sentences makes it pretty clear to me and surely everybody who/what Bird is. For those who are unclear, the answer is; Bird is a crime scene photographer and employed as one.
2) Your second and third rather meandering and loaded questions basically deal with the same point whilst attempting to appear to use sound reasoning to back up your straw man assertions.
We do not need to assume either that Bird had "a degree in photography" or that EP funded a degree on his behalf. That is something that you just made up to bolster your weak argument which is coincidentally, exactly the same as Caroline's.
Had you done a quick search on photography qualifications/courses then you would have discovered that professional photographers do not all have "degrees in photography". But why use facts when your preferred form of debate is instinctive knee jerk bias.
Using reason and basic comprehension, again, to address your questions. Yes EP did employ three photographers. They would do this because of the importance of the role. The rarity of its requirement only goes to emphasise the importance of having experts/professionals on hand 24/7, hence a rota. That other duties were performed whilst on shift is hardly surprising really. Your use of unnecessary and incorrect adjectives to describe the rota betrays your knee jerk reasoning.
The whole concept of a rota means that you don't need to make a "random pick". You look at who is on the rota at that time. If the concept of how rotas work is too difficult for you then you are way out of your depth.
Your final point/question is no better informed than your previous ones and again betrays your poor reasoning. Of course the police work on the presumption that a major incident will come up. They're the police, it's one of their main roles, dealing with major incidents. It would be more concerning, much more concerning, to find out that the police worked on the presumption that no major incident would come up only to be left floundering when one did occur and having no specialist staff available. They are the police after all. I'm assuming that they have this covered.
As for believing that it is a lot of salary based "on the presumption that a major incident come up".
Has it really not occurred to you that the reason Bird and the two other photographers performed other duties was so that they were usefully employed and always on hand for their "specialist" role.
As a tip, you ought to skim read less and perhaps read slower in order to understand the words you are reading. Then have a little think before you hammer away at the keyboard. It should lead to less comprehension errors.
-
Your questions are easily dealt with and I am surprised that you felt the need to ask them. But here we go anyway:
1) Who/what exactly is Bird?
Let's read the excerpts and see if this question is dealt with. It appears, using the simple tools of reading and comprehending simultaneously that this is explicitly dealt with.
"Yeah, my job is to take the photographs..."
"You then go on to the mortuary...to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
"... when a major incident come up that they required a photographer..."
"And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer."
"... there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer."
Five references in seven sentences makes it pretty clear to me and surely everybody who/what Bird is. For those who are unclear, the answer is; Bird is a crime scene photographer and employed as one.
2) Your second and third rather meandering and loaded questions basically deal with the same point whilst attempting to appear to use sound reasoning to back up your straw man assertions.
We do not need to assume either that Bird had "a degree in photography" or that EP funded a degree on his behalf. That is something that you just made up to bolster your weak argument which is coincidentally, exactly the same as Caroline's.
Had you done a quick search on photography qualifications/courses then you would have discovered that professional photographers do not all have "degrees in photography". But why use facts when your preferred form of debate is instinctive knee jerk bias.
Using reason and basic comprehension, again, to address your questions. Yes EP did employ three photographers. They would do this because of the importance of the role. The rarity of its requirement only goes to emphasise the importance of having experts/professionals on hand 24/7, hence a rota. That other duties were performed whilst on shift is hardly surprising really. Your use of unnecessary and incorrect adjectives to describe the rota betrays your knee jerk reasoning.
The whole concept of a rota means that you don't need to make a "random pick". You look at who is on the rota at that time. If the concept of how rotas work is too difficult for you then you are way out of your depth.
Your final point/question is no better informed than your previous ones and again betrays your poor reasoning. Of course the police work on the presumption that a major incident will come up. They're the police, it's one of their main roles, dealing with major incidents. It would be more concerning, much more concerning, to find out that the police worked on the presumption that no major incident would come up only to be left floundering when one did occur and having no specialist staff available. They are the police after all. I'm assuming that they have this covered.
As for believing that it is a lot of salary based "on the presumption that a major incident come up".
Has it really not occurred to you that the reason Bird and the two other photographers performed other duties was so that they were usefully employed and always on hand for their "specialist" role.
As a tip, you ought to skim read less and perhaps read slower in order to understand the words you are reading. Then have a little think before you hammer away at the keyboard. It should lead to less comprehension errors.
Okay, so despite "your" Bird having no academic qualifications in photography, he a professional photographer? The rota? It may not be random choice, but all you get is whoever is on duty a la the rota. I think I read you rather well. I'm not entirely certain that you're worth reading any slower, because it reads very much to me as if you're colouring this the way you want it to be seen.
-
Your questions are easily dealt with and I am surprised that you felt the need to ask them. But here we go anyway:
1) Who/what exactly is Bird?
Let's read the excerpts and see if this question is dealt with. It appears, using the simple tools of reading and comprehending simultaneously that this is explicitly dealt with.
"Yeah, my job is to take the photographs..."
"You then go on to the mortuary...to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
"... when a major incident come up that they required a photographer..."
"And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer."
"... there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer."
Five references in seven sentences makes it pretty clear to me and surely everybody who/what Bird is. For those who are unclear, the answer is; Bird is a crime scene photographer and employed as one.
2) Your second and third rather meandering and loaded questions basically deal with the same point whilst attempting to appear to use sound reasoning to back up your straw man assertions.
We do not need to assume either that Bird had "a degree in photography" or that EP funded a degree on his behalf. That is something that you just made up to bolster your weak argument which is coincidentally, exactly the same as Caroline's.
Had you done a quick search on photography qualifications/courses then you would have discovered that professional photographers do not all have "degrees in photography". But why use facts when your preferred form of debate is instinctive knee jerk bias.
Using reason and basic comprehension, again, to address your questions. Yes EP did employ three photographers. They would do this because of the importance of the role. The rarity of its requirement only goes to emphasise the importance of having experts/professionals on hand 24/7, hence a rota. That other duties were performed whilst on shift is hardly surprising really. Your use of unnecessary and incorrect adjectives to describe the rota betrays your knee jerk reasoning.
The whole concept of a rota means that you don't need to make a "random pick". You look at who is on the rota at that time. If the concept of how rotas work is too difficult for you then you are way out of your depth.
Your final point/question is no better informed than your previous ones and again betrays your poor reasoning. Of course the police work on the presumption that a major incident will come up. They're the police, it's one of their main roles, dealing with major incidents. It would be more concerning, much more concerning, to find out that the police worked on the presumption that no major incident would come up only to be left floundering when one did occur and having no specialist staff available. They are the police after all. I'm assuming that they have this covered.
As for believing that it is a lot of salary based "on the presumption that a major incident come up".
Has it really not occurred to you that the reason Bird and the two other photographers performed other duties was so that they were usefully employed and always on hand for their "specialist" role.
As a tip, you ought to skim read less and perhaps read slower in order to understand the words you are reading. Then have a little think before you hammer away at the keyboard. It should lead to less comprehension errors.
I'm jealous. ;D
-
Your questions are easily dealt with and I am surprised that you felt the need to ask them. But here we go anyway:
1) Who/what exactly is Bird?
Let's read the excerpts and see if this question is dealt with. It appears, using the simple tools of reading and comprehending simultaneously that this is explicitly dealt with.
"Yeah, my job is to take the photographs..."
"You then go on to the mortuary...to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
"... when a major incident come up that they required a photographer..."
"And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer."
"... there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer."
Five references in seven sentences makes it pretty clear to me and surely everybody who/what Bird is. For those who are unclear, the answer is; Bird is a crime scene photographer and employed as one.
2) Your second and third rather meandering and loaded questions basically deal with the same point whilst attempting to appear to use sound reasoning to back up your straw man assertions.
We do not need to assume either that Bird had "a degree in photography" or that EP funded a degree on his behalf. That is something that you just made up to bolster your weak argument which is coincidentally, exactly the same as Caroline's.
Had you done a quick search on photography qualifications/courses then you would have discovered that professional photographers do not all have "degrees in photography". But why use facts when your preferred form of debate is instinctive knee jerk bias.
Using reason and basic comprehension, again, to address your questions. Yes EP did employ three photographers. They would do this because of the importance of the role. The rarity of its requirement only goes to emphasise the importance of having experts/professionals on hand 24/7, hence a rota. That other duties were performed whilst on shift is hardly surprising really. Your use of unnecessary and incorrect adjectives to describe the rota betrays your knee jerk reasoning.
The whole concept of a rota means that you don't need to make a "random pick". You look at who is on the rota at that time. If the concept of how rotas work is too difficult for you then you are way out of your depth.
Your final point/question is no better informed than your previous ones and again betrays your poor reasoning. Of course the police work on the presumption that a major incident will come up. They're the police, it's one of their main roles, dealing with major incidents. It would be more concerning, much more concerning, to find out that the police worked on the presumption that no major incident would come up only to be left floundering when one did occur and having no specialist staff available. They are the police after all. I'm assuming that they have this covered.
As for believing that it is a lot of salary based "on the presumption that a major incident come up".
Has it really not occurred to you that the reason Bird and the two other photographers performed other duties was so that they were usefully employed and always on hand for their "specialist" role.
As a tip, you ought to skim read less and perhaps read slower in order to understand the words you are reading. Then have a little think before you hammer away at the keyboard. It should lead to less comprehension errors.
You know what, I'm not arguing with you you're a silly, angry fool who can't bear to be challenged and you';; just harp on and on with your long winded BS that just repeats the same crap. I know what the statement says and I know that a SOCO didn't have to be qualified until the role was civilianised. They first ran the course from Harperley Hall - which is about a mile or so from where I live.
You're doing what you usually do - you try to brow beat but you'll have no luck with me. It's taken you quite some time to reply, because you've let it fester and you needed to think up some insults to add to your repetitive dialogue. I'm answering you off the cuff and don't really care if there are comprehension errors. I'm not applying for a job and I'm not concerned about the person it's aimed at. I type fast and don't generally bother to read it back if I'm not concerned about the content or the person who reads it.
Just keep making it up as you go along and popping up when the CT releases their latest Amen and hallelujah praise be to Bamber! ::)
-
I'm jealous. ;D
Because you don't know any better!
-
Gringo-------do you get my meaning ?
-
I'm jealous. ;D
And gullible.
-
And gullible.
Is that now going to be your favourite word ? :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) It's self explanatory, what's your problem ?
-
Is that now going to be your favourite word ? :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) It's self explanatory, what's your problem ?
Well, I believe you used it to explain that it was something you weren't, which is curious because it's so apt.
-
Well, I believe you used it to explain that it was something you weren't, which is curious because it's so apt.
In your eyes only !
-
In your eyes only !
'Fraid not, Lookout. There's always gullibility about blind faith.
-
Nothing wrong with my comprehension but YOU, like the video are exaggerating the guys qualifications. The man was a POLICE OFFICER NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER and PHOTOGRAPHY WAS NOT HIS MAIN JOB. Unless you are blind, unable to read or making an attempt to deliberately have people believe he was a professional photographer - he states this in his interview! You're the one misinterpreting NO WHERE does it state that he is a specialist or a professional photographer.
You clearly know nothing about the history of the Scenes of Crime Division. Police officers moved in and out of the SOCO department before it became a civilian role (and they were given proper training). Up until that time, SOCO's had limited experience!
History
SOCOs were first introduced into the Metropolitan Police in 1968, replacing the CID officers who had previously carried out these functions. Some other forces had introduced them before that time, however.
Other police forces around the United Kingdom continued this trend of replacing the CID officers with civilians. This allowed the creation of dedicated departments within the police forces. Police officers often moved post after only a few years; the introduction of civilian Scenes of Crime Officers allowed departments to build a resource based on experience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenes_of_crime_officer
It is self evident that there is much wrong with your comprehension. That is just a shouty rant and an irrelevant wiki reference.
To address just one of your extended shouts.
Yes it does state that he is a specialist or professional photographer. Read it again if you missed it. He goes to the mortuary to do his "specialist job". Bird himself states that he is a photographer three times. His main role is obviously referring to the role he performs most of the time. This is because his specialist role is only required for major incidents.
The rest of us are up to speed on this, it's just you and Jane struggling to keep up, deliberately I suspect, although I don't entirely rule out your comprehension skills being this poor.
It is obvious to most here that EP employed PC Bird as a specialist crime scene photographer along with two other specialist photographers. Given the importance of the role and the need for a specialist to be available 24/7, the three specialist officers were put on a rota to make sure that a crime scene photographer was always available should a major incident occur.
In order to usefully employ these specialists they are given other roles to perform when not needed for their rarely used specialist role. Thus the sometimes difficult balancing act of obtaining value for money whilst still providing 24/7 specialist cover is achieved.
Everyone else can already see that simply by reading the excerpts that you posted.
You are free to believe that Bird and the two other officers were randomly assigned these duties, but you are clearly wrong.
Do you think that this was Bird's first job? Do you think his usual practice was to mess up crime scene pictures and this was never acted upon?
It surely would have come up if officers kept messing up crime scene photographs. If he didn't normally mess them up then how do reach the conclusion that he did so this time because of amateurish incompetence?
Your theory falls apart on contact with reason.
-
It is self evident that there is much wrong with your comprehension. That is just a shouty rant and an irrelevant wiki reference.
To address just one of your extended shouts.
Yes it does state that he is a specialist or professional photographer. Read it again if you missed it. He goes to the mortuary to do his "specialist job". Bird himself states that he is a photographer three times. His main role is obviously referring to the role he performs most of the time. This is because his specialist role is only required for major incidents.
The rest of us are up to speed on this, it's just you and Jane struggling to keep up, deliberately I suspect, although I don't entirely rule out your comprehension skills being this poor.
It is obvious to most here that EP employed PC Bird as a specialist crime scene photographer along with two other specialist photographers. Given the importance of the role and the need for a specialist to be available 24/7, the three specialist officers were put on a rota to make sure that a crime scene photographer was always available should a major incident occur.
In order to usefully employ these specialists they are given other roles to perform when not needed for their rarely used specialist role. Thus the sometimes difficult balancing act of obtaining value for money whilst still providing 24/7 specialist cover is achieved.
Everyone else can already see that simply by reading the excerpts that you posted.
You are free to believe that Bird and the two other officers were randomly assigned these duties, but you are clearly wrong.
Do you think that this was Bird's first job? Do you think his usual practice was to mess up crime scene pictures and this was never acted upon?
It surely would have come up if officers kept messing up crime scene photographs. If he didn't normally mess them up then how do reach the conclusion that he did so this time because of amateurish incompetence?
Your theory falls apart on contact with reason.
One of MY extended shouts? Seriously? I wasn't the FIRST to start with the insults but like a lot of Bamber supporters, as soon as someone tries to debate an issue, you get hot under the collar, up come the hackles and the rant begins.
Do some research on SOCO before the role became civilianised. Likelihood is, that Bird was interested in photography and that's why he ended up in the role but that does NOT make him a specialist and I think you're silly to even suggest he was.
When I come into contact with 'reason' I'll let you know how I get on - that isn't you though because your temper rules your posts and you just end up repeating yourself through a series of childish put downs. Lookout's impressed - so you know there's something wrong somewhere!
-
It is self evident that there is much wrong with your comprehension. That is just a shouty rant and an irrelevant wiki reference.
To address just one of your extended shouts.
Yes it does state that he is a specialist or professional photographer. Read it again if you missed it. He goes to the mortuary to do his "specialist job". Bird himself states that he is a photographer three times. His main role is obviously referring to the role he performs most of the time. This is because his specialist role is only required for major incidents.
The rest of us are up to speed on this, it's just you and Jane struggling to keep up, deliberately I suspect, although I don't entirely rule out your comprehension skills being this poor.
It is obvious to most here that EP employed PC Bird as a specialist crime scene photographer along with two other specialist photographers. Given the importance of the role and the need for a specialist to be available 24/7, the three specialist officers were put on a rota to make sure that a crime scene photographer was always available should a major incident occur.
In order to usefully employ these specialists they are given other roles to perform when not needed for their rarely used specialist role. Thus the sometimes difficult balancing act of obtaining value for money whilst still providing 24/7 specialist cover is achieved.
Everyone else can already see that simply by reading the excerpts that you posted.
You are free to believe that Bird and the two other officers were randomly assigned these duties, but you are clearly wrong.
Do you think that this was Bird's first job? Do you think his usual practice was to mess up crime scene pictures and this was never acted upon?
It surely would have come up if officers kept messing up crime scene photographs. If he didn't normally mess them up then how do reach the conclusion that he did so this time because of amateurish incompetence?
Your theory falls apart on contact with reason.
"It's obvious to most here". IS it? You mean Lookout? The rest of WHO is up to speed? I take it you mean Lookout who won't actually care what you say. It's enough for her that you're pro Jeremy. It's possible said pictures were removed because they were considered to be A) too distressing B) of no value and unnecessarily time consuming -WERE 5 rooms involved in the massacre? Please don't feel the need to throw out insults on Lookout's behalf. She's more than capable of doing it for herself. She's well practiced.
-
Grow up !
-
"It's obvious to most here". IS it? You mean Lookout? The rest of WHO is up to speed? I take it you mean Lookout who won't actually care what you say. It's enough for her that you're pro Jeremy. It's possible said pictures were removed because they were considered to be A) too distressing B) of no value and unnecessarily time consuming -WERE 5 rooms involved in the massacre? Please don't feel the need to throw out insults on Lookout's behalf. She's more than capable of doing it for herself. She's well practiced.
Even now, they only undertake a nine week course and guess what is included as part of the course? Photography! ;D Does nine weeks make you a specialist? Well, it's not even nine weeks really as photography is only PART of the course and Bird didn't even do the course (it wasn't a requirement back then!).
-
Even now, they only undertake a nine week course and guess what is included as part of the course? Photography! ;D Does nine weeks make you a specialist? Well, it's not even nine weeks really as photography is only PART of the course and Bird didn't even do the course (it wasn't a requirement back then!).
As I said, I think he's demanding, in tones supposed to convince us he knows what he's talking about, that we accept the slant on it that he insists.
-
"It's obvious to most here". IS it? You mean Lookout? The rest of WHO is up to speed? I take it you mean Lookout who won't actually care what you say. It's enough for her that you're pro Jeremy. It's possible said pictures were removed because they were considered to be A) too distressing B) of no value and unnecessarily time consuming -WERE 5 rooms involved in the massacre? Please don't feel the need to throw out insults on Lookout's behalf. She's more than capable of doing it for herself. She's well practiced.
there is no way any photos would be withheld for the reason of being " too distressing"
how do you know the 5 rooms were not "involved " in the massacre , there may well be clues in rooms where the murders did not take place
-
there is no way any photos would be withheld for the reason of being " too distressing"
how do you know the 5 rooms were not "involved " in the massacre , there may well be clues in rooms where the murders did not take place
Because all of the rooms were searched and checked - a photograph wouldn't tell you more than a physical search.
-
Because all of the rooms were searched and checked - a photograph wouldn't tell you more than a physical search.
Why can't we be the judge of that ?
-
Because all of the rooms were searched and checked - a photograph wouldn't tell you more than a physical search.
good grief , going on the police's searching skills in this case I would surmise that they would !
-
Why can't we be the judge of that ?
exactly
-
Why can't we be the judge of that ?
We? Why would 'we' be entitled to view evidence?
-
exactly
If they're of no importance why are they hidden ?
-
good grief , going on the police's searching skills in this case I would surmise that they would !
What was wrong with their searching skills?
-
If they're of no importance why are they hidden ?
So you think EP should just post them on the internet so you can look at them?
-
there is no way any photos would be withheld for the reason of being " too distressing"
how do you know the 5 rooms were not "involved " in the massacre , there may well be clues in rooms where the murders did not take place
How do you know that? I DON'T know. I asked the question. Do you think the jury was going to suss out one of possible, might be hidden clues when they didn't know what they were looking for?
-
So you think EP should just post them on the internet so you can look at them?
Not just me ::) Everyone else who's interested especially the broken shower head in the bathroom where AP's guns were, or supposed to have been. Plus a full shot of the broken rifle/shotgun ( which isn't a room )
-
Why can't we be the judge of that ?
You sound as if you've morphed into Nugs.
-
What was wrong with their searching skills?
they seem to have missed the moderator
-
How do you know that? I DON'T know. I asked the question. Do you think the jury was going to suss out one of possible, might be hidden clues when they didn't know what they were looking for?
no of course not, but the defence might have been able to use them to their advantage , we will never know now will we ?
-
Not just me ::) Everyone else who's interested especially the broken shower head in the bathroom where AP's guns were, or supposed to have been. Plus a full shot of the broken rifle/shotgun ( which isn't a room )
Why don't you ask them if you can a have a looksee? "I'm not involved in the case at all, but I would just like to see the crime scene photographs please"? You have no right to see them, just because you have an interest and belong to a forum, it gives you no right. If they are being withheld, then Bamber and his legal team are the ONLY individuals who hold that right!
-
they seem to have missed the moderator
Why would they be looking for it? Surely it must have been evident to all who were gun savvy that Sheila -who the knew to be the culprit because Jeremy had told them- couldn't have shot herself with it on, and as she was dead, she couldn't have used it.
-
they seem to have missed the moderator
They weren't looking for one.
-
You sound as if you've morphed into Nugs.
Can you explain how? What's it got to do with anything other than to cause your usual agg.?
-
Okay, so despite "your" Bird having no academic qualifications in photography, he a professional photographer? The rota? It may not be random choice, but all you get is whoever is on duty a la the rota. I think I read you rather well. I'm not entirely certain that you're worth reading any slower, because it reads very much to me as if you're colouring this the way you want it to be seen.
One of MY extended shouts? Seriously? I wasn't the FIRST to start with the insults but like a lot of Bamber supporters, as soon as someone tries to debate an issue, you get hot under the collar, up come the hackles and the rant begins.
Do some research on SOCO before the role became civilianised. Likelihood is, that Bird was interested in photography and that's why he ended up in the role but that does NOT make him a specialist and I think you're silly to even suggest he was.
When I come into contact with 'reason' I'll let you know how I get on - that isn't you though because your temper rules your posts and you just end up repeating yourself through a series of childish put downs. Lookout's impressed - so you know there's something wrong somewhere!
Anyone reading the thread can see that you have comprehension issues. I have pointed some of them out for you. Claiming that it doesn't refer to Bird as a specialist and then finding upon re-reading that it literally does is one of your more spectacular errors.
You have both also failed to address the issue of Bird's alleged incompetence of taking crime scene photos. If he really was so incompetent that every time he photographed a "major incident" that hundreds of photos were unusable in the subsequent court proceedings then surely this would have been addressed. The lack of any action to address Bird's alleged amateurish approach and the fact that they carried on employing him in the role tends to blow a hole in your theory.
How did Bird and his colleagues know what to photograph at these "major incidents"? Do you imagine that perhaps there will have been some training or do you think they were just told to guess? Bearing in mind that all pictures taken are evidence in court proceedings and you imagine some idiot who can't take pictures competently is sent as the crime scene photographer. You really haven't thought this one through.
-
Anyone reading the thread can see that you have comprehension issues. I have pointed some of them out for you. Claiming that it doesn't refer to Bird as a specialist and then finding upon re-reading that it literally does is one of your more spectacular errors.
You have both also failed to address the issue of Bird's alleged incompetence of taking crime scene photos. If he really was so incompetent that every time he photographed a "major incident" that hundreds of photos were unusable in the subsequent court proceedings then surely this would have been addressed. The lack of any action to address Bird's alleged amateurish approach and the fact that they carried on employing him in the role tends to blow a hole in your theory.
How did Bird and his colleagues know what to photograph at these "major incidents"? Do you imagine that perhaps there will have been some training or do you think they were just told to guess? Bearing in mind that all pictures taken are evidence in court proceedings and you imagine some idiot who can't take pictures competently is sent as the crime scene photographer. You really haven't thought this one through.
Leaving your usual earsteaming rant to one side - where did I say he was 'incompetent'?
They knew what to photograph because they were told by Cook and other officers - or did you think he was there on his own? Also, I didn't say he was an idiot, I said he wasn't a specialist and that back then they didn't do a specific course. You might not like that because it means you and the CT are over playing his status - but hey ho!
Now calm down, take a deep breath and mind your blood pressure. Sheeeesh!
-
They weren't looking for one.
so they were only looking for specific items? they should have been searching with an open mind
-
so they were only looking for specific items? they should have been searching with an open mind
Why would they when Bamber told them his sister had gone crazy with a gun and they find everyone dead and sister holding the gun? In hindsight we know about the silence, but they had no reason to believe one had been used.
-
Why would they when Bamber told them his sister had gone crazy with a gun and they find everyone dead and sister holding the gun? In hindsight we know about the silence, but they had no reason to believe one had been used.
Do the police believe everything that is told to them? they should always keep an open mind and investigate it accordingly , they cocked up badly in this case unfortunately
-
Leaving your usual earsteaming rant to one side - where did I say he was 'incompetent'?
They knew what to photograph because they were told by Cook and other officers - or did you think he was there on his own? Also, I didn't say he was an idiot, I said he wasn't a specialist and that back then they didn't do a specific course. You might not like that because it means you and the CT are over playing his status - but hey ho!
Now calm down, take a deep breath and mind your blood pressure. Sheeeesh!
Hang on. You've just "said he wasn't a specialist" but didn't you also call him a "professional photographer"?
-
Do the police believe everything that is told to them? they should always keep an open mind and investigate it accordingly , they cocked up badly in this case unfortunately
Ha! There we go again!! "They SHOULD....." How does that change anything? What were they going to do? Call Jeremy a liar? Tell him to wait while they verified his story?
-
Do the police believe everything that is told to them? they should always keep an open mind and investigate it accordingly , they cocked up badly in this case unfortunately
But don't you believe him?
-
Hang on. You've just "said he wasn't a specialist" but didn't you also call him a "professional photographer"?
I don't think I did Jane ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't think I did Jane ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ooops! Big Gaff. Thought I was answering our Mexican friend. Soz Caroline :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
Leaving your usual earsteaming rant to one side - where did I say he was 'incompetent'?
They knew what to photograph because they were told by Cook and other officers - or did you think he was there on his own? Also, I didn't say he was an idiot, I said he wasn't a specialist and that back then they didn't do a specific course. You might not like that because it means you and the CT are over playing his status - but hey ho!
Now calm down, take a deep breath and mind your blood pressure. Sheeeesh!
You stated that he was no professional after deriding his status and suggested that this led to the huge number of unusable photographs. Are you claiming that this is a description of competence? Your own words about him are a description of incompetence or do you dispute this?
I can assure you that refuting your arguments is not a difficult task and the time between posts has been spent dog walking, car maintenance and cooking. Thinking up replies to your half baked arguments takes seconds. Whilst you didn't refer to him as an idiot, this is how you portray him. Some lowly officer given a role that he couldn't perform to any reasonable level of competence.
The claims that you are making re training are just made up by you. You have no idea of what training or courses took place for crime scene photography in the 1980's and your wikipedia post demonstrates that.
You are also obviously projecting with your claims of my "getting hot under the collar" and starting with the insults. I have yet to have a post of mine removed by any moderator for any reason ever in over 6 years of posting, albeit occasionally. You have had an untold number removed, quite a number of which were directed at me for any number of reasons. You know what they say about people in glass houses.
-
Hang on. You've just "said he wasn't a specialist" but didn't you also call him a "professional photographer"?
What are you even attempting to say/ask here?
He was employed as a photographer and made his living as a photographer therefore he was a professional photographer. He took crime scene photographs and compiled the albums for court. I am sure we can all agree that this is a specialist role.
-
You stated that he was no professional after deriding his status and suggested that this led to the huge number of unusable photographs. Are you claiming that this is a description of competence? Your own words about him are a description of incompetence or do you dispute this?
I can assure you that refuting your arguments is not a difficult task and the time between posts has been spent dog walking, car maintenance and cooking. Thinking up replies to your half baked arguments takes seconds. Whilst you didn't refer to him as an idiot, this is how you portray him. Some lowly officer given a role that he couldn't perform to any reasonable level of competence.
The claims that you are making re training are just made up by you. You have no idea of what training or courses took place for crime scene photography in the 1980's and your wikipedia post demonstrates that.
You are also obviously projecting with your claims of my "getting hot under the collar" and starting with the insults. I have yet to have a post of mine removed by any moderator for any reason ever in over 6 years of posting, albeit occasionally. You have had an untold number removed, quite a number of which were directed at me for any number of reasons. You know what they say about people in glass houses.
Gringo, it's easy for you to go away and do some research on what type of training police SOCO's received - and you were the FIRST to throw insults whether you have had posts removed or not.
This is goading .....
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.msg444042.html#msg444042
This is rude ......
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.msg444079.html#msg444079
I at least have provided a source to support my argument - you have provided nothing other than your usual rude, supercilious responses. Clearly you're too good for Wikipedia - nevertheless, that doesn't mean the information is wrong and if you bother do some research, you will find it most certainly IS'NT!
Think you dog might need another walk before you answer! ;D ;D
-
What are you even attempting to say/ask here?
He was employed as a photographer and made his living as a photographer therefore he was a professional photographer. He took crime scene photographs and compiled the albums for court. I am sure we can all agree that this is a specialist role.
He was employed as a police officer and worked in the SOCO division - he was NOT a photographer!
-
Hang on. You've just "said he wasn't a specialist" but didn't you also call him a "professional photographer"?
I don't know but I wouldnt have thought in those days that a police officer who also took photos would be required to be a professional photographer , of course now it has been merged into SOCO , I always wanted to be a SOCO but once I found out the rate of pay I quickly decided otherwise!
-
But don't you believe him?
I dont know
-
Ha! There we go again!! "They SHOULD....." How does that change anything? What were they going to do? Call Jeremy a liar? Tell him to wait while they verified his story?
yes tell him to wait while they verified his story , you bet
-
yes tell him to wait while they verified his story , you bet
How were they going to do that?
-
How were they going to do that?
i didnt mean literally wait that second, but they should have investigated it with an open mind , which they didn't
-
i didnt mean literally wait that second, but they should have investigated it with an open mind , which they didn't
Jones did, he didn't believe Jeremy. So if anyone was at fault, it was Taff Jones who believed Jeremy from the beginning.
-
Gringo, it's easy for you to go away and do some research on what type of training police SOCO's received - and you were the FIRST to throw insults whether you have had posts removed or not.
This is goading .....
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.msg444042.html#msg444042
This is rude ......
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.msg444079.html#msg444079
I at least have provided a source to support my argument - you have provided nothing other than your usual rude, supercilious responses. Clearly you're too good for Wikipedia - nevertheless, that doesn't mean the information is wrong and if you bother do some research, you will find it most certainly IS'NT!
Think you dog might need another walk before you answer! ;D ;D
I will rely on my own judgement regards rudeness and goading and certainly wouldn't need the advice of someone with such a demonstrably poor record.
Your source doesn't support or even refer to anything remotely supporting your argument. There is one reference to 1968 and a few paragraphs which add nothing to the debate.
The evidence that I used was the excerpts that you posted. The actual interview excerpts where it is unambiguously stated that he is a photographer, several times.
There is very little available of any real detail on crime scene photography. I had a read last night trying to get to the bottom of it. It is apparent that you found very little also hence the irrelevant wikipedia link. What is clear is that the quality of crime scene photography was of a professional standard in the 1980's. It was a large part of the prosecution case quite often. Presentation of crime scene photographs was much more sophisticated by the 1980's.
The interview excerpts seem the best evidence here and from those it is clear that Bird is a "specialist". Supt. McKay tells us this as does Bird. He compiles the albums for presentation to the court.
It is simply not credible that hundreds of crime scene photographs are unusable because of a lack of competence, professionalism, training or what ever other piss poor argument you use.
-
I will rely on my own judgement regards rudeness and goading and certainly wouldn't need the advice of someone with such a demonstrably poor record.
Your source doesn't support or even refer to anything remotely supporting your argument. There is one reference to 1968 and a few paragraphs which add nothing to the debate.
The evidence that I used was the excerpts that you posted. The actual interview excerpts where it is unambiguously stated that he is a photographer, several times.
There is very little available of any real detail on crime scene photography. I had a read last night trying to get to the bottom of it. It is apparent that you found very little also hence the irrelevant wikipedia link. What is clear is that the quality of crime scene photography was of a professional standard in the 1980's. It was a large part of the prosecution case quite often. Presentation of crime scene photographs was much more sophisticated by the 1980's.
The interview excerpts seem the best evidence here and from those it is clear that Bird is a "specialist". Supt. McKay tells us this as does Bird. He compiles the albums for presentation to the court.
It is simply not credible that hundreds of crime scene photographs are unusable because of a lack of competence, professionalism, training or what ever other piss poor argument you use.
And I will use mine!
So Bird wasn't a police officer?
-
And I will use mine!
So Bird wasn't a police officer?
Who said that PC Bird wasn't a police officer?
I have just read the trial transcript of PC Bird.
Examined by Mr. Munday, first question:
Q. Mr. Bird, what role do you normally fulfil as a police officer?
A. Police Photographer.
-
Who said that PC Bird wasn't a police officer?
I have just read the trial transcript of PC Bird.
Examined by Mr. Munday, first question:
Q. Mr. Bird, what role do you normally fulfil as a police officer?
A. Police Photographer.
I have just read his interview with CAL - in 1985, he was undertaking a course on police photography and chemical treatments - the Bamber case was only the SECOND time he had fulfilled the role as a photographer! Specialist?
The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up: ‘Then I looked at the superintendent’s face and saw
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (pp. 179-180). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
-
He was also there on Tuesday 10th September when the investigation turned to five murders.
-
He was also there on Tuesday 10th September when the investigation turned to five murders.
He'd had a bit more practice by then ;D
-
CAL Chapter 40
Constable Golding gave evidence about the security of the farmhouse windows, after which Detective Constable David Bird was sworn in. "I was in the box for forty-five minutes", Bird reflects. "They asked me if I'd taken the photographs and if I could have a look at them. I'd put my photographic album into sequence according to each negative I'd taken and numbered the pages, but I nearly had a heart attack when I opened the album and had to explain: "Excuse me, these aren't in the order I put them in." It took virtually all my time in the witness box to put them right."
Queried about the different positions of Sheila's hand in the crime scene shots, he clarified that both photographs were taken at the same time, but Detective Inspector Cook had moved her hand "because he wanted to show the mark on the nightdress". He was also questioned about a photograph in which the rifle could be seen leaning against the master bedroom window. Bird told the court: "I had finished taking photographs in the main bedroom. I had come out and photographed the top landing, and I stood in the middle of the upper set of stairs and took that photograph up there." He hadn't been present when the gun had been moved from Sheila's body.
-
I have just read his interview with CAL - in 1985, he was undertaking a course on police photography and chemical treatments - the Bamber case was only the SECOND time he had fulfilled the role as a photographer! Specialist?
The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up: ‘Then I looked at the superintendent’s face and saw
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (pp. 179-180). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
Your evidence as usual doesn't support the assertions that you make.
It is also worth noting that your earlier claims have all but evaporated to be replaced, not quite seamlessly, with your new inaccurate interpretations. Previously you have claimed that Bird wasn't a specialist;
Both of the following statements are yours made earlier in this thread.
"back then they didn't do a specific course."
"Does nine weeks make you a specialist? Well, it's not even nine weeks really as photography is only PART of the course and Bird didn't even do the course( it wasn't a requirement back then)"
Now you claim that he was undertaking a course in 1985 and that because it was supposedly only the second time he had fulfilled the role of photographer that this calls into question his role as a specialist.
From the quote given it appears that Bird was undertaking the course in 1976 when he joined EP but as usual you have given only part of it.
Likewise the claim of it being only his second time fulfilling the role is unclear from what you have posted but regardless of this, at what point do you become a specialist? Perhaps if we put back into context the original notes that you posted. Here is a more informative and complete section of the COLP interview including the excerpts that you posted earlier:
Supt. McKay: And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer
PC Bird: I was down at the other end of the command chain, so to speak. Well I was, there's
nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer
Supt. McKay: And then ...
DS Young: Actually could I clarify that bit. Am I right in saying that it's actual your, when you were
headquarters, it was your specialist role for major incidents.
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Supt. McKay: Of taking photographs
PC Bird: Yeah
DS Young: Of major incidents
PC Bird: We do all the chemical treatment at headquarters and as and when a major incident
come up that they required a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us, and
it was just the luck of the draw which one you get.
Supt. McKay: Was that sort of 24 hour cover was it David
PC Bird: Yeah we took it in turns to provide a 24 hour cover.
DS Young: Thank you
I think you are out on a limb with this one and we are left to wonder why you didn't post the entire section. The following also by you:
Nothing wrong with my comprehension but YOU, like the video are exaggerating the guys qualifications. The man was a POLICE OFFICER NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER and PHOTOGRAPHY WAS NOT HIS MAIN JOB. Unless you are blind, unable to read or making an attempt to deliberately have people believe he was a professional photographer - he states this in his interview! You're the one misinterpreting NO WHERE does it state that he is a specialist or a professional photographer.
Why did you make this misleading statement?
The excerpt that I have transcribed above must have been read by you because you posted snippets from it. There is an extended conversation about his "specialist" role and an explanation of the 24 hour cover. You deny that it is ever stated that he is a specialist which demonstrates your poor comprehension or something else maybe.
-
Your evidence as usual doesn't support the assertions that you make.
It is also worth noting that your earlier claims have all but evaporated to be replaced, not quite seamlessly, with your new inaccurate interpretations. Previously you have claimed that Bird wasn't a specialist;
Both of the following statements are yours made earlier in this thread.
"back then they didn't do a specific course."
"Does nine weeks make you a specialist? Well, it's not even nine weeks really as photography is only PART of the course and Bird didn't even do the course( it wasn't a requirement back then)"
Now you claim that he was undertaking a course in 1985 and that because it was supposedly only the second time he had fulfilled the role of photographer that this calls into question his role as a specialist.
From the quote given it appears that Bird was undertaking the course in 1976 when he joined EP but as usual you have given only part of it.
Likewise the claim of it being only his second time fulfilling the role is unclear from what you have posted but regardless of this, at what point do you become a specialist? Perhaps if we put back into context the original notes that you posted. Here is a more informative and complete section of the COLP interview including the excerpts that you posted earlier:
Supt. McKay: And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer
PC Bird: I was down at the other end of the command chain, so to speak. Well I was, there's
nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer
Supt. McKay: And then ...
DS Young: Actually could I clarify that bit. Am I right in saying that it's actual your, when you were
headquarters, it was your specialist role for major incidents.
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Supt. McKay: Of taking photographs
PC Bird: Yeah
DS Young: Of major incidents
PC Bird: We do all the chemical treatment at headquarters and as and when a major incident
come up that they required a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us, and
it was just the luck of the draw which one you get.
Supt. McKay: Was that sort of 24 hour cover was it David
PC Bird: Yeah we took it in turns to provide a 24 hour cover.
DS Young: Thank you
I think you are out on a limb with this one and we are left to wonder why you didn't post the entire section. The following also by you:
Nothing wrong with my comprehension but YOU, like the video are exaggerating the guys qualifications. The man was a POLICE OFFICER NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER and PHOTOGRAPHY WAS NOT HIS MAIN JOB. Unless you are blind, unable to read or making an attempt to deliberately have people believe he was a professional photographer - he states this in his interview! You're the one misinterpreting NO WHERE does it state that he is a specialist or a professional photographer.
Why did you make this misleading statement?
The excerpt that I have transcribed above must have been read by you because you posted snippets from it. There is an extended conversation about his "specialist" role and an explanation of the 24 hour cover. You deny that it is ever stated that he is a specialist which demonstrates your poor comprehension or something else maybe.
It's taken you ALL night to come up with this? ;D ;D ;D ;D
In Birds OWN WORDS in an interview with CAL - Bird stated that it was only the second time he had acted as photographer. He was undertaking a course when the murders occurred but had been in the force since 1976. Clearly he had had other duties prior to the Bull case. The FACT that WHF was only the second time he had acted as photographer means he was NOT the specialist as you have been claiming he was. Yes, I was wrong about the the course - I concede that however, I have maintained that he was not a professional, experienced, specialist photographer and as it was ONLY the second time he had undertaken the role - your claim and the claim of the CT is not only misleading, it is completely WRONG!
It is stupid of you to try suggest that I posted only part of the COLP statement for underhanded reasons when the full thing is readily available on the forum. The fact is, that Bird was NOT an experienced photographer which is what I said all along and you have claimed he was! By the way, I think I made it clear that Bird didn't describe himself as a specialist and HE made it clear it wasn't his main job. However, you have been arguing that he was a professional - a specialist and now that has been shown to be not the case, you're making it about me! Just concede he wasn't the specialist you thought he was - it won't hurt!
-
experienced
?k?sp??r??nst,?k?sp??r??nst/Submit
adjective
adjective: experienced
having gained knowledge or skill in a particular field over time.
I don't think twice cuts it?
-
It's taken you ALL night to come up with this? ;D ;D ;D ;D
In Birds OWN WORDS in an interview with CAL - Bird stated that it was only the second time he had acted as photographer. He was undertaking a course when the murders occurred but had been in the force since 1976. Clearly he had had other duties prior to the Bull case. The FACT that WHF was only the second time he had acted as photographer means he was NOT the specialist as you have been claiming he was. Yes, I was wrong about the the course - I concede that however, I have maintained that he was not a professional, experienced, specialist photographer and as it was ONLY the second time he had undertaken the role - your claim and the claim of the CT is not only misleading, it is completely WRONG!
It is stupid of you to try suggest that I posted only part of the COLP statement for underhanded reasons when the full thing is readily available on the forum. The fact is, that Bird was NOT an experienced photographer which is what I said all along and you have claimed he was! By the way, I think I made it clear that Bird didn't describe himself as a specialist and HE made it clear it wasn't his main job. However, you have been arguing that he was a professional - a specialist and now that has been shown to be not the case, you're making it about me! Just concede he wasn't the specialist you thought he was - it won't hurt!
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Wrong yet again, at least you're consistent.
You have shifted position massively, made a number of demonstrably false and misleading statements, as I have highlighted, and you have fallen way short of demonstrating anything.
You have used partial transcripts which give a false impression and then denied doing so for underhanded reasons without offering a reasonable explanation why you did. The transcripts demonstrated the opposite of what you claim when read in full. It seems apparent that your intent was to give a misleading impression of PC Birds role.
PC Bird, contrary to your ridiculous and ever evolving argument, has unequivocally been demonstrated to be the specialist/professional claimed.
The only reason that you ever attempted to advance this specious argument was to make the thoroughly unsupported claim that the reason for hundreds of missing negatives was because Bird was some sort of random officer assigned the duties with no training.
The excerpt that you posted from the CAL book, which you apparently place more store in than the COLP interview and court transcript, is not particularly clear and if you posted a fuller version we could interpret it more accurately.
For instance; "Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment..."
Was he working on murder photography and chemical treatments in 1976 when he joined or 1985.
Is the qualifying "while he was engaged on the lab treatment." there for a reason. Is CAL saying that it was only his second case ever as a photographer or his second while engaged on the lab treatment.
Does CAL mention any other courses. Is CAL a reliable source?
Do you believe CAL's murder porn is a better source than COLP interviews and the court transcript which make crystal clear that the role that PC Bird normally fulfilled as a police officer was Police Photographer and that he was unequivocally a specialist in this role. These points are made explicitly.
-
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Wrong yet again, at least you're consistent.
You have shifted position massively, made a number of demonstrably false and misleading statements, as I have highlighted, and you have fallen way short of demonstrating anything.
You have used partial transcripts which give a false impression and then denied doing so for underhanded reasons without offering a reasonable explanation why you did. The transcripts demonstrated the opposite of what you claim when read in full. It seems apparent that your intent was to give a misleading impression of PC Birds role.
PC Bird, contrary to your ridiculous and ever evolving argument, has unequivocally been demonstrated to be the specialist/professional claimed.
The only reason that you ever attempted to advance this specious argument was to make the thoroughly unsupported claim that the reason for hundreds of missing negatives was because Bird was some sort of random officer assigned the duties with no training.
The excerpt that you posted from the CAL book, which you apparently place more store in than the COLP interview and court transcript, is not particularly clear and if you posted a fuller version we could interpret it more accurately.
For instance; "Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment..."
Was he working on murder photography and chemical treatments in 1976 when he joined or 1985.
Is the qualifying "while he was engaged on the lab treatment." there for a reason. Is CAL saying that it was only his second case ever as a photographer or his second while engaged on the lab treatment.
Does CAL mention any other courses. Is CAL a reliable source?
Do you believe CAL's murder porn is a better source than COLP interviews and the court transcript which make crystal clear that the role that PC Bird normally fulfilled as a police officer was Police Photographer and that he was unequivocally a specialist in this role. These points are made explicitly.
She interviewed him PERSONALLY - You are showing yourself up! Seriously - give it up! ::)
-
The testimonies of lead figures from the 1985–6 enquiry have helped shed new light on those involved as well as on the investigation itself. I thank especially Mike Ainsley, Ron Cook, , Neil Davidson, Chris Bews and Steve Myall. Sadly, several retired officers have passed away recentlyDave Bird, including Bob Miller, whom I interviewed
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 419). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
She has formerly acknowledged his contribution and you calling the book 'Murder porn' is just silly and ridiculous and frankly, I didn't think you could sink this low in order to try and win a debate. Bird wasn't a specialist FACT!
-
Nugs is also going to get a source from CAL & inform the forum of his indevours.
-
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Wrong yet again, at least you're consistent.
You have shifted position massively, made a number of demonstrably false and misleading statements, as I have highlighted, and you have fallen way short of demonstrating anything.
You have used partial transcripts which give a false impression and then denied doing so for underhanded reasons without offering a reasonable explanation why you did. The transcripts demonstrated the opposite of what you claim when read in full. It seems apparent that your intent was to give a misleading impression of PC Birds role.
PC Bird, contrary to your ridiculous and ever evolving argument, has unequivocally been demonstrated to be the specialist/professional claimed.
The only reason that you ever attempted to advance this specious argument was to make the thoroughly unsupported claim that the reason for hundreds of missing negatives was because Bird was some sort of random officer assigned the duties with no training.
The excerpt that you posted from the CAL book, which you apparently place more store in than the COLP interview and court transcript, is not particularly clear and if you posted a fuller version we could interpret it more accurately.
For instance; "Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment..."
Was he working on murder photography and chemical treatments in 1976 when he joined or 1985.
Is the qualifying "while he was engaged on the lab treatment." there for a reason. Is CAL saying that it was only his second case ever as a photographer or his second while engaged on the lab treatment.
Does CAL mention any other courses. Is CAL a reliable source?
Do you believe CAL's murder porn is a better source than COLP interviews and the court transcript which make crystal clear that the role that PC Bird normally fulfilled as a police officer was Police Photographer and that he was unequivocally a specialist in this role. These points are made explicitly.
How many more ways can you find to repeat this cant which has no more value than your need to make a point -or should that be, to get one over?- to which end you're now playing semantics. I'm reminded of a line from Macbeth -"Told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
-
How many more ways can you find to repeat this cant which has no more value than your need to make a point -or should that be, to get one over?- to which end you're now playing semantics. I'm reminded of a line from Macbeth -"Told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
It isn't me who is playing semantics. You misrepresented the COLP interview and deny the court transcript,both of which state his expertise and role.
Specialist police photographer in case you missed it.
You claimed he was neither.
Do you still claim that the large number of unusable photographs was because he was neither a photographer nor a specialist?
-
It isn't me who is playing semantics. You misrepresented the COLP interview and deny the court transcript,both of which state his expertise and role.
Specialist police photographer in case you missed it.
You claimed he was neither.
Do you still claim that the large number of unusable photographs was because he was neither a photographer nor a specialist?
It's my belief that each time he was pressed for an answer, he avoided using the word "specialist". Everything else appears to be down to your own over-use of words to cover your own flaws and misrepresentations. I'm not going to commit myself to claiming anything unequivocally. The most I'm prepared to do is offer possibilities, ONE of which MAY have been that for some reason the photographs were deemed to be unusable......................which has nothing to do with his status, either amateur or professional.
-
She interviewed him PERSONALLY - You are showing yourself up! Seriously - give it up! ::)
So did COLP and Mr. Munday in the court proceedings.
Your attempt to demonstrate that the unusable photographs were because of Bird's incompetence and the fact that he had no training no longer holds any water. You have misrepresented and demonstrably made up arguments throughout the thread.
Where did you get the gem that Bird had done no courses from? CAL? or did you just make it up because it suited your argument?
Likewise, your claim that nowhere in the COLP interview was Bird referred to as specialist despite it being mentioned several times. Can you not read very well or did you deliberately mislead?
You later changed this claim subtly to say that Bird had not himself called his role specialist. But this was also shown to be untrue as he had also several times referred to himself as a specialist and a photographer. Again either your reading ability or honesty is falling short. Which one is it?
Your projection onto me of your own fury is laughable. Were I to be furiously banging away at a keyboard, steam billowing from my ears then I would probably type posts that needed moderating or end up getting banned for a period. This has never happened to me.
Can you claim likewise?
-
So did COLP and Mr. Munday in the court proceedings.
Your attempt to demonstrate that the unusable photographs were because of Bird's incompetence and the fact that he had no training no longer holds any water. You have misrepresented and demonstrably made up arguments throughout the thread.
Where did you get the gem that Bird had done no courses from? CAL? or did you just make it up because it suited your argument?
Likewise, your claim that nowhere in the COLP interview was Bird referred to as specialist despite it being mentioned several times. Can you not read very well or did you deliberately mislead?
You later changed this claim subtly to say that Bird had not himself called his role specialist. But this was also shown to be untrue as he had also several times referred to himself as a specialist and a photographer. Again either your reading ability or honesty is falling short. Which one is it?
Your projection onto me of your own fury is laughable. Were I to be furiously banging away at a keyboard, steam billowing from my ears then I would probably type posts that needed moderating or end up getting banned for a period. This has never happened to me.
Can you claim likewise?
Are you still trying to convince the masses (LOL) that Bird was a professional after now knowing it was only his second time as a photographer? Silly Billy! ;D ;D ;D ;D Would you get on a plane if you knew the pilot was only on his second flight EVER? Would you go under the knife if you knew the surgeon had previously only done one operation? It's not a case of him being 'incompetent' (which is YOUR word by the way), he just wasn't experienced.
It doesn't matter how much you try and switch your argument, the point that is relevant to the CASE is how much experience Bird had as a photographer and he had almost none.
-
Are you still trying to convince the masses (LOL) that Bird was a professional after now knowing it was only his second time as a photographer? Silly Billy! ;D ;D ;D ;D Would you get on a plane if you knew the pilot was only on his second flight EVER? Would you go under the knife if you knew the surgeon had previously only done one operation? It's not a case of him being 'incompetent' (which is YOUR word by the way), he just wasn't experienced.
It doesn't matter how much you try and switch your argument, the point that is relevant to the CASE is how much experience Bird had as a photographer and he had almost none.
No I'm just giving you enough rope to hang yourself which you have managed very well thank you.
-
No I'm just giving you enough rope to hang yourself which you have managed very well thank you.
Another one in COMPLETE denial - twice in the role of photographer does not make anyone a 'specialist'. If anyone is hanging, it's you!
-
Why must supporters always be " in denial ?" Denial of what exactly ?
-
Another one in COMPLETE denial - twice in the role of photographer does not make anyone a 'specialist'. If anyone is hanging, it's you!
Because Carole Ann Lee is a far more reliable source than COLP and the court transcript. You got caught making things up and then changed your story, again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIiBLgQlhfQ
-
Because Carole Ann Lee is a far more reliable source than COLP and the court transcript. You got caught making things up and then changed your story, again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIiBLgQlhfQ
So she's lying? I make things up and Bird was a specialist? OK silly man - you're just making yourself look foolish! ;D ;D
-
I see you're still going on ::)
Posted this in Julie Mugford but it really belongs here!
Right back at you! This started as a discussion about Bird, I didn't think he was a specialist photographer and as this is a discussion forum, I posted my thoughts. You then (in your usual angry, supercilious fashion), decided to add personal insults and put-downs. As things went on and it became clear that Bird was inexperienced, you dug your heels in further and made the whole thing about me - spurred on by Lookout. I'm well aware of how stubborn I am but I will also admit when I'm wrong, I was wrong about the training but my original and MAIN argument turned out to be correct. Even now, when it's clear that Bird was inexperienced, having played the role of photographer twice - you still can't admit that maybe he wasn't as experienced as is being portrayed. ::)
-
So she's lying? I make things up and Bird was a specialist? OK silly man - you're just making yourself look foolish! ;D ;D
It has been demonstrated that you made things up earlier in this thread when you claimed that:
1) PC Bird had done no courses as it wasn't a requirement (no source for this claim and then debunked). So where was it from if not made up by you? Who told you that PC Bird had done no courses? Or did you just make it up?
2) PC Bird was not referred to as a specialist ( it was in the full COLP interview notes that you partially posted) Are your comprehension skills so poor that you missed the part of the interview that literally discussed his specialist role?
3) What you actually meant was that PC Bird himself had not referred to himself as a specialist ( it was also in the full COLP interview notes that you partially posted) Did you miss that bit too? I've told you that you need to read more carefully because you keep missing out vital pieces of information. Whether this is oversight or deliberate only you know; we can only guess.
The vital pieces of information were left out initially by you when you posted only out of context quotes from the interview but you have assured us that you didn't leave out the bits which contradict your spin in order to mislead.
-
It has been demonstrated that you made things up earlier in this thread when you claimed that:
1) PC Bird had done no courses as it wasn't a requirement (no source for this claim and then debunked). So where was it from if not made up by you? Who told you that PC Bird had done no courses? Or did you just make it up?
2) PC Bird was not referred to as a specialist ( it was in the full COLP interview notes that you partially posted) Are your comprehension skills so poor that you missed the part of the interview that literally discussed his specialist role?
3) What you actually meant was that PC Bird himself had not referred to himself as a specialist ( it was also in the full COLP interview notes that you partially posted) Did you miss that bit too? I've told you that you need to read more carefully because you keep missing out vital pieces of information. Whether this is oversight or deliberate only you know; we can only guess.
The vital pieces of information were left out initially by you when you posted only out of context quotes from the interview but you have assured us that you didn't leave out the bits which contradict your spin in order to mislead.
Once again, your post is about me - I think you are doing this to distract from the FACT you were wrong. Simply because the word 'specialist' was used in the interview, you applied it to Bird in order to try and make it sound as if there was no way the strips could contain unusable photographs. Turns out he was inexperienced and such, the claims may actually be true. However, rather than discuss all possibilities, you're making this about me and now I'm part of a conspiracy (and CAL who recently interviewed him). Think you need to walk the dog, fix your car or bake a pie before you burst a blood vessel.
-
Once again, your post is about me - I think you are doing this to distract from the FACT you were wrong. Simply because the word 'specialist' was used in the interview, you applied it to Bird in order to try and make it sound as if there was no way the strips could contain unusable photographs. Turns out he was inexperienced and such, the claims may actually be true. However, rather than discuss all possibilities, you're making this about me and now I'm part of a conspiracy (and CAL who recently interviewed him). Think you need to walk the dog, fix your car or bake a pie before you burst a blood vessel.
Isn't there a ball to be balanced, too?
-
Once again, your post is about me - I think you are doing this to distract from the FACT you were wrong. Simply because the word 'specialist' was used in the interview, you applied it to Bird in order to try and make it sound as if there was no way the strips could contain unusable photographs. Turns out he was inexperienced and such, the claims may actually be true. However, rather than discuss all possibilities, you're making this about me and now I'm part of a conspiracy (and CAL who recently interviewed him). Think you need to walk the dog, fix your car or bake a pie before you burst a blood vessel.
I haven't shifted my position because I haven't needed to nor have I made up "fake news" to bolster my case.
How was I wrong?
Bird was a specialist police photographer with training. You claimed unequivocally that he wasn't. The court record, PC Bird and the COLP state that he was.
You yourself introduced the term experienced, apropos of nothing, when your initial claims fell apart.
So you are left with; "Turns out he was inexperienced and such, the claims may actually be true"
Hmmm where to begin?
What you are actually saying here is that all the initial claims that you made that he was just a lowly random officer who had been assigned photographic duties and had no training which probably explains the large amount of unusable film has been thoroughly debunked; or as you put it;
"Turns out he was inexperienced..."
That's not what you said at the beginning is it? Even though you had seen the evidence which debunked your own claims.
"...and such, the claims may actually be true"
What claims? Who has been making these claims?
Just you making the claim isn't it? Unusable photos blah blah no training blah lowly officer...
To recap then. You alone claimed that hundreds of photos were unusable probably down to the fact that Bird was neither a photographer nor a specialist. This is debunked so you change your stance and now posit that, "the claims may actually be true". Claims that you made up based on debunked evidence.
If you were to post the full CAL interview then you will be able to demonstrate that you aren't selectively quoting again.
-
"PC Bird. I was down the other end of the command chain so to speak. Well, there's no one lower than me. Van driver and photographer." Apologies if a comma has been omitted.
That seems to say it all, despite what's being lain on him. This guy doesn't appear to see himself as a professional or specialist anything, and given that it was only the second time he'd done any police photography, I think I feel inclined to agree with him.
We clearly have something rather petty and childish going on here. Greengo appears to have forgotten that he's an adult male? and has resorted to infantile tactics to try to get one over on a fellow poster, to which end he's become like a dog with a bone. His original point, whatever it was, becoming lost in HIS opinion of what he insists Bird was, irrelevant of what Bird claims he was.............or wasn't. Perhaps he could go balance a ball to calm him.
-
I haven't shifted my position because I haven't needed to nor have I made up "fake news" to bolster my case.
How was I wrong?
Bird was a specialist police photographer with training. You claimed unequivocally that he wasn't. The court record, PC Bird and the COLP state that he was.
You yourself introduced the term experienced, apropos of nothing, when your initial claims fell apart.
So you are left with; "Turns out he was inexperienced and such, the claims may actually be true"
Hmmm where to begin?
What you are actually saying here is that all the initial claims that you made that he was just a lowly random officer who had been assigned photographic duties and had no training which probably explains the large amount of unusable film has been thoroughly debunked; or as you put it;
"Turns out he was inexperienced..."
That's not what you said at the beginning is it? Even though you had seen the evidence which debunked your own claims.
"...and such, the claims may actually be true"
What claims? Who has been making these claims?
Just you making the claim isn't it? Unusable photos blah blah no training blah lowly officer...
To recap then. You alone claimed that hundreds of photos were unusable probably down to the fact that Bird was neither a photographer nor a specialist. This is debunked so you change your stance and now posit that, "the claims may actually be true". Claims that you made up based on debunked evidence.
If you were to post the full CAL interview then you will be able to demonstrate that you aren't selectively quoting again.
You're an idiot!
-
"PC Bird. I was down the other end of the command chain so to speak. Well, there's no one lower than me. Van driver and photographer." Apologies if a comma has been omitted.
That seems to say it all, despite what's being lain on him. This guy doesn't appear to see himself as a professional or specialist anything, and given that it was only the second time he'd done any police photography, I think I feel inclined to agree with him.
We clearly have something rather petty and childish going on here. Greengo appears to have forgotten that he's an adult male? and has resorted to infantile tactics to try to get one over on a fellow poster, to which end he's become like a dog with a bone. His original point, whatever it was, becoming lost in HIS opinion of what he insists Bird was, irrelevant of what Bird claims he was.............or wasn't. Perhaps he could go balance a ball to calm him.
It was his SECOND case as a photographer. Gringo knows he wasn't a specialist but like a lot of these fools, can't admit he's wrong. He's argues his point to absolute stupidity and because of that, he just can't let go. A conspiracy theorist extraordinaire!
-
You're an idiot!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR0aGzOftbA
-
"PC Bird. I was down the other end of the command chain so to speak. Well, there's no one lower than me. Van driver and photographer." Apologies if a comma has been omitted.
That seems to say it all, despite what's being lain on him. This guy doesn't appear to see himself as a professional or specialist anything, and given that it was only the second time he'd done any police photography, I think I feel inclined to agree with him.
We clearly have something rather petty and childish going on here. Greengo appears to have forgotten that he's an adult male? and has resorted to infantile tactics to try to get one over on a fellow poster, to which end he's become like a dog with a bone. His original point, whatever it was, becoming lost in HIS opinion of what he insists Bird was, irrelevant of what Bird claims he was.............or wasn't. Perhaps he could go balance a ball to calm him.
Do you actually even read the threads you are commenting on? You are using the same out of context quote that has already been debunked and put into context.
It's good to see that you agree with PC Bird because he refers to himself as a specialist and a police photographer.
The original point, which has been referred back to a number of times, ( your poor comprehension skills again) is that hundreds of negatives were missing and the strips were cut despite being intact in 2001.
Caroline offered an explanation for this, which by massive coincidence you agreed with, which consisted of a few selective quotes and a theory that she made up about unusable photographs because Bird wasn't a specialist, qualified or had done any courses.
When this was shown to be bollocks, the reason for the unusable photographs became Bird's inexperience which we are supposed to believe because of a couple of out of context lines from a book have been posted by someone with demonstrable comprehension/accuracy issues.
-
It was his SECOND case as a photographer. Gringo knows he wasn't a specialist but like a lot of these fools, can't admit he's wrong. He's argues his point to absolute stupidity and because of that, he just can't let go. A conspiracy theorist extraordinaire!
Post the full CAL interview. Your interpretations are worthless
-
Do you actually even read the threads you are commenting on? You are using the same out of context quote that has already been debunked and put into context.
It's good to see that you agree with PC Bird because he refers to himself as a specialist and a police photographer.
The original point, which has been referred back to a number of times, ( your poor comprehension skills again) is that hundreds of negatives were missing and the strips were cut despite being intact in 2001.
Caroline offered an explanation for this, which by massive coincidence you agreed with, which consisted of a few selective quotes and a theory that she made up about unusable photographs because Bird wasn't a specialist, qualified or had done any courses.
When this was shown to be bollocks, the reason for the unusable photographs became Bird's inexperience which we are supposed to believe because of a couple of out of context lines from a book have been posted by someone with demonstrable comprehension/accuracy issues.
FFS, Gringo! I'm beginning to think there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with your reasoning skills. I QUOTE bird, himself and you STILL deny what he said. You MIGHT find something which counters it, but the fact remains, HE SAID IT. How dare you imply he meant something different by it just to suit your own desperate need to be right. How DARE you say that everyone who disagrees with YOU -CAL, even Bird himself- is wrong You're trying to play with words and it's not working.
-
Post the full CAL interview. Your interpretations are worthless
There is NO FULL INTERVIEW! She quotes from the interview she did with him and I posted the FULL exert - buy the bloody book! Your opinion is worthless because you are a full on conspiracy theorist and no matter what is posted, you will deny it. Whatever is posted, the likes of you will bleat on and on about fake news! But here it is again - the '24' is a link to her source information and have posted that as well!
The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up: ‘Then I looked at the superintendent’s face and saw it was no joke. I went and got the kits.’24
24 David Bird, author interviews, 2014.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murders-White-House-Farm-shocking-ebook/dp/B00UXKJ0SA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533405144&sr=8-1&keywords=carol+ann+lee
-
FFS, Gringo! I'm beginning to think there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with your reasoning skills. I QUOTE bird, himself and you STILL deny what he said. You MIGHT find something which counters it, but the fact remains, HE SAID IT. How dare you imply he meant something different by it just to suit your own desperate need to be right. How DARE you say that everyone who disagrees with YOU -CAL, even Bird himself- is wrong You're trying to play with words and it's not working.
The quote had already been put into its full context earlier in this thread. I will do it again so that you can not read it again.
Supt. McKay: And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer
PC Bird: I was down at the other end of the command chain, so to speak. Well I was, there's
nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer
Supt. McKay: And then ...
DS Young: Actually could I clarify that bit. Am I right in saying that it's actual your, when you were
headquarters, it was your specialist role for major incidents.
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Supt. McKay: Of taking photographs
PC Bird: Yeah
DS Young: Of major incidents
PC Bird: We do all the chemical treatment at headquarters and as and when a major incident
come up that they required a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us, and
it was just the luck of the draw which one you get.
Supt. McKay: Was that sort of 24 hour cover was it David
PC Bird: Yeah we took it in turns to provide a 24 hour cover.
DS Young: Thank you
Now can you point me to where I denied that Bird said this. I actually quoted it in full which is hardly a denial or do you just not read anything before shouting through your computer screen.
Nothing wrong with my reasoning skills. Bird calls himself a specialist. DS young calls him a specialist in the interview that you quote from but apparently you missed all of that part.
The part that you quote, I was down at the other end of the command chain, so to speak. Well I was, there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer,
demonstrates only that he was seen as lowly by other officers. It say's nothing of his expertise and the rest of the interview shows the opposite of what you are claiming.
Why don't you post the full CAL interview? Does it not fully support your contentions? Are you being selective again in order to give a misleading picture, just like with the COLP interview.
Read before you fire off next time and you can perhaps avoid looking so stupid.
-
There is NO FULL INTERVIEW! She quotes from the interview she did with him and I posted the FULL exert - buy the bloody book! Your opinion is worthless because you are a full on conspiracy theorist and no matter what is posted, you will deny it. Whatever is posted, the likes of you will bleat on and on about fake news! But here it is again - the '24' is a link to her source information and have posted that as well!
The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up: ‘Then I looked at the superintendent’s face and saw it was no joke. I went and got the kits.’24
24 David Bird, author interviews, 2014.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murders-White-House-Farm-shocking-ebook/dp/B00UXKJ0SA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533405144&sr=8-1&keywords=carol+ann+lee
Your entire theory which has changed completely from the beginning of this thread now hangs entirely on a couple of removed from context lines from one author. That's it. No more claimed support from COLP or Bird just the murder porn writer CAL and you can't even quote that in full.
It would have been easier to admit that Bird was a specialist at the start as he, COLP and the court all agree, instead of you pretending that they didn't.
-
Your entire theory which has changed completely from the beginning of this thread now hangs entirely on a couple of removed from context lines from one author. That's it. No more claimed support from COLP or Bird just the murder porn writer CAL and you can't even quote that in full.
It would have been easier to admit that Bird was a specialist at the start as he, COLP and the court all agree, instead of you pretending that they didn't.
How has my 'theory' changed you lunatic? I SAID Bird was NOT a specialist and I am STILL saying that. It's no longer a theory though because it was only his SECOND time as a photographer!
Sound bites like 'murder porn' and 'fake news' just make you sound like a paranoid, obsessed fool.
-
How has my 'theory' changed you lunatic? I SAID Bird was NOT a specialist and I am STILL saying that. It's no longer a theory though because it was only his SECOND time as a photographer!
Sound bites like 'murder porn' and 'fake news' just make you sound like a paranoid, obsessed fool.
Your theory has changed because you claimed that COLP and Bird never said that Bird was a specialist. You even posted snippets of an interview to prove it which turned out to prove the opposite. It is now apparent that both Bird and COLP did say that Bird was a specialist. They said it in the interview that you posted only selectively from. The court transcript also shows that Bird was employed as a photographer but you just ignore court transcripts.
Now the theory relies on just you and Jane saying that Bird wasn't a specialist with no evidence to back up this claim apart from two quotes removed wholly from context and an abundance of evidence to counter it. You don't have a good track record when using out of context quotes as it usually turns out to show the opposite of whatever your spin is.
What of the above is incorrect?
-
Your theory has changed because you claimed that COLP and Bird never said that Bird was a specialist. You even posted snippets of an interview to prove it which turned out to prove the opposite. It is now apparent that both Bird and COLP did say that Bird was a specialist. They said it in the interview that you posted only selectively from. The court transcript also shows that Bird was employed as a photographer but you just ignore court transcripts.
Now the theory relies on just you and Jane saying that Bird wasn't a specialist with no evidence to back up this claim apart from two quotes removed wholly from context and an abundance of evidence to counter it. You don't have a good track record when using out of context quotes as it usually turns out to show the opposite of whatever your spin is.
What of the above is incorrect?
What have aI posted out of context? You're talking out of your backside!
My theory was that Bird was never called a specialist? What? How is that any kind of a theory? You're just twisting because you've been proven WRONG! My theory IS that he wasn't a specialist - HE was never referred to as a specialist, the ROLE was and it was a role which he did TWICE! He was learning the ropes and as such was NOT actually a specialist himself.
This was my first post, I stated CLEARLY that I didn't believe he was a professional photographer and he wasn't!
The video claims that Bird was a professional police photographer - seems he wasn't, it was one of his roles. He was also involved in chemical fingerprinting but his main job was to prepare albums. He had two colleagues and it was 'the luck of the draw; as to which of them would be assigned what - they were on a rota. He described himself as 'the lowest of the low' as far as rank is concerned. The guy clearly was NOT a professional photographer, which makes it more likely that some of the pictures would have been unusable. I agree they shouldn't have been cut but the video is misleading! (And the guys voice is STILL dull!) :P
-
What have aI posted out of context? You're talking out of your backside!
My theory was that Bird was never called a specialist? What? How is that any kind of a theory? You're just twisting because you've been proven WRONG! My theory IS that he wasn't a specialist - HE was never referred to as a specialist, the ROLE was and it was a role which he did TWICE! He was learning the ropes and as such was NOT actually a specialist himself.
This was my first post, I stated CLEARLY that I didn't believe he was a professional photographer and he wasn't!
You posted parts of the COLP interview out of context, making claims based on one quote which didn't stand up to scrutiny when read in full. You know you did this.
Your theory was that Bird produced an unlikely amount of unusable photographs because he wasn't qualified, had done no courses etc. You misused and misinterpreted the COLP interview in an attempt to prove your point although it turned out not to.
You have no idea whatsoever what experience Bird had and clearly no idea of his level of competence/expertise.
The court transcript states that he was employed as a police photographer.
Your quote from CAL says way less than you imagine it does.
In fact we will take it apart now to see if it is the iron cast proof of Bird's inexperience that you claim it to be.
Here is your post re the CAL "interview",
The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up: ‘Then I looked at the superintendent’s face and saw
The first part that you quoted, according to your spin, showed that Bird had just started a course when that is far from clear:
"Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course."
First of all it is not clear whether this means that he was working on the course in 1976 when he joined or in 1985.
Secondly rather than just starting the course, it is clear that it is in fact part of an ongoing course.
Taken alongside the court transcript where Bird states that his role is a police photographer (and this is a court transcript not some paraphrasing by an author who normally writes about sensational past infamous murders aka murder porn ) I am more inclined to believe that Bird was employed as a photographer by EP in 1976. He was undergoing a series of training courses and was clearly something of a photography expert.
The second sentence you quote seems designed to mislead by CAL herself. Appearing to say one thing but couching it with unnecessary qualifiers.
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
Why is the "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" stuck on the end of this sentence. It is a common tactic when attempting to mislead. If it was Bird's second assignment then the sentence need only say that. It would be unnecessary to qualify the statement by adding "while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
This suggests to me that it possibly wasn't Bird's second assignment ever as a police photographer but his second since being engaged on the lab treatment. The number of assignments prior to being engaged on the lab treatment being left unstated.
This is why I asked if you could post the full interview to clear this up. Despite your protestations about spin etc. one of us is always prepared to discuss full transcripts whilst the other prefers misleading, removed from context bite size pieces.
Whether you like it or not CAL's previous output qualifies her as a writer of murder porn. She is not a credible investigative writer/journalist so nothing less than a verbatim interview would count as credible evidence from a writer with her background.
-
You posted parts of the COLP interview out of context, making claims based on one quote which didn't stand up to scrutiny when read in full. You know you did this.
Your theory was that Bird produced an unlikely amount of unusable photographs because he wasn't qualified, had done no courses etc. You misused and misinterpreted the COLP interview in an attempt to prove your point although it turned out not to.
You have no idea whatsoever what experience Bird had and clearly no idea of his level of competence/expertise.
The court transcript states that he was employed as a police photographer.
Your quote from CAL says way less than you imagine it does.
In fact we will take it apart now to see if it is the iron cast proof of Bird's inexperience that you claim it to be.
Here is your post re the CAL "interview",
The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up: ‘Then I looked at the superintendent’s face and saw
The first part that you quoted, according to your spin, showed that Bird had just started a course when that is far from clear:
"Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course."
First of all it is not clear whether this means that he was working on the course in 1976 when he joined or in 1985.
Secondly rather than just starting the course, it is clear that it is in fact part of an ongoing course.
Taken alongside the court transcript where Bird states that his role is a police photographer (and this is a court transcript not some paraphrasing by an author who normally writes about sensational past infamous murders aka murder porn ) I am more inclined to believe that Bird was employed as a photographer by EP in 1976. He was undergoing a series of training courses and was clearly something of a photography expert.
The second sentence you quote seems designed to mislead by CAL herself. Appearing to say one thing but couching it with unnecessary qualifiers.
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
Why is the "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" stuck on the end of this sentence. It is a common tactic when attempting to mislead. If it was Bird's second assignment then the sentence need only say that. It would be unnecessary to qualify the statement by adding "while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
This suggests to me that it possibly wasn't Bird's second assignment ever as a police photographer but his second since being engaged on the lab treatment. The number of assignments prior to being engaged on the lab treatment being left unstated.
This is why I asked if you could post the full interview to clear this up. Despite your protestations about spin etc. one of us is always prepared to discuss full transcripts whilst the other prefers misleading, removed from context bite size pieces.
Whether you like it or not CAL's previous output qualifies her as a writer of murder porn. She is not a credible investigative writer/journalist so nothing less than a verbatim interview would count as credible evidence from a writer with her background.
NO! That's what your nasty little mind is saying I did because you have now realised that Bird was NOT a specialist and you're TRYING to scratch back some credibility, however, you failing miserably and just sound like a complete crank.
I haven't read all of your post, just the first paragraph because I'm not giving you any more time!! I think you're showing yourself up and it is clear (even from his own mouth) that Bird was NOT a specialist, police photographer, he was NEVER described as that and he was only on his second case in the role.
Those ARE the facts - so stick em in your sombrero, take a wack at your pinata, down a couple of slambers and chilli out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXQFzeAd-Y
-
NO! That's what your nasty little mind is saying I did because you have now realised that Bird was NOT a specialist and you're TRYING to scratch back some credibility, however, you failing miserably and just sound like a complete crank.
I haven't read all of your post, just the first paragraph because I'm not giving you any more time!! I think you're showing yourself up and it is clear (even from his own mouth) that Bird was NOT a specialist, police photographer, he was NEVER described as that and he was only on his second case in the role.
Those ARE the facts - so stick em in your sombrero, take a wack at your pinata, down a couple of slambers and chilli out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXQFzeAd-Y
Everyone accepts that Bird was a specialist but you just keep pretending otherwise. Bird, COLP and the court describe him as such. How can you dispute this? It is a matter of record. His own mouth describes him as exactly that despite you claiming otherwise. Are you disputing that also? It too is a matter of record and spelt out in full for you. Are you so blinded by your bias that you can no longer understand plain English if it challenges your preconceptions?
Those are the facts so read the COLP interview completely and perhaps a little slower to help with your comprehension issues, then read the court transcript of PC Bird and it should become clear to you that PC Bird was a specialist police photographer.
Unless CAL has a complete interview with Bird, I would leave that if I were you. You struggle with literal scripts so I doubt that you can raise your game enough to deal with attempting to infer original meaning from paraphrased text. A bridge too far with your comprehension level.
-
Everyone accepts that Bird was a specialist but you just keep pretending otherwise. Bird, COLP and the court describe him as such. How can you dispute this? It is a matter of record. His own mouth describes him as exactly that despite you claiming otherwise. Are you disputing that also? It too is a matter of record and spelt out in full for you. Are you so blinded by your bias that you can no longer understand plain English if it challenges your preconceptions?
Those are the facts so read the COLP interview completely and perhaps a little slower to help with your comprehension issues, then read the court transcript of PC Bird and it should become clear to you that PC Bird was a specialist police photographer.
Unless CAL has a complete interview with Bird, I would leave that if I were you. You struggle with literal scripts so I doubt that you can raise your game enough to deal with attempting to infer original meaning from paraphrased text. A bridge too far with your comprehension level.
Just read the first line this time - who is everyone? You? The CT? You might like to TRY and convince everyone that he was a specialist, but you're doing a VERY poor job given that he was only on his second case in the role. Your notion that he'd been on a course for 9 years (laughable in itself) and had only got to his second case as a photographer is absolutely desperate! ;D ;D
No tengo problemas para comprender, pero ciertamente lo haces!
-
I’ve just read Birds COLP interview transcript. He does say he was a specialist.
What’s the fuss over?
-
Just read the first line this time - who is everyone? You? The CT? You might like to TRY and convince everyone that he was a specialist, but you're doing a VERY poor job given that he was only on his second case in the role. Your notion that he'd been on a course for 9 years (laughable in itself) and had only got to his second case as a photographer is absolutely desperate! ;D ;D
No tengo problemas para comprender, pero ciertamente lo haces!
Everyone is PC Bird (COLP interview, court transcript), COLP( interview with Supt. McKay), The court (court transcript of PC Bird) and anyone who can read and comprehend, which explains your difficulty.
I didn't say that he had been on a course for 9 years, perhaps you need to re-read the post that you previously claimed to have not read.
You have no idea how many times he had photographed crime scenes. You have leapt to conclusions based on insufficient information and your own biased and subjective approach. You do not know that it was Bird's second assignment no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
If you were truly objective you would show full transcripts not partial misleading excerpts.
CAL does not trump Bird, COLP and the court especially given the fact that she is a creative writer who uses paraphrasing whilst the others are all verbatim transcripts from legal proceedings.
It would also seem reasonable to conclude that the cutting of negative strips prior to 2012 and the missing photographs, especially of the gun cupboard are much more likely to be a result of malfeasance by EP than incompetence by Bird.
-
I’ve just read Birds COLP interview transcript. He does say he was a specialist.
What’s the fuss over?
I know that, you know that, everyone can see that. I think Caroline is blowing a fuse or two.
-
I’ve just read Birds COLP interview transcript. He does say he was a specialist.
What’s the fuss over?
Where does Bird state that HE was a specialist photographer? He refers to a 'specialist ROLE' but he never refers to HIMSELF as a specialist. Bearing in mind that the Bamber case was only the second time he had undertaken the role of photographer - are you (like gringo) suggesting that this qualifies him as an experienced police photographer?
-
Everyone is PC Bird (COLP interview, court transcript), COLP( interview with Supt. McKay), The court (court transcript of PC Bird) and anyone who can read and comprehend, which explains your difficulty.
I didn't say that he had been on a course for 9 years, perhaps you need to re-read the post that you previously claimed to have not read.
You have no idea how many times he had photographed crime scenes. You have leapt to conclusions based on insufficient information and your own biased and subjective approach. You do not know that it was Bird's second assignment no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
If you were truly objective you would show full transcripts not partial misleading excerpts.
CAL does not trump Bird, COLP and the court especially given the fact that she is a creative writer who uses paraphrasing whilst the others are all verbatim transcripts from legal proceedings.
It would also seem reasonable to conclude that the cutting of negative strips prior to 2012 and the missing photographs, especially of the gun cupboard are much more likely to be a result of malfeasance by EP than incompetence by Bird.
Bird never stated HE was a specialist, you've decided to give him this accolade! He was talking about the ROLE, as were COLP. He was new to the role - it was only his second time in practice. This is just silly!
-
Bird never stated HE was a specialist, you've decided to give him this accolade! He was talking about the ROLE, as were COLP. He was new to the role - it was only his second time in practice. This is just silly!
DS Young: Actually could I clarify that bit. Am I right in saying that it's actual your, when you were
headquarters, it was your specialist role for major incidents.
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Supt. McKay: Of taking photographs
PC Bird: Yeah
Are you now claiming that Bird regards his role as a specialist role but that he isn't a specialist despite doing a specialist role? Wouldn't someone performing a specialist role be regarded as a specialist by default? You really are tying yourself in knots now.
There is no credible evidence to show that it was his second time as a police photographer. You have no evidence whatsoever to show Bird's inexperience and only introduced this when your initial assertions regarding his competence and lack of training were shown to be wrong.
-
DS Young: Actually could I clarify that bit. Am I right in saying that it's actual your, when you were
headquarters, it was your specialist role for major incidents.
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Supt. McKay: Of taking photographs
PC Bird: Yeah
Are you now claiming that Bird regards his role as a specialist role but that he isn't a specialist despite doing a specialist role? Wouldn't someone performing a specialist role be regarded as a specialist by default? You really are tying yourself in knots now.
There is no credible evidence to show that it was his second time as a police photographer. You have no evidence whatsoever to show Bird's inexperience and only introduced this when your initial assertions regarding his competence and lack of training were shown to be wrong.
A pilot is a specialist role as is a surgeon but you ONLY become a specialist in such a role when you again experience. Bird was inexperienced.
How many times did Bird act as police photographer including his WHF stint?
Two Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbkInTnNQ28
-
A pilot is a specialist role as is a surgeon but you ONLY become a specialist in such a role when you again experience. Bird was inexperienced.
How many times did Bird act as police photographer including his WHF stint?
Two Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbkInTnNQ28
Your only evidence of Bird's inexperience is an ambiguously paraphrased quote from a writer who makes a living writing about infamous murders. This isn't evidence in any real sense of the word.
-
Your only evidence of Bird's inexperience is an ambiguously paraphrased quote from a writer who makes a living writing about infamous murders. This isn't evidence in any real sense of the word.
Yes it is because she interviewed him and sourced the reference. There is nothing ambiguous about it. You're trying to muddy the waters but they're crystal clear!
-
Yes it is because she interviewed him and sourced the reference. There is nothing ambiguous about it. You're trying to muddy the waters but they're crystal clear!
What did she ask him and what did he answer?
-
What did she ask him and what did he answer?
Well she obviously asked him about his career and learned that at the time, he was undertaking a course on scenes of crime investigation and that this was on his second stint as a photographer.
She is a well respected author and your accusation of 'Crime Porn; is totally unfounded. I was sceptical about her book but it is a comprehensive account and if she lied about sources, she could be sued if those sources are still alive.
-
Well she obviously asked him about his career and learned that at the time, he was undertaking a course on scenes of crime investigation and that this was on his second stint as a photographer.
She is a well respected author and your accusation of 'Crime Porn; is totally unfounded. I was sceptical about her book but it is a comprehensive account and if she lied about sources, she could be sued if those sources are still alive.
You don't know do you?
That is why I referred to it as an "ambiguously paraphrased quote"
This is why a verbatim script of an interview is important if you are attempting to reach objective truths. We have no idea of a persons bias or agenda so a verbatim interview is informative. What someone says somebody else said is less accurate. I am sure that everyone agrees with this self evident truism.
You do not know what questions were asked of Bird and by extension you don't know the answers he gave. Why do you think that CAL stuck the qualifying "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" on the end of the sentence.
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer"
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer since joining Essex police"
Can you tell the difference between those sentences and the differences in how they may be interpreted. This is called ambiguity. If it was Bird's second case since joining EP then 1 and 3 would both be accurate.
If he had been a photographer since 1976 but had previously worked in some dept. other than lab treatment and since he had moved to labs this was only the second case since that move then 2 is true, however misleading.
I nor you know any of these details or the questions asked and answers given.I ask for a full transcript whilst you leap to the conclusion that suits your argument without further evidence.
As I mentioned previously, qualifying statements stuck on the end of a sentence is a common writing tactic when attempting to convey a false impression whilst avoiding lying. It is a red flag that CAL has stuck this on the end of the sentence. Were it really only Bird's second assignment then it is an unnecessary and pointless addition to the sentence. I suspect that it's presence is neither unnecessary or pointless.
You literally have no evidence of Bird's alleged inexperience and one ambiguously worded claim by a writer whose main output of work is writing on historic infamous murders rather than say a writer with a reputation for investigative work is not evidence at all.
When we know what questions were asked and the replies then it would be worth discussing. As it stands it tells us nothing. That you regard it as cast iron proof says a lot about you.
-
You don't know do you?
That is why I referred to it as an "ambiguously paraphrased quote"
This is why a verbatim script of an interview is important if you are attempting to reach objective truths. We have no idea of a persons bias or agenda so a verbatim interview is informative. What someone says somebody else said is less accurate. I am sure that everyone agrees with this self evident truism.
You do not know what questions were asked of Bird and by extension you don't know the answers he gave. Why do you think that CAL stuck the qualifying "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" on the end of the sentence.
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer"
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer since joining Essex police"
Can you tell the difference between those sentences and the differences in how they may be interpreted. This is called ambiguity. If it was Bird's second case since joining EP then 1 and 3 would both be accurate.
If he had been a photographer since 1976 but had previously worked in some dept. other than lab treatment and since he had moved to labs this was only the second case since that move then 2 is true, however misleading.
I nor you know any of these details or the questions asked and answers given.I ask for a full transcript whilst you leap to the conclusion that suits your argument without further evidence.
As I mentioned previously, qualifying statements stuck on the end of a sentence is a common writing tactic when attempting to convey a false impression whilst avoiding lying. It is a red flag that CAL has stuck this on the end of the sentence. Were it really only Bird's second assignment then it is an unnecessary and pointless addition to the sentence. I suspect that it's presence is neither unnecessary or pointless.
You literally have no evidence of Bird's alleged inexperience and one ambiguously worded claim by a writer whose main output of work is writing on historic infamous murders rather than say a writer with a reputation for investigative work is not evidence at all.
When we know what questions were asked and the replies then it would be worth discussing. As it stands it tells us nothing. That you regard it as cast iron proof says a lot about you.
When you learn the difference between experienced and inexperienced then you might be more qualified to post about it - until then ...........
-
My take on the whole process of the investigation is that NONE of them were experienced nor prepared for what confronted them all. Even down to forensics.
-
My take on the whole process of the investigation is that NONE of them were experienced nor prepared for what confronted them all. Even down to forensics.
All the theoretical/classroom preparation in the world couldn't have fully equipped them for it. It was probably unprecedented for them all.
-
All the theoretical/classroom preparation in the world couldn't have fully equipped them for it. It was probably unprecedented for them all.
Well that was JM's fault for not telling the police in advance of what " she'd known " for ages ?
-
Well that was JM's fault for not telling the police in advance of what " she'd known " for ages ?
Well, it couldn't possibly be Jeremy's fault for sharing his intention, could it?
-
Well, it couldn't possibly be Jeremy's fault for sharing his intention, could it?
Not at all ! If someone told you of their " intention " to kill would you laugh and shrug it off ?
-
Not at all ! If someone told you of their " intention " to kill would you laugh and shrug it off ?
Lookout, I'm relieved, that those who've heard me, on the very rare occasions I've uttered those words, HAVEN'T taken me seriously. However, had the person, of whom those words were directed, turned up dead, I imagine that my friends MAY have had cause to wonder. If everyone who has ever heard the expression used took it to the police, I imagine there who be a queue the length of the country. You've taken the situation, and Julie's position in it, WAY out of the realms of reality.
-
Well that was JM's fault for not telling the police in advance of what " she'd known " for ages ?
So even with a guilty Bamber in the picture, it's Julie Mugford's fault? Wow!
-
So even with a guilty Bamber in the picture, it's Julie Mugford's fault? Wow!
Yeah yeah! It's everyone's fault but Jeremy's. Isn't it time we cut through this crap which is all smokescreen, anyway, and ask how it was that Sheila -as near to being a gun virgin as makes no difference- could pick up, handle, fire, put down, reload, pick up, fire, wield, grip a gun without leaving a trace of fingerprint?......................
......................and if, for as second, I can draw attention back to -ALLEGED- undisclosed photos, a voice of sweet reason from the "other" side reminds us of the times there have been disputes with PROFESSIONAL wedding photographers because pictures of the Big Day have been either unacceptable or non existent.
-
Yeah yeah! It's everyone's fault but Jeremy's. Isn't it time we cut through this crap which is all smokescreen, anyway, and ask how it was that Sheila -as near to being a gun virgin as makes no difference- could pick up, handle, fire, put down, reload, pick up, fire, wield, grip a gun without leaving a trace of fingerprint?......................
......................and if, for as second, I can draw attention back to -ALLEGED- undisclosed photos, a voice of sweet reason from the "other" side reminds us of the times there have been disputes with PROFESSIONAL wedding photographers because pictures of the Big Day have been either unacceptable or non existent.
According to AE in Taff's notes she told him that " neither Jeremy nor Sheila knew very much about firearms and didn't think Sheila was capable of carrying out the crimes ". So in view of what AE told Taff why did she blame Jeremy in favour of Sheila ?
-
According to AE in Taff's notes she told him that " neither Jeremy nor Sheila knew very much about firearms and didn't think Sheila was capable of carrying out the crimes ". So in view of what AE told Taff why did she blame Jeremy in favour of Sheila ?
Because she knew them both.
-
Because she knew them both.
Rubbish !
-
According to AE in Taff's notes she told him that " neither Jeremy nor Sheila knew very much about firearms and didn't think Sheila was capable of carrying out the crimes ". So in view of what AE told Taff why did she blame Jeremy in favour of Sheila ?
Kind of ridiculous, wouldn't you think, that a farmer's son "knew (not) very much about firearms" but Ann clearly knew little of his accomplishments at school, however, was she not present when Jeremy asked her husband about getting him an all singing, all dancing, definitely all shooting, gun? And didn't Peter explain that such would be inappropriate? Perhaps his lack of academic gun knowledge was what Ann was referring to. That wouldn't effect his practical skill, though.
-
Kind of ridiculous, wouldn't you think, that a farmer's son "knew (not) very much about firearms" but Ann clearly knew little of his accomplishments at school, however, was she not present when Jeremy asked her husband about getting him an all singing, all dancing, definitely all shooting, gun? And didn't Peter explain that such would be inappropriate? Perhaps his lack of academic gun knowledge was what Ann was referring to. That wouldn't effect his practical skill, though.
My question is----why did she say it ??
-
My question is----why did she say it ??
Why do you say the things you say?
-
Why do you say the things you say?
I'm not talking about ME I'm asking why AE told that to Taff !
-
I'm not talking about ME I'm asking why AE told that to Taff !
That's a fatuous question to put to anyone, let alone me! You make enough complaints about me not giving -what you call- straight/definitive answers, yet you ask me something which can't possibly have one.
-
When you learn the difference between experienced and inexperienced then you might be more qualified to post about it - until then ...........
So how was Bird inexperienced then? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you still relying on an interview in which you have no idea what was asked or indeed what the the answers were to the unknown questions?
Is your claim backed by evidence or is it just hearsay?
Earlier you claimed to have read CAL's interview with Bird.
All you actually read was CAL saying that she had interviewed Bird followed by an ambiguously worded claim. Is that really the entirety of your evidence concerning Bird's experience?
Do you consider that is reading the interview?
What were Bird's duties before police photography?
What year was Bird's first assignment as a police photographer?
-
Gringo on Bambertweets there's a new blog by Jeremy which states that there are 272 images of which neither he nor the defence team were ever allowed to see including all the guns as well as those belonging to AP , the telephone he was supposed to have hidden amongst magazines when it was on the shelf in the office.
It makes for upsetting reading to which I feel heartily sorry for Jeremy that so much went on behind his back. It's truly dreadful.
-
So how was Bird inexperienced then? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you still relying on an interview in which you have no idea what was asked or indeed what the the answers were to the unknown questions?
Is your claim backed by evidence or is it just hearsay?
Earlier you claimed to have read CAL's interview with Bird.
All you actually read was CAL saying that she had interviewed Bird followed by an ambiguously worded claim. Is that really the entirety of your evidence concerning Bird's experience?
Do you consider that is reading the interview?
What were Bird's duties before police photography?
What year was Bird's first assignment as a police photographer?
I have posted evidence just not evidence that a clown like you is willing to accept. You have made a complete knob of yourself this entire weekend. I’m not answering your disruptive inane bull crap anymore. Ignoring the facts and crying like a baby when they don’t suit your ‘conspiracy theories’ doesn’t help your position one bit.
-
Gringo on Bambertweets there's a new blog by Jeremy which states that there are 272 images of which neither he nor the defence team were ever allowed to see including all the guns as well as those belonging to AP , the telephone he was supposed to have hidden amongst magazines when it was on the shelf in the office.
It makes for upsetting reading to which I feel heartily sorry for Jeremy that so much went on behind his back. It's truly dreadful.
That’s what this whole thread has been about Lookout! ::)
-
Gringo on Bambertweets there's a new blog by Jeremy which states that there are 272 images of which neither he nor the defence team were ever allowed to see including all the guns as well as those belonging to AP , the telephone he was supposed to have hidden amongst magazines when it was on the shelf in the office.
It makes for upsetting reading to which I feel heartily sorry for Jeremy that so much went on behind his back. It's truly dreadful.
I will have a read thanks, Lookout.
-
That’s what this whole thread has been about Lookout! ::)
That's why I put up a reminder ::)
-
I have posted evidence just not evidence that a clown like you is willing to accept. You have made a complete knob of yourself this entire weekend. I’m not answering your disruptive inane bull crap anymore. Ignoring the facts and crying like a baby when they don’t suit your ‘conspiracy theories’ doesn’t help your position one bit.
You have posted hearsay and the usual stream of invective that is your speciality when your arguments are picked apart.
Hearsay isn't evidence, especially hearsay that is 30 years or so after the event.
The "evidence" that you have posted wouldn't be accepted by clowns or non clowns, because you haven't posted any actual evidence.
If it was evidence you would be able to tell me what CAL asked Bird. You would also be able to tell me the replies given by Bird. You can do neither because you literally have no idea.
-
You have posted hearsay and the usual stream of invective that is your speciality when your arguments are picked apart.
Hearsay isn't evidence, especially hearsay that is 30 years or so after the event.
The "evidence" that you have posted wouldn't be accepted by clowns or non clowns, because you haven't posted any actual evidence.
If it was evidence you would be able to tell me what CAL asked Bird. You would also be able to tell me the replies given by Bird. You can do neither because you literally have no idea.
No, I haven't posted hearsay at all - she has written what HE TOLD her and you're simply unable to accept that you were wrong about him being a specialist. Silly man, you went too far and now you just don't have the bollocks to admit it.
The evidence can be substantiated by both CAL and Bird, and if I ever needed to call upon them to substantiate it, I could. So it's NOT hearsay - think you better improve you own comprehension.
-
Can we just agree that there are photographs in this case which remain undisclosed and should be examined by an impartial observer..
-
Can we just agree that there are photographs in this case which remain undisclosed and should be examined by an impartial observer..
yes no problem there.
-
Can we just agree that there are photographs in this case which remain undisclosed and should be examined by an impartial observer..
That's fair enough Steve.
-
Can we just agree that there are photographs in this case which remain undisclosed and should be examined by an impartial observer..
Yes, I can agree that, what I can't agree on, is that Bird was a specialist nor let some idiot conspiracy theorist post bull in order to further their agenda.
-
No, I haven't posted hearsay at all - she has written what HE TOLD her and you're simply unable to accept that you were wrong about him being a specialist. Silly man, you went too fact and now you just don't have the bollocks to admit it.
Of course it is hearsay. She has paraphrased and you have no idea of what he told her. Look up the definition of hearsay.
"information received from other people which cannot be substantiated"
"the report of another person's words by a witness"
I'd say the above definitions accurately describe CAL's words.
-
Of course it is hearsay. She has paraphrased and you have no idea of what he told her. Look up the definition of hearsay.
"information received from other people which cannot be substantiated"
"the report of another person's words by a witness"
I'd say the above definitions accurately describe CAL's words.
It can be substantiated you idiot! Now you've changed the argument to this! Seriously, you need to see someone!
-
Yes, I can agree that, what I can't agree on, is that Bird was a specialist nor let some idiot conspiracy theorist post bull in order to further their agenda.
Brilliant. So you now agree that photo's remain undisclosed. You have spent the last two days claiming that they were unusable due to Bird's inexperience /incompetence or whatever.
-
Brilliant. So you now agree that photo's remain undisclosed. You have spent the last two days claiming that they were unusable due to Bird's inexperience /incompetence or whatever.
No, I have SAID (YOU IDIOT) that the reason given by EP is REASONABLE given that Bird was inexperienced. Whereas you, have posted nothing but utter bull. You have twisted and squirmed - changing your argument from one moment to the next because you made the claim that Bird was a professional, specialist photographer when he was nothing of the sort and you don't have the bollocks to admit your were talking crap. AND CAL's comments are NOT hearsay because they CAN be substantiated by Bird himself
-
It can be substantiated you idiot! Now you've changed the argument to this! Seriously, you need to see someone!
Hmmm. How can it be substantiated? It is the definition of hearsay.
I haven't changed the argument.
My argument was simply that the large number of missing negatives, added to the fact that negative strips had been cut whilst in EP's possession between 2001 and 2012, and the unwillingness of EP to release those negatives suggests that EP are withholding the pictures because they would contradict the official version of events.
You suggested that the large number of missing negatives was because Bird was just a lowly officer who had randomly been assigned photographic duties and that because there was nobody lower than him and the van driver, this explained the large number of "unusable" photographs.
You then went on to claim that Bird was not a specialist photographer and never referred to as such. When it was pointed out that he was referred to as specialist by COLP you claimed to mean that he had never referred to himself as a specialist. This was also a false claim by you which was established by again consulting the COLP interview that you were quoting from. The court transcript also showed unequivocally that he was a police photographer.
Having had to backtrack from your dubious claims of random assignments, lack of specialism, not done any courses and various other "facts" that you introduced to explain the large number of unusable photographs as each was shown to be false, the final card to play was inexperience, despite having no evidence.
Shouting abuse only shows that you are angry and have no argument. It makes no further point than that. Denying that what CAL says is hearsay is as stupid as denying that Thursday is the day after Wednesday.
My argument is still the same. EP have withheld photos and the cutting of the negative strips suggests nefarious intent. The notion that 40% of all photos taken were unusable due to inexperience/ incompetence is fanciful. There are much more believable scenarios than this to explain the large number of undisclosed negatives.
EP, to my knowledge, have never suggested Bird's inexperience to be a factor in the non disclosure. That's just you advancing specious evidence free hyperbole. In fact EP's explanation so far is that it was standard practice to cut the strips to remove unexposed film which is contradicted by the evidence of Mr. Goss of the Metropolitan police who saw them in 2001 in uncut form.
The explanation given to the CCRC by EP should also be revisited given the new evidence. Claiming that it was standard practice to cut the negative strips is unsustainable now that we know that they were uncut in 2001. EP should be made to explain this misleading statement given to the CCRC.
It should also be clear to the objectively minded that the CCRC are too ready to accept weak explanations from the police when "investigating" discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence and are too keen to brush over matters when more digging is appropriate.
The acceptance of the standard practice argument being a case in point. It should not be too much of a challenge to verify that claim rather than just accepting it with no further enquiries. Are negative strips cut up in other cases? Shouldn't be difficult for the CCRC with their powers to find out.
The explanation offered by the CCRC regarding the missing negatives is much worse than this in my view. It is a nonsensical claim that the missing negatives were of no relevance. How can anyone possibly know that? They did concede that the missing negatives which are related to the gun cupboard may be relevant and "of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction", but that was it.
This is pathetic from an organisation supposedly designed to uncover the sort of malpractice that appears evident here. The CCRC are much criticised, the rate of referrals is extraordinarily low and many believe their role is more gatekeeper than seekers of injustice. It is exactly this kind of practice which encourages this view.
The video does demonstrate that a lot of pertinent information has been discovered and anomalies found. Having watched the video again with a bit more attention paid, the scale of EP's withholding of evidence is shocking even to an old sceptic like me.
Although it should go back to the CoA and JB seems confident of this, I myself am not so sure. Hope I'm wrong.
-
Hmmm. How can it be substantiated? It is the definition of hearsay.
I haven't changed the argument.
My argument was simply that the large number of missing negatives, added to the fact that negative strips had been cut whilst in EP's possession between 2001 and 2012, and the unwillingness of EP to release those negatives suggests that EP are withholding the pictures because they would contradict the official version of events.
You suggested that the large number of missing negatives was because Bird was just a lowly officer who had randomly been assigned photographic duties and that because there was nobody lower than him and the van driver, this explained the large number of "unusable" photographs.
You then went on to claim that Bird was not a specialist photographer and never referred to as such. When it was pointed out that he was referred to as specialist by COLP you claimed to mean that he had never referred to himself as a specialist. This was also a false claim by you which was established by again consulting the COLP interview that you were quoting from. The court transcript also showed unequivocally that he was a police photographer.
Having had to backtrack from your dubious claims of random assignments, lack of specialism, not done any courses and various other "facts" that you introduced to explain the large number of unusable photographs as each was shown to be false, the final card to play was inexperience, despite having no evidence.
Shouting abuse only shows that you are angry and have no argument. It makes no further point than that. Denying that what CAL says is hearsay is as stupid as denying that Thursday is the day after Wednesday.
My argument is still the same. EP have withheld photos and the cutting of the negative strips suggests nefarious intent. The notion that 40% of all photos taken were unusable due to inexperience/ incompetence is fanciful. There are much more believable scenarios than this to explain the large number of undisclosed negatives.
EP, to my knowledge, have never suggested Bird's inexperience to be a factor in the non disclosure. That's just you advancing specious evidence free hyperbole. In fact EP's explanation so far is that it was standard practice to cut the strips to remove unexposed film which is contradicted by the evidence of Mr. Goss of the Metropolitan police who saw them in 2001 in uncut form.
The explanation given to the CCRC by EP should also be revisited given the new evidence. Claiming that it was standard practice to cut the negative strips is unsustainable now that we know that they were uncut in 2001. EP should be made to explain this misleading statement given to the CCRC.
It should also be clear to the objectively minded that the CCRC are too ready to accept weak explanations from the police when "investigating" discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence and are too keen to brush over matters when more digging is appropriate.
The acceptance of the standard practice argument being a case in point. It should not be too much of a challenge to verify that claim rather than just accepting it with no further enquiries. Are negative strips cut up in other cases? Shouldn't be difficult for the CCRC with their powers to find out.
The explanation offered by the CCRC regarding the missing negatives is much worse than this in my view. It is a nonsensical claim that the missing negatives were of no relevance. How can anyone possibly know that? They did concede that the missing negatives which are related to the gun cupboard may be relevant and "of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction", but that was it.
This is pathetic from an organisation supposedly designed to uncover the sort of malpractice that appears evident here. The CCRC are much criticised, the rate of referrals is extraordinarily low and many believe their role is more gatekeeper than seekers of injustice. It is exactly this kind of practice which encourages this view.
The video does demonstrate that a lot of pertinent information has been discovered and anomalies found. Having watched the video again with a bit more attention paid, the scale of EP's withholding of evidence is shocking even to an old sceptic like me.
Although it should go back to the CoA and JB seems confident of this, I myself am not so sure. Hope I'm wrong.
By asking HIM! He is still alive!
-
By asking HIM! He is still alive!
So you agree that it is still unsubstantiated, otherwise there would be no need to substantiate it, would there? And implicitly you also agree that that it cannot be substantiated with the information currently available or you wouldn't need to ask Bird himself.
But regardless of this,
Hearsay: the report of another person's words by a witness
How do CAL's word not fit the above definition?
If you want to substantiate your little piece of hearsay then contact PC Bird, ask him directly whether WHF was only his second job ever as a police photographer and then post a verbatim script of your questions and his answers. You will then, and only then, be able to credibly claim that it is not hearsay.
No paraphrasing or interpretations though, verbatim scripts only, we need more than hearsay (the report of another person's words by a witness).
-
So you agree that it is still unsubstantiated, otherwise there would be no need to substantiate it, would there? And implicitly you also agree that that it cannot be substantiated with the information currently available or you wouldn't need to ask Bird himself.
But regardless of this,
Hearsay: the report of another person's words by a witness
How do CAL's word not fit the above definition?
If you want to substantiate your little piece of hearsay then contact PC Bird, ask him directly whether WHF was only his second job ever as a police photographer and then post a verbatim script of your questions and his answers. You will then, and only then, be able to credibly claim that it is not hearsay.
No paraphrasing or interpretations though, verbatim scripts only, we need more than hearsay (the report of another person's words by a witness).
No I don't agree, it IS substantiated - you're the one suggesting it isn't. I completely accept CAL's comments - you're the one who has a problem so I suggest you contact her. Of course you wouldn't be honest enough to come back here and admit you were wrong - so I won't hold my breath.
-
No I don't agree, it IS substantiated - you're the one suggesting it isn't. I completely accept CAL's comments - you're the one who has a problem so I suggest you contact her. Of course you wouldn't be honest enough to come back here and admit you were wrong - so I won't hold my breath.
"it can be substantiated you idiot", not "it is substantiated erm you idiot (presumably)". You aren't even consistent from one post to the next.
I am not "suggesting" anything, I am stating as fact.
Hearsay: the report of another person's words by a witness.
You are struggling with really basic meanings here.
CAL witnessed PC Bird talking. CAL reported, albeit paraphrased, the word's of PC Bird. CAL's report of these words is hearsay. It isn't arguable.
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It isn't a matter of opinion whether CAL's report of Bird's words are hearsay, it is an objective fact.
Why on earth would I bother to contact CAL? That would still be hearsay. I suggested that if you wanted to substantiate it then to contact Bird and it was you who first brought up the notion that it could be substantiated by asking him directly. As I have already pointed out, this tacitly acknowledges that it requires substantiating, or to put another way, that it is currently unsubstantiated and that you implicitly acknowledged this.
You are all over the place here. One minute it needs substantiating then it doesn't. You seem to believe that hearsay can be defined by whether you believe the person relaying the hearsay to you or not.
Why do you imagine that the onus is on me to prove/disprove how many times Bird photographed crime scenes? You introduced the hearsay of CAL, not me. I just pointed out that it was hearsay and ambiguous. It is you, not I, who made the claim so it is not really on me to prove/disprove it.
CAL's ambivalent hearsay would not be accepted as evidence in any serious forum and as such can be dismissed. I have no need to investigate further.
-
Gringo Caroline’s normal response is to get shouty she does it all the time.
The facts are in almost every case of a conviction being overturned there happens to be a case of non disclosure
There is not a single excuse for missing negatives in the Bamber case not one.
Any prisoner that spends a day in prison because evidence being withheld when they are innocent is a day to long
The people responsible for wrongly withholding photos/evidence etc should be bought to account
-
Whatever it was that caused Gringo to start this pettiness is clearly still a huge itch which continues to irritate and forces him to scratch it in a very public and unattractive way, demonstrating, by his continuing to move goalposts, that, by playing semantics, his ONLY interest lays in trying to force, what he believes to be his superior knowledge, on the person he's made his adversary -and who is more than knowledgeable and experienced enough at debate to know exactly what his game is, and to deal with it appropriately. To this end, despite the links to their words being provided, he of the overblown ego, insists that he -and so he'd have all of us believe, ONLY he, knows the 'real' meaning of words spoken by the various players, thus attempting to drown their right of voice with his own.
It's looking more and more as if, the only meaning ANY of this has, for Gringo, is entirely personal. WHO of us now actually CARES how qualified -or NOT- was Bird? He took pictures -he drove vans, too- he wasn't required to be David Bailey, Patrick Litchfield, or Testino. SOME of his pictures were probably duff. Perhaps, with hindsight even the duff ones could have been included. BUT THEY WEREN'T. Although, HAD they been, Gringo would have no excuse for this stultifying diatribe. Get over it Gringo. It happens to the best, whatever their qualifications. But you prefer to drag this on and on and............How long now? 3 days? Give it up. You're making yourself look pathetic, petty minded, and boring.
-
Whatever it was that caused Gringo to start this pettiness is clearly still a huge itch which continues to irritate and forces him to scratch it in a very public and unattractive way, demonstrating, by his continuing to move goalposts, that, by playing semantics, his ONLY interest lays in trying to force, what he believes to be his superior knowledge, on the person he's made his adversary -and who is more than knowledgeable and experienced enough at debate to know exactly what his game is, and to deal with it appropriately. To this end, despite the links to their words being provided, he of the overblown ego, insists that he -and so he'd have all of us believe, ONLY he, knows the 'real' meaning of words spoken by the various players, thus attempting to drown their right of voice with his own.
It's looking more and more as if, the only meaning ANY of this has, for Gringo, is entirely personal. WHO of us now actually CARES how qualified -or NOT- was Bird? He took pictures -he drove vans, too- he wasn't required to be David Bailey, Patrick Litchfield, or Testino. SOME of his pictures were probably duff. Perhaps, with hindsight even the duff ones could have been included. BUT THEY WEREN'T. Although, HAD they been, Gringo would have no excuse for this stultifying diatribe. Get over it Gringo. It happens to the best, whatever their qualifications. But you prefer to drag this on and on and............How long now? 3 days? Give it up. You're making yourself look pathetic, petty minded, and boring.
Pathetic post ,
Gringo as wiped the floor with Caroline on this subject , and Caroline is 'the best ' the guilty side as to offer .
Its as if you have a vested interest in this case !
Saying EP , may have a resonable excuse for cutting photographic strips is fanatical from ' the guilter's '.
-
Pathetic post ,
Gringo as wiped the floor with Caroline on this subject , and Caroline is 'the best ' the guilty side as to offer .
Its as if you have a vested interest in this case !
Saying EP , may have a resonable excuse for cutting photographic strips is fanatical from ' the guilter's '.
I'm not sure how you can say Gringo has wiped the floor with Caroline when all he's done is play semantics and attempted to put different interpretation on others' words. All Caroline does is present the links to facts. She doesn't attempt to make liars of those who spoke original words. It's no less fanatical, perhaps to assume that every picture taken was a perfect representation of what it was depicting. It is Gringo who is making himself look pathetic and petty.
-
I'm not sure how you can say Gringo has wiped the floor with Caroline when all he's done is play semantics and attempted to put different interpretation on others' words. All Caroline does is present the links to facts. She doesn't attempt to make liars of those who spoke original words. It's no less fanatical, perhaps to assume that every picture taken was a perfect representation of what it was depicting. It is Gringo who is making himself look pathetic and petty.
Jon can obviously read and understand English and I assume that it is this that has led him to this conclusion, and he is correct that your post is pathetic. It is plain to see who is playing semantics, however poorly.
-
Whatever it was that caused Gringo to start this pettiness is clearly still a huge itch which continues to irritate and forces him to scratch it in a very public and unattractive way, demonstrating, by his continuing to move goalposts, that, by playing semantics, his ONLY interest lays in trying to force, what he believes to be his superior knowledge, on the person he's made his adversary -and who is more than knowledgeable and experienced enough at debate to know exactly what his game is, and to deal with it appropriately. To this end, despite the links to their words being provided, he of the overblown ego, insists that he -and so he'd have all of us believe, ONLY he, knows the 'real' meaning of words spoken by the various players, thus attempting to drown their right of voice with his own.
It's looking more and more as if, the only meaning ANY of this has, for Gringo, is entirely personal. WHO of us now actually CARES how qualified -or NOT- was Bird? He took pictures -he drove vans, too- he wasn't required to be David Bailey, Patrick Litchfield, or Testino. SOME of his pictures were probably duff. Perhaps, with hindsight even the duff ones could have been included. BUT THEY WEREN'T. Although, HAD they been, Gringo would have no excuse for this stultifying diatribe. Get over it Gringo. It happens to the best, whatever their qualifications. But you prefer to drag this on and on and............How long now? 3 days? Give it up. You're making yourself look pathetic, petty minded, and boring.
Sounds more like a long cry than an honest critique.
-
Jon can obviously read and understand English and I assume that it is this that has led him to this conclusion, and he is correct that your post is pathetic. It is plain to see who is playing semantics, however poorly.
But it isn't I who is attempting to deny speakers the right to own the meaning to their own statements.
-
But it isn't I who is attempting to deny speakers the right to own the meaning to their own statements.
What do you even mean here? Spell it out for us. When have I denied a speaker
the right to own the meaning to their own statement? Whatever you imagine that means.
-
Poor Jane does talk in riddles at times. ;D
-
Pathetic post ,
Gringo as wiped the floor with Caroline on this subject , and Caroline is 'the best ' the guilty side as to offer .
Its as if you have a vested interest in this case !
Saying EP , may have a resonable excuse for cutting photographic strips is fanatical from ' the guilter's '.
Would you like to explain how when he claims that Bird was a professional, specialist photographer and it was only his SECOND time in the role? Saying he is superior in this debate is like gringo making up Birds experience because that is what he has done. The COLP statement he is using to support his non argument doesn't even state that Bird himself as a specialist, it's talking about the role and with one previous stint as photographer, you have to be pretty desperate to make those claims.
-
Jon can obviously read and understand English and I assume that it is this that has led him to this conclusion, and he is correct that your post is pathetic. It is plain to see who is playing semantics, however poorly.
I'll tell you what is pathetic, you have been on here constantly ALL weekend trying to fire fight and all you have achieved is prize chump status!
-
What do you even mean here? Spell it out for us. When have I denied a speaker
the right to own the meaning to their own statement? Whatever you imagine that means.
It's simple English gringo - can't you comprehend? You constantly twit other people's posts - accusing them of all kind of crap to suit your agenda. Of course a handful of of obsessive supporters will back you up. If they want to make themselves look as gormless as you, then they can crack on! Perhaps jon would like to explain how being a police photographer twice, makes him a specialist? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Gringo Caroline’s normal response is to get shouty she does it all the time.
The facts are in almost every case of a conviction being overturned there happens to be a case of non disclosure
There is not a single excuse for missing negatives in the Bamber case not one.
Any prisoner that spends a day in prison because evidence being withheld when they are innocent is a day to long
The people responsible for wrongly withholding photos/evidence etc should be bought to account
Ah, Jon is your little friend isn't he?? He usually pops up when you do. Tell you what makes me get shouty (just so you know for the future) - dealing with IDIOTS!
-
Pathetic post ,
Gringo as wiped the floor with Caroline on this subject , and Caroline is 'the best ' the guilty side as to offer .
Its as if you have a vested interest in this case !
Saying EP , may have a resonable excuse for cutting photographic strips is fanatical from ' the guilter's '.
It's as if WE have a vested interest? Have you not seen how much gringo has vomited this weekend? I haven't even read most of it but he's still obsessed enough to keep going. Gringo's argument was DEAD in the water as soon as I posted that he had only been a photographer once previous to the WHF murders and he knows it. However, he has invested too much BS in his argument and committed himself to making Bird 'highly qualified' that he now can't back-down. Join him if you like, but if you argue from his stance, best get a chair cuz he doesn't have a leg to stand on
-
It's simple English gringo - can't you comprehend? You constantly twit other people's posts - accusing them of all kind of crap to suit your agenda. Of course a handful of of obsessive supporters will back you up. If they want to make themselves look as gormless as you, then they can crack on! Perhaps jon would like to explain how being a police photographer twice, makes him a specialist? ;D ;D ;D ;D
You still rattling on that Bird had only performed the role twice, without evidence.
Do you know how many times Bird had photographed crime scenes before he was engaged on the lab treatment? Does CAL say?
You haven't come close to establishing that Bird had only performed the role once before.
CAL doesn't even make the claim that you are claiming. She qualifies it with terms that you just ignore or don't understand. You have demonstrated your own poor reading level throughout this thread and the comic value of your comment re comprehension skills, although lost on you is amusing. Unintentional irony?
-
You still rattling on that Bird had only performed the role twice, without evidence.
Do you know how many times Bird had photographed crime scenes before he was engaged on the lab treatment? Does CAL say?
You haven't come close to establishing that Bird had only performed the role once before.
CAL doesn't even make the claim that you are claiming. She qualifies it with terms that you just ignore or don't understand. You have demonstrated your own poor reading level throughout this thread and the comic value of your comment re comprehension skills, although lost on you is amusing. Unintentional irony?
What is it you find difficult in the sentence ...... 'The Bamber case was only his SECOND as photographer' - It doesn't say it was his second time 'while on the course' - you're amazing, you just invest stuff. You talk about me (and others) not being able to comprehend and plain English is well beyond your capabilities. Either that OR fact that you twisting what she said just makes you dishonest.
-
What is it you find difficult in the sentence ...... 'The Bamber case was only his SECOND as photographer' - It doesn't say it was his second time 'while on the course' - you're amazing, you just invest stuff. You talk about me (and others) not being able to comprehend and plain English is well beyond your capabilities. Either that OR fact that you twisting what she said just makes you dishonest.
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment."
You posted this and you haven't even read that properly. You have managed to misquote yourself and accuse me of inventing stuff.
So I invented the second part of the sentence is what you now claim.
This is self evidently false isn't it?
Hearsay is worthless anyway, misquoted hearsay demonstrates why this is so.
-
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment."
You posted this and you haven't even read that properly. You have managed to misquote yourself and accuse me of inventing stuff.
So I invented the second part of the sentence is what you now claim.
This is self evidently false isn't it?
Hearsay is worthless anyway, misquoted hearsay demonstrates why this is so.
So you think he was a professional photographer, with masses of experience under his belt, he did a course and he counted how many times he he had acted as photographer since he started the course? How would that be relevant? It's pretty clear what the words mean - he was on a course and ths was the second time he had been the photographer. A few days ago you tried to suggest that he had been on the course since 1976 - if that were the case, how come he'd only been a photographer twice? You also claimed that COLP report said HE was a specialist and it doesn't.
-
So you think he was a professional photographer, with masses of experience under his belt, he did a course and he counted how many times he he had acted as photographer since he started the course? How would that be relevant? It's pretty clear what the words mean - he was on a course and ths was the second time he had been the photographer. A few days ago you tried to suggest that he had been on the course since 1976 - if that were the case, how come he'd only been a photographer twice? You also claimed that COLP report said HE was a specialist and it doesn't.
You misquoted yourself. You claimed that I had invented the second part of the sentence. Do you accept that this is false and that you were wrong?
The rest of your post is simply regurgitating what has already been debunked or making misleading claims about what I have said.
I am careful with my words and I read and think before replying. This probably explains why the claims that I made at the start all still stand, whilst your claims have evolved to the point that rather than relying on COLP interviews and court transcripts, as you initially attempted to do, you are left with the hearsay of a murder porn writer who paraphrases in her own words, not Bird's, and you can't even quote that accurately.
The sentence ends when you get to the full stop, not before.
-
This is Bird in conversation with Supt McKay.
"Supt MCKAY. With the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer.
BIRD. I was down at the other end of the scale so to speak. Well I was. There's no one lower than me. The van driver and photographer."
Then there's this.
"BIRD. Yeah. A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
Supt MCKAY. Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
I've quoted, to the best of my knowledge, accurately, to a comma. I have NO idea what meaning Gringo is trying to attach to it, but it reads to me exactly as if whilst McKay is doing his damdest to push a "specialist" label onto Bird -although why this should be so important, only he can judge- Bird is refuting this at every stage. In his final sentence, it sounds as if McKay has heard enough of Bird disagreeing with him. This time, he doesn't ask a question of Bird -the omission of a question mark isn't mine- he makes a statement of the fact that he believes it to be. Now, I can't say for certain, but I'm fairly sure there isn't an acquiescing response from Bird in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo is claiming him to be, for the simple reason that Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way.
-
You misquoted yourself. You claimed that I had invented the second part of the sentence. Do you accept that this is false and that you were wrong?
The rest of your post is simply regurgitating what has already been debunked or making misleading claims about what I have said.
I am careful with my words and I read and think before replying. This probably explains why the claims that I made at the start all still stand, whilst your claims have evolved to the point that rather than relying on COLP interviews and court transcripts, as you initially attempted to do, you are left with the hearsay of a murder porn writer who paraphrases in her own words, not Bird's, and you can't even quote that accurately.
The sentence ends when you get to the full stop, not before.
No, I didn't misquote anything.
You're not careful, you're obsessed and you like to change the argument to suit. You initially said that the COLP statement referred to Bird as a specialist, I said it didn't and it doesn't. Everything he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice and the fact that he'd only done the role twice - proves it. You can bang on about full stops and comprehension as much as you like, it won't change the fact that Bird was inexperienced. Not and idiot as you said I implied, simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control.
-
No, I didn't misquote anything.
You're not careful, you're obsessed and you like to change the argument to suit. You initially said that the COLP statement referred to Bird as a specialist, I said it didn't and it doesn't. Everything he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice and the fact that he'd only done the role twice - proves it. You can bang on about full stops and comprehension as much as you like, it won't change the fact that Bird was inexperienced. Not and idiot as you said I implied, simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control.
You demonstrably misquoted your own source which was itself hearsay.
You claimed that I invented the second part of the sentence. Are you that dense really?
I again quoted it in full. How are you not misquoting?
Your interpretations of the COLP interview are baffling. Which things that, "he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice..." proves this. Could you point out these references from which you have been able to infer this? References where this is reasonably inferred. Things like, "there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer" cannot by any measure be taken to infer novice status onto Bird. Unless you are claiming that the van driver was also inexperienced, not a specialist van driver or whatever.
It is clear to all that the "nobody lower" reference is a comment on the perceived status amongst other officers of the photographer and van driver and nothing to do with their expertise or otherwise.
You claim to not read my posts in full before firing off your increasingly bizarre shouty, sweary rants.
You wear this as a badge of pride as if not reading before replying is somehow clever.
Just because you don't read them doesn't mean that others don't. This has the effect of making you look either stupid or dishonest because you keep repeating things that have been demonstrably debunked. Just because you haven't read it doesn't change this simple fact. Other readers can see that you are repeating demonstrable and demonstrated falsehoods repeatedly and are left puzzled by your seeming inability to understand simple concepts.
Your new supporting evidence that you appear to have attempted to lever in, I will debunk now before you start repeating it ad nauseam in support of your tendentious claims.
"...simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control."
Had you watched the video and read things properly you would not make mistaken conclusions such as this. To recap for you, the SOC officer directs the photographer as to what he wants photographing. This makes obvious sense doesn't it? The photographers specialist role is taking photographs. The SOC officer's specialist role is to record accurately the crime scene. You wouldn't want officer's deciding themselves what they should do. A chain of command is required. This is standard practice and does not demonstrate in any way what you claim it does. Again anyone can see this, it isn't really disputed that this is the case. As far as I am aware Cook did not set up his equipment or tell him how he should take pictures. Cook was SOC officer. Who else would you expect to take charge of the scene?
Do you imagine that experienced photographers just take pictures of what they themselves regard as important and ignore the SOC officer?
And it is notable that nobody else is using Bird's inexperience/competence as an excuse for the number of missing negatives. Not EP, none of the number of photographic experts who have examined them. Just you and Jane.
You have done yourself no favours and if you actually read the full thread you will see that Jon's observations are accurate.
You could start by explaining your accusation of me inventing parts of quotes. Do you still stand by this claim? Or were you mistaken?
-
You demonstrably misquoted your own source which was itself hearsay.
You claimed that I invented the second part of the sentence. Are you that dense really?
I again quoted it in full. How are you not misquoting?
Your interpretations of the COLP interview are baffling. Which things that, "he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice..." proves this. Could you point out these references from which you have been able to infer this? References where this is reasonably inferred. Things like, "there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer" cannot by any measure be taken to infer novice status onto Bird. Unless you are claiming that the van driver was also inexperienced, not a specialist van driver or whatever.
It is clear to all that the "nobody lower" reference is a comment on the perceived status amongst other officers of the photographer and van driver and nothing to do with their expertise or otherwise.
You claim to not read my posts in full before firing off your increasingly bizarre shouty, sweary rants.
You wear this as a badge of pride as if not reading before replying is somehow clever.
Just because you don't read them doesn't mean that others don't. This has the effect of making you look either stupid or dishonest because you keep repeating things that have been demonstrably debunked. Just because you haven't read it doesn't change this simple fact. Other readers can see that you are repeating demonstrable and demonstrated falsehoods repeatedly and are left puzzled by your seeming inability to understand simple concepts.
Your new supporting evidence that you appear to have attempted to lever in, I will debunk now before you start repeating it ad nauseam in support of your tendentious claims.
"...simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control."
Had you watched the video and read things properly you would not make mistaken conclusions such as this. To recap for you, the SOC officer directs the photographer as to what he wants photographing. This makes obvious sense doesn't it? The photographers specialist role is taking photographs. The SOC officer's specialist role is to record accurately the crime scene. You wouldn't want officer's deciding themselves what they should do. A chain of command is required. This is standard practice and does not demonstrate in any way what you claim it does. Again anyone can see this, it isn't really disputed that this is the case. As far as I am aware Cook did not set up his equipment or tell him how he should take pictures. Cook was SOC officer. Who else would you expect to take charge of the scene?
Do you imagine that experienced photographers just take pictures of what they themselves regard as important and ignore the SOC officer?
And it is notable that nobody else is using Bird's inexperience/competence as an excuse for the number of missing negatives. Not EP, none of the number of photographic experts who have examined them. Just you and Jane.
You have done yourself no favours and if you actually read the full thread you will see that Jon's observations are accurate.
You could start by explaining your accusation of me inventing parts of quotes. Do you still stand by this claim? Or were you mistaken?
Ha! Pathetic moron! It's taken you the best part of 4 hours to dream that one up.
-
You demonstrably misquoted your own source which was itself hearsay.
You claimed that I invented the second part of the sentence. Are you that dense really?
I again quoted it in full. How are you not misquoting?
Your interpretations of the COLP interview are baffling. Which things that, "he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice..." proves this. Could you point out these references from which you have been able to infer this? References where this is reasonably inferred. Things like, "there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer" cannot by any measure be taken to infer novice status onto Bird. Unless you are claiming that the van driver was also inexperienced, not a specialist van driver or whatever.
It is clear to all that the "nobody lower" reference is a comment on the perceived status amongst other officers of the photographer and van driver and nothing to do with their expertise or otherwise.
You claim to not read my posts in full before firing off your increasingly bizarre shouty, sweary rants.
You wear this as a badge of pride as if not reading before replying is somehow clever.
Just because you don't read them doesn't mean that others don't. This has the effect of making you look either stupid or dishonest because you keep repeating things that have been demonstrably debunked. Just because you haven't read it doesn't change this simple fact. Other readers can see that you are repeating demonstrable and demonstrated falsehoods repeatedly and are left puzzled by your seeming inability to understand simple concepts.
Your new supporting evidence that you appear to have attempted to lever in, I will debunk now before you start repeating it ad nauseam in support of your tendentious claims.
"...simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control."
Had you watched the video and read things properly you would not make mistaken conclusions such as this. To recap for you, the SOC officer directs the photographer as to what he wants photographing. This makes obvious sense doesn't it? The photographers specialist role is taking photographs. The SOC officer's specialist role is to record accurately the crime scene. You wouldn't want officer's deciding themselves what they should do. A chain of command is required. This is standard practice and does not demonstrate in any way what you claim it does. Again anyone can see this, it isn't really disputed that this is the case. As far as I am aware Cook did not set up his equipment or tell him how he should take pictures. Cook was SOC officer. Who else would you expect to take charge of the scene?
Do you imagine that experienced photographers just take pictures of what they themselves regard as important and ignore the SOC officer?
And it is notable that nobody else is using Bird's inexperience/competence as an excuse for the number of missing negatives. Not EP, none of the number of photographic experts who have examined them. Just you and Jane.
You have done yourself no favours and if you actually read the full thread you will see that Jon's observations are accurate.
You could start by explaining your accusation of me inventing parts of quotes. Do you still stand by this claim? Or were you mistaken?
No, I didn't misquote anything.
You're not careful, you're obsessed and you like to change the argument to suit. You initially said that the COLP statement referred to Bird as a specialist, I said it didn't and it doesn't. Everything he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice and the fact that he'd only done the role twice - proves it. You can bang on about full stops and comprehension as much as you like, it won't change the fact that Bird was inexperienced. Not and idiot as you said I implied, simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control.
-
Yes it does state that he is a specialist or professional photographer.
Where?
-
Carolines logic ,
they framed him , with the silencer ,
they would not frame him with the 200 cut photographs .
-
It's as if WE have a vested interest? Have you not seen how much gringo has vomited this weekend? I haven't even read most of it but he's still obsessed enough to keep going. Gringo's argument was DEAD in the water as soon as I posted that he had only been a photographer once previous to the WHF murders and he knows it. However, he has invested too much BS in his argument and committed himself to making Bird 'highly qualified' that he now can't back-down. Join him if you like, but if you argue from his stance, best get a chair cuz he doesn't have a leg to stand on
Again your reading skill's are found wanting here .
-
Again your reading skill's are found wanting here .
Your reading AND writing skills are wanting everywhere!
-
Carolines logic ,
they framed him , with the silencer
they would not frame him with the 200 cut photographs .
An oxymoron surely
-
I'm a moron surely
Yes you are!
-
Pathetic post ,
Gringo as wiped the floor with Caroline on this subject , and Caroline is 'the best ' the guilty side as to offer .
Its as if you have a vested interest in this case !
Saying EP , may have a resonable excuse for cutting photographic strips is fanatical from ' the guilter's '.
Well said Jon you are absolutely right
-
Your reading AND writing skills are wanting everywhere!
Jon is one of the most articulate posters on this forum. Your personal remarks and personal insults are unacceptable. You continue to be an embarrassment. What a sad angry women you are.
-
No, I didn't misquote anything.
You're not careful, you're obsessed and you like to change the argument to suit. You initially said that the COLP statement referred to Bird as a specialist, I said it didn't and it doesn't. Everything he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice and the fact that he'd only done the role twice - proves it. You can bang on about full stops and comprehension as much as you like, it won't change the fact that Bird was inexperienced. Not and idiot as you said I implied, simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control.
Ha! Pathetic moron! It's taken you the best part of 4 hours to dream that one up.
Where?
This is Bird in conversation with Supt McKay.
"Supt MCKAY. With the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer.
BIRD. I was down at the other end of the scale so to speak. Well I was. There's no one lower than me. The van driver and photographer."
Then there's this.
"BIRD. Yeah. A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
Supt MCKAY. Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
I've quoted, to the best of my knowledge, accurately, to a comma. I have NO idea what meaning Gringo is trying to attach to it, but it reads to me exactly as if whilst McKay is doing his damdest to push a "specialist" label onto Bird -although why this should be so important, only he can judge- Bird is refuting this at every stage. In his final sentence, it sounds as if McKay has heard enough of Bird disagreeing with him. This time, he doesn't ask a question of Bird -the omission of a question mark isn't mine- he makes a statement of the fact that he believes it to be. Now, I can't say for certain, but I'm fairly sure there isn't an acquiescing response from Bird in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo is claiming him to be, for the simple reason that Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way.
Ha ha. You are both unintentionally comedy gold.
I'll go through some of your most idiotic ramblings.
Caroline posted this: The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment.
It is the CAL hearsay. When I pointed out the ambiguity and questioned the qualifying, "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" part of the sentence, you posted this:
What is it you find difficult in the sentence ...... 'The Bamber case was only his SECOND as photographer' - It doesn't say it was his second time 'while on the course' - you're amazing, you just invest stuff.
I then pointed out that you are misquoting yourself as well as making false accusations to me and still you deny it. Care to comment?
You are still denying that it is stated that Bird is a specialist and ask; "Where?"
DS Young: Actually could I clarify that bit. Am I right in saying that it's actual your, when you were
headquarters, it was your specialist role for major incidents.
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Supt. McKay: Of taking photographs
PC Bird: Yeah
You pathetically dispute this by claiming it only says that he does a specialist role, not that he is a specialist. Nobody but you interprets this as meaning that Bird isn't a specialist. It is self evident that Bird and the other two officers are all specialists. There is no ambiguity really.
The full interview which I will link to is even more clear when read in full that Bird's role was photographer and that he was clearly a specialist. Given that he was employed as a police photographer (court record), he is also by definition a professional photographer. Caroline and Jane have selectively quoted and deduced wholly misleading interpretations in a transparent and failed attempt to give a false impression of Bird's status. Full COLP interview linked below. Worth reading and everyone can see your duplicity:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7461.0.html
This gem courtesy of Jane:
"BIRD. Yeah. A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
Supt MCKAY. Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
...Now, I can't say for certain, but I'm fairly sure there isn't an acquiescing response from Bird in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo is claiming him to be, for the simple reason that Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way.
Here is the rest of that part of the interview:
Bird: Yeah. A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album
McKay: Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah
Bird: Yeah
It is in the link above. But at least that's one little mystery cleared up for you. You now can be certain that Bird did "give an acquiescing response in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo claims". It is contrary to what you were fairly sure about but at least you can be certain now.
It also may cause you to question your own reasoning. It is obviously and demonstrably not a wise decision to hang your reasoning on the belief that: Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way.
She just has by your own definition.
Would have posted earlier but amongst other things had a bit of company round and earlier was cooking and baking. Home made Hunters Chicken and a home made with fresh ingredients Lemon Meringue. Lovely with a cuppa and a nice joint whilst exposing your duplicity.
And I didn't forget you in my endeavours and in response to your kind invitation earlier,
Think you need to walk the dog, fix your car or bake a pie before you burst a blood vessel.
I baked you a Humble Pie. And if you have read this far then you have just had it.
-
Ha ha. You are both unintentionally comedy gold.
I'll go through some of your most idiotic ramblings.
Caroline posted this: The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment.
It is the CAL hearsay. When I pointed out the ambiguity and questioned the qualifying, "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" part of the sentence, you posted this:
What is it you find difficult in the sentence ...... 'The Bamber case was only his SECOND as photographer' - It doesn't say it was his second time 'while on the course' - you're amazing, you just invest stuff.
I then pointed out that you are misquoting yourself as well as making false accusations to me and still you deny it. Care to comment?
You are still denying that it is stated that Bird is a specialist and ask; "Where?"
DS Young: Actually could I clarify that bit. Am I right in saying that it's actual your, when you were
headquarters, it was your specialist role for major incidents.
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Supt. McKay: Of taking photographs
PC Bird: Yeah
You pathetically dispute this by claiming it only says that he does a specialist role, not that he is a specialist. Nobody but you interprets this as meaning that Bird isn't a specialist. It is self evident that Bird and the other two officers are all specialists. There is no ambiguity really.
The full interview which I will link to is even more clear when read in full that Bird's role was photographer and that he was clearly a specialist. Given that he was employed as a police photographer (court record), he is also by definition a professional photographer. Caroline and Jane have selectively quoted and deduced wholly misleading interpretations in a transparent and failed attempt to give a false impression of Bird's status. Full COLP interview linked below. Worth reading and everyone can see your duplicity:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7461.0.html
This gem courtesy of Jane:
"BIRD. Yeah. A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
Supt MCKAY. Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
...Now, I can't say for certain, but I'm fairly sure there isn't an acquiescing response from Bird in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo is claiming him to be, for the simple reason that Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way.
Here is the rest of that part of the interview:
Bird: Yeah. A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album
McKay: Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah
Bird: Yeah
It is in the link above. But at least that's one little mystery cleared up for you. You now can be certain that Bird did "give an acquiescing response in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo claims". It is contrary to what you were fairly sure about but at least you can be certain now.
It also may cause you to question your own reasoning. It is obviously and demonstrably not a wise decision to hang your reasoning on the belief that: Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way.
She just has by your own definition.
Would have posted earlier but amongst other things had a bit of company round and earlier was cooking and baking. Home made Hunters Chicken and a home made with fresh ingredients Lemon Meringue. Lovely with a cuppa and a nice joint whilst exposing your duplicity.
And I didn't forget you in my endeavours and in response to your kind invitation earlier,
Think you need to walk the dog, fix your car or bake a pie before you burst a blood vessel.
I baked you a Humble Pie. And if you have read this far then you have just had it.
Get some help gringo. I haven't read any of your post - except the last line - try eating your own pie because you need a lesson in humble. Not sure why Bamber attracts people like you but it takes all sorts!
-
Jon is one of the most articulate posters on this forum. Your personal remarks and personal insults are unacceptable. You continue to be an embarrassment. What a sad angry women you are.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have found DC Bird mentioned in Essex Police magazine dated 1979 and 1983. Does this help?
-
I have found DC Bird mentioned in Essex Police magazine dated 1979 and 1983. Does this help?
What does it say, David?
-
Get some help gringo. I haven't read any of your post - except the last line - try eating your own pie because you need a lesson in humble. Not sure why Bamber attracts people like you but it takes all sorts!
How convenient.It is more likely that you have read the full post but cannot answer satisfactorily why you have made demonstrably false claims so pretend to have not read it.
You can dish it out but are incredibly thin skinned when you get called out for your inaccurate and dishonest claims.
-
How convenient.It is more likely that you have read the full post but cannot answer satisfactorily why you have made demonstrably false claims so pretend to have not read it.
You can dish it out but are incredibly thin skinned when you get called out for your inaccurate and dishonest claims.
No, seriously, I didn't read it. Reason being that it would just encourage you to carry on with this silly obsession and it's a fruitless exercise that encourages other creatures to crawl ut of the woodpile and join in.
This case isn't about you or me. It isn't about my comprehensions skils etc. When points are made it is sensible to look at both sides of the argument, question what is being put forward and not hammer away at anything that doesn't suit. With that in mind, I have written to CAL's publisher to ask for clarification on the Bird interview. I am sure any reply won't be accepted by your closed mind but other members who aren't so intent on having Bamber innocent at ANY and ALL costs and EP knowingly framing an innocent man - may be.
-
No, seriously, I didn't read it. Reason being that it would just encourage you to carry on with this silly obsession and it's a fruitless exercise that encourages other creatures to crawl ut of the woodpile and join in.
This case isn't about you or me. It isn't about my comprehensions skils etc. When points are made it is sensible to look at both sides of the argument, question what is being put forward and not hammer away at anything that doesn't suit. With that in mind, I have written to CAL's publisher to ask for clarification on the Bird interview. I am sure any reply won't be accepted by your closed mind but other members who aren't so intent on having Bamber innocent at ANY and ALL costs and EP knowingly framing an innocent man - may be.
Skills ?????
-
No, seriously, I didn't read it. Reason being that it would just encourage you to carry on with this silly obsession and it's a fruitless exercise that encourages other creatures to crawl ut of the woodpile and join in.
This case isn't about you or me. It isn't about my comprehensions skils etc. When points are made it is sensible to look at both sides of the argument, question what is being put forward and not hammer away at anything that doesn't suit. With that in mind, I have written to CAL's publisher to ask for clarification on the Bird interview. I am sure any reply won't be accepted by your closed mind but other members who aren't so intent on having Bamber innocent at ANY and ALL costs and EP knowingly framing an innocent man - may be.
You have no plausible explanation for your misrepresentations. The reason that the discussion was distracted to Bird's standing was because you introduced a number of out of context quotes and outright fabrications. When you attempt to infer meaning from evidence and then pass off your own interpretations rather than the actual evidence then it is about comprehension skills and honesty.
What have you asked CAL's publishers? If it isn't about comprehension skills then you could tell us now exactly what you have asked them? We don't want your spin on it, just your answer and their reply, verbatim. There is no need to be so shy with your questions to them.
I suspect that you have written a rather loaded question based on your track record and your misunderstanding of hearsay but you can disabuse me of this notion by posting it in full.
To claim that any reply would not be accepted by my "closed mind" isn't even supported by posts in this thread. You claimed to have "read the interview" in CAL's book. I asked you to post the full verbatim script so that we could discuss it. It turns out that you had read CAL saying that she had interviewed Bird and a couple of quotes from CAL where she makes claims about what Bird said to her. This is not the same as reading the interview. It is also apparent through this exchange that I invited discussion of an interview where I had no idea what had been said. That kind of defines open minded doesn't it?
Have you asked CAL's publishers for a verbatim script of this interview? Nothing less is worth discussing. If you have asked them to confirm your spin then this is worse than hearsay. It is hearsay of hearsay. CAL's publishers, to my knowledge, have never spoken to Bird and it is unlikely in the extreme that CAL even discussed the specific interview with whomever it is you have written to so your questions to them is relevant. Are you prepared to post it?
-
Skills ?????
Yes Jackie, 'skills' - It doesn't surprise me that you don't know what it means but always here to help!
skill
sk?l/Submit
noun
1.
the ability to do something well; expertise.
"difficult work, taking great skill"
synonyms: expertise, skilfulness, expertness, adeptness, adroitness, deftness, dexterity, ability, prowess, mastery, competence, competency, capability, efficiency, aptitude, artistry, art, finesse, flair, virtuosity, experience, professionalism, talent, cleverness, smartness, ingenuity, versatility, knack, readiness, handiness; informalknow-how
"once again, he demonstrated his skill as a politician"
-
You have no plausible explanation for your misrepresentations. The reason that the discussion was distracted to Bird's standing was because you introduced a number of out of context quotes and outright fabrications. When you attempt to infer meaning from evidence and then pass off your own interpretations rather than the actual evidence then it is about comprehension skills and honesty.
What have you asked CAL's publishers? If it isn't about comprehension skills then you could tell us now exactly what you have asked them? We don't want your spin on it, just your answer and their reply, verbatim. There is no need to be so shy with your questions to them.
I suspect that you have written a rather loaded question based on your track record and your misunderstanding of hearsay but you can disabuse me of this notion by posting it in full.
To claim that any reply would not be accepted by my "closed mind" isn't even supported by posts in this thread. You claimed to have "read the interview" in CAL's book. I asked you to post the full verbatim script so that we could discuss it. It turns out that you had read CAL saying that she had interviewed Bird and a couple of quotes from CAL where she makes claims about what Bird said to her. This is not the same as reading the interview. It is also apparent through this exchange that I invited discussion of an interview where I had no idea what had been said. That kind of defines open minded doesn't it?
Have you asked CAL's publishers for a verbatim script of this interview? Nothing less is worth discussing. If you have asked them to confirm your spin then this is worse than hearsay. It is hearsay of hearsay. CAL's publishers, to my knowledge, have never spoken to Bird and it is unlikely in the extreme that CAL even discussed the specific interview with whomever it is you have written to so your questions to them is relevant. Are you prepared to post it?
It was distracted because yu claimed the COLP statement said Bird was a specialist - it didn't. Then you went off on one!
Yes, I will post it, even if it proves me wrong - I KNOW you wouldn't do the same!
You have had ample opportunity to research this yourself, instead you have sat guarding over this thread like a spider waiting for prey. I am NOT your prey but a couple of flies did turn up - not to support you, not really, they simply found a way to have a go at me. So suck up your half arsed compliments from the forum jerks and hold tight! I will post a the response if/when I receive one - I have already gad an acknowledgement.
I hope you will have the good grace to apologise if it turns out I was right and you wee wrong!
-
It was distracted because yu claimed the COLP statement said Bird was a specialist - it didn't. Then you went off on one!
Yes, I will post it, even if it proves me wrong - I KNOW you wouldn't do the same!
You have had ample opportunity to research this yourself, instead you have sat guarding over this thread like a spider waiting for prey. I am NOT your prey but a couple of flies did turn up - not to support you, not really, they simply found a way to have a go at me. So suck up your half arsed compliments from the forum jerks and hold tight! I will post a the response if/when I receive one - I have already gad an acknowledgement.
I hope you will have the good grace to apologise if it turns out I was right and you wee wrong!
So post what you have asked CAL's publishers then. It isn't a difficult question. What is it, exactly, that you have asked CAL's publishers?
-
So post what you have asked CAL's publishers then. It isn't a difficult question. What is it, exactly, that you have asked CAL's publishers?
Wait!
-
Wait!
I have no faith in your dubious paraphrased interpretations. If the question is a secret then there is already a lack of openness. With this in mind I have written to the publishers myself, no contact details being available for Carol Ann Lee herself. PC Bird is the one who could clear this up but contacting him directly is more difficult. Here in full is what I have asked them ( it isn't a secret ):
Hi, I am hoping that you can clear up an ambiguity in the Carol Ann Lee book published through yourselves titled, "The Murders at Whitehouse Farm"
From interviews with DC Bird we are told the following, "...Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments, as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment."
The qualifying statement at the end of this sentence is the cause of the uncertainty.
Could you confirm how many times Bird had acted as photographer for Essex police prior to the Whitehouse Farm case but without the caveat mentioned above.
It would be helpful if you could provide the part of the interview alluding to this so it can be established what Bird's experience and credentials were. As written the sentence could be interpreted as meaning that this was only Bird's second job ever or alternatively that he had performed the role previously, just not while engaged on the lab treatment. Hope you can clear up this ambiguity
Regards Andy
I will post, verbatim, the reply.
It is doubtful that the publishers can clear up this matter satisfactorily. They are much more likely to offer confirmation that CAL's words are accurate or some other non answer but I stand to be corrected.
If you are genuinely seeking the truth you would have no problem posting what you have asked. Your secrecy is in itself revealing.
-
Yes Jackie, 'skills' - It doesn't surprise me that you don't know what it means but always here to help!
skill
sk?l/Submit
noun
1.
the ability to do something well; expertise.
"difficult work, taking great skill"
synonyms: expertise, skilfulness, expertness, adeptness, adroitness, deftness, dexterity, ability, prowess, mastery, competence, competency, capability, efficiency, aptitude, artistry, art, finesse, flair, virtuosity, experience, professionalism, talent, cleverness, smartness, ingenuity, versatility, knack, readiness, handiness; informalknow-how
"once again, he demonstrated his skill as a politician"
But I have never seen any of these skills from you
Just a very angry female keyboard warrior who lives on forums abusing people
Why are you even here if you really believe Jeremy is guilty and locked up for live
What a sad existance
-
But I have never seen any of these skills from you
Just a very angry female keyboard warrior who lives on forums abusing people
Why are you even here if you really believe Jeremy is guilty and locked up for live
What a sad existance
There was a point this entire forum was saying the same to you.
-
I have no faith in your dubious paraphrased interpretations. If the question is a secret then there is already a lack of openness. With this in mind I have written to the publishers myself, no contact details being available for Carol Ann Lee herself. PC Bird is the one who could clear this up but contacting him directly is more difficult. Here in full is what I have asked them ( it isn't a secret ):
Hi, I am hoping that you can clear up an ambiguity in the Carol Ann Lee book published through yourselves titled, "The Murders at Whitehouse Farm"
From interviews with DC Bird we are told the following, "...Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments, as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment."
The qualifying statement at the end of this sentence is the cause of the uncertainty.
Could you confirm how many times Bird had acted as photographer for Essex police prior to the Whitehouse Farm case but without the caveat mentioned above.
It would be helpful if you could provide the part of the interview alluding to this so it can be established what Bird's experience and credentials were. As written the sentence could be interpreted as meaning that this was only Bird's second job ever or alternatively that he had performed the role previously, just not while engaged on the lab treatment. Hope you can clear up this ambiguity
Regards Andy
I will post, verbatim, the reply.
It is doubtful that the publishers can clear up this matter satisfactorily. They are much more likely to offer confirmation that CAL's words are accurate or some other non answer but I stand to be corrected.
If you are genuinely seeking the truth you would have no problem posting what you have asked. Your secrecy is in itself revealing.
You could have just done that in the first place!
-
But I have never seen any of these skills from you
Just a very angry female keyboard warrior who lives on forums abusing people
Why are you even here if you really believe Jeremy is guilty and locked up for live
What a sad existance
Please tell the forum why you have suddenly popped up? It clearly isn't to discuss the case. Then again, you know nothing at all about it!
Sad existence? I have great life! Of course if it makes you feel better to think it might be worse than the sad lot you're stuck with, who am I to spoil the one bright light you hold onto.
I don't live on forums but to be fair, neither do you, you've been banned from most of them! Ta ta!
-
I have no faith in your dubious paraphrased interpretations. If the question is a secret then there is already a lack of openness. With this in mind I have written to the publishers myself, no contact details being available for Carol Ann Lee herself. PC Bird is the one who could clear this up but contacting him directly is more difficult. Here in full is what I have asked them ( it isn't a secret ):
Hi, I am hoping that you can clear up an ambiguity in the Carol Ann Lee book published through yourselves titled, "The Murders at Whitehouse Farm"
From interviews with DC Bird we are told the following, "...Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments, as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment."
The qualifying statement at the end of this sentence is the cause of the uncertainty.
Could you confirm how many times Bird had acted as photographer for Essex police prior to the Whitehouse Farm case but without the caveat mentioned above.
It would be helpful if you could provide the part of the interview alluding to this so it can be established what Bird's experience and credentials were. As written the sentence could be interpreted as meaning that this was only Bird's second job ever or alternatively that he had performed the role previously, just not while engaged on the lab treatment. Hope you can clear up this ambiguity
Regards Andy
I will post, verbatim, the reply.
It is doubtful that the publishers can clear up this matter satisfactorily. They are much more likely to offer confirmation that CAL's words are accurate or some other non answer but I stand to be corrected.
If you are genuinely seeking the truth you would have no problem posting what you have asked. Your secrecy is in itself revealing.
My email is similar to yours and as you've posted yours (having finally got your finger out) I will do the same.
Hi.
I have recently read Carol Ann Lee's account of the White House Farm Murders. I am also part of a discussion group where this case is often a hot topic. I just have a question in respect to an interview she included with PC David Bird; from information gained she includes the following;
"The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up:"
My question is simply - was this only the second time PC Bird had ever acted as a photographer or had he previously carried out the role before engaged in 'the lab treatment'?
Kind regards,
Caroline
-
You could have just done that in the first place!
It is unlikely prove anything which is why I didn't. It is likely to be hearsay of hearsay as I have pointed out. That is why I requested that the relevant part of the interview be made available as only PC Bird's actual own words can prove this. However given your reticence to even be open about the question that you have asked, I have no faith in what your interpretation of any exchange will be; you do have form for selective quoting and making inferences that don't stand up to scrutiny. Hence I have written myself and posted it verbatim as I will any reply.
Do you stand by your claim that I invented the second part of the sentence? If so what have you actually asked?
-
My email is similar to yours and as you've posted yours (having finally got your finger out) I will do the same.
Hi.
I have recently read Carol Ann Lee's account of the White House Farm Murders. I am also part of a discussion group where this case is often a hot topic. I just have a question in respect to an interview she included with PC David Bird; from information gained she includes the following;
"The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up:"
My question is simply - was this only the second time PC Bird had ever acted as a photographer or had he previously carried out the role before engaged in 'the lab treatment'?
Kind regards,
Caroline
Appreciated.
-
It is unlikely prove anything which is why I didn't. It is likely to be hearsay of hearsay as I have pointed out. That is why I requested that the relevant part of the interview be made available as only PC Bird's actual own words can prove this. However given your reticence to even be open about the question that you have asked, I have no faith in what your interpretation of any exchange will be; you do have form for selective quoting and making inferences that don't stand up to scrutiny. Hence I have written myself and posted it verbatim as I will any reply.
Do you stand by your claim that I invented the second part of the sentence? If so what have you actually asked?
How can it be hearsay when she did a face to face interview? She acknowledges this and gives credit to him.
The testimonies of lead figures from the 1985–6 enquiry have helped shed new light on those involved as well as on the investigation itself. I thank especially Mike Ainsley, Ron Cook, Dave Bird, Neil Davidson, Chris Bews and Steve Myall. Sadly, several retired officers have passed away recently, including Bob Miller, whom I interviewed at length.
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 419). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
-
How can it be hearsay when she did a face to face interview? She acknowledges this and gives credit to him.
The testimonies of lead figures from the 1985–6 enquiry have helped shed new light on those involved as well as on the investigation itself. I thank especially Mike Ainsley, Ron Cook, Dave Bird, Neil Davidson, Chris Bews and Steve Myall. Sadly, several retired officers have passed away recently, including Bob Miller, whom I interviewed at length.
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 419). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
Because CAL after doing the interview and witnessing the words of PC Bird then reported them.
Hearsay: the reporting of another's words by a witness.
So CAL interviews Bird, witnesses him talking and then reports what he said. Or hearsay as it's called.
I made the point earlier which is why I was specific in the questions asked. CAL's contact details are unavailable because the publisher's do not give out these details and being able to contact Bird himself is even less likely. Bird is by definition the only person who can confirm or deny this piece of hearsay.
Given that the publishers haven't spoken to Bird himself then any information that they can impart is hearsay of hearsay. This is not disputable unless you misunderstand the meaning of words.
As said, it is highly unlikely that the publishers will be able to provide anything other than confirming that CAL's recording of this is accurate or some other form of words which will tell us very little.
The reason that I wrote to the publishers was because of your unwillingness to be open and your willingness to dissemble.
I could predict, based on your track record, that you would partially quote any correspondence missing out important qualifying statements in order to give a false impression. It's what you do.
-
Because CAL after doing the interview and witnessing the words of PC Bird then reported them.
Hearsay: the reporting of another's words by a witness.
So CAL interviews Bird, witnesses him talking and then reports what he said. Or hearsay as it's called.
I made the point earlier which is why I was specific in the questions asked. CAL's contact details are unavailable because the publisher's do not give out these details and being able to contact Bird himself is even less likely. Bird is by definition the only person who can confirm or deny this piece of hearsay.
Given that the publishers haven't spoken to Bird himself then any information that they can impart is hearsay of hearsay. This is not disputable unless you misunderstand the meaning of words.
As said, it is highly unlikely that the publishers will be able to provide anything other than confirming that CAL's recording of this is accurate or some other form of words which will tell us very little.
The reason that I wrote to the publishers was because of your unwillingness to be open and your willingness to dissemble.
I could predict, based on your track record, that you would partially quote any correspondence missing out important qualifying statements in order to give a false impression. It's what you do.
Julie Mugford reported on the words of Jeremy Bamber - hearsay is not that simple or any conversation wouldn't be allowed as evidence. Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'. What do you think a statement is? Is it not the reporting of another persons words? If it can be verified, it can't be hearsay. The publishers won't be supplying the answer but of course if it comes from them, it will give you the excuse not to accept it. There is little more to say in this respect.
Unless I can't understand the meaning? ::)
hearsay
NOUN
mass noun
1 Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay
I will ignore yet another personal attack - this is just more propergander from an obsessed Bamber supporter and dedicated conspiracy theorist.
You're clearly wanting to carry this on and one and I think this is now hounding!
-
Julie Mugford reported on the words of Jeremy Bamber - hearsay is not that simple or any conversation wouldn't be allowed as evidence. Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'. What do you think a statement is? Is it not the reporting of another persons words? If it can be verified, it can't be hearsay. The publishers won't be supplying the answer but of course if it comes from them, it will give you the excuse not to accept it. There is little more to say in this respect.
Unless I can't understand the meaning? ::)
hearsay
NOUN
mass noun
1 Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay
I will ignore yet another personal attack - this is just more propergander from an obsessed Bamber supporter and dedicated conspiracy theorist.
You're clearly wanting to carry this on and one and I think this is now hounding!
I am certain that NGB and anyone else with a reasonable command of English can confirm that it is hearsay. You admit it yourself in your own wording by inference.
"Given that it can be confirmed by Bird".
So until it is confirmed by Bird it is hearsay.
You're not asking Bird to confirm it are you? And until he does so it is hearsay. Somebody else is reporting his words. The words that CAL uses are obviously not Bird's direct quote and are paraphrased and reported by CAL.
-
Julie Mugford reported on the words of Jeremy Bamber - hearsay is not that simple or any conversation wouldn't be allowed as evidence. Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'. What do you think a statement is? Is it not the reporting of another persons words? If it can be verified, it can't be hearsay. The publishers won't be supplying the answer but of course if it comes from them, it will give you the excuse not to accept it. There is little more to say in this respect.
Unless I can't understand the meaning? ::)
hearsay
NOUN
mass noun
1 Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay
I will ignore yet another personal attack - this is just more propergander from an obsessed Bamber supporter and dedicated conspiracy theorist.
You're clearly wanting to carry this on and one and I think this is now hounding!
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Gringo has now rewritten the rules book according to his own tenets. This will, of course, mean that all reference book and every academic paper will have to be gone through with a fine tooth comb and every reference therein will have to be checked and rechecked to make sure that the author actually HEARD the original words -as opposed to just quoting them- just in case they put their own interpretation on the finished article. Thinking about it, surely it will render the writing of such impossible if it's accepted that quoting someone amounts to nothing more than hearsay? Will his puerile game of semantics NEVER end?
-
I am certain that NGB and anyone else with a reasonable command of English can confirm that it is hearsay. You admit it yourself in your own wording by inference.
"Given that it can be confirmed by Bird".
So until it is confirmed by Bird it is hearsay.
You're not asking Bird to confirm it are you? And until he does so it is hearsay. Somebody else is reporting his words. The words that CAL uses are obviously not Bird's direct quote and are paraphrased and reported by CAL.
Getting your excuse in early are we? Why did you bother asking for clarification if you were never going to accept the reply? It’s only hearsay in your chip on the shoulder world. CAL referenced the source and acknowledged his personal contribution, that’s how books work! How do you know that anything in history happened? You only have someone else’s word for it! Then again in your world everything was and is fake news unless you experience it for yourself! You won’t accept any response from the publisher UNLESS it agrees with your interpretation - then of course, it won’t be hearsay! ::)
-
Getting your excuse in early are we? Why did you bother asking for clarification if you were never going to accept the reply? It’s only hearsay in your chip on the shoulder world. CAL referenced the source and acknowledged his personal contribution, that’s how books work! How do you know that anything in history happened? You only have someone else’s word for it! Then again in your world everything was and is fake news unless you experience it for yourself! You won’t accept any response from the publisher UNLESS it agrees with your interpretation - then of course, it won’t be hearsay! ::)
Getting your excuse in early are we?
No just making clear exactly what it is that is being clarified.
Why did you bother asking for clarification if you were never going to accept the reply?
I have made clear that I will post the reply, verbatim, as I have the request. You were unwilling to do so until your hand was forced. However, as I have also made clear, your reputation of selectively quoting in order to dissemble is well known to any reader of this forum. Your interpretation of letter exchanges is, to say the least, dubious. This is why a verbatim exchange has been offered by me to preempt unsupported claims being made by you using partial quotes. You are that predictable.
It's only hearsay in your chip on the shoulder world. CAL referenced the source and acknowledged his personal contribution, that's how books work! How do you know that anything in history happened? You only have someone else's word for it! Then again in your world everything is fake news unless you experience it for yourself!
It is hearsay in anyone's world whether with chips or not. The rest of that is quite mad and irrelevant.
You won't accept accept any response from the publisher UNLESS it agrees with your interpretation - then of course, it won't be hearsay!
It will still be hearsay, self evidently. You admit it yourself when you ask,
Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'
The bit that you placed in brackets is important. By inference you are admitting that until verified by Bird it is hearsay. You are not asking Bird to verify it? Therefore it is still hearsay.
Perhaps now you could answer why you claimed that I invented the second part of the sentence "while he was engaged on the lab treatment"? It is included in your letter to the publishers so you agree that I didn't invent it. Is it perhaps because you made a mistake due to your inadequate comprehension skills? Writing opinions on something before you have read and properly digested the meaning is a demonstration of your poor comprehension.
Whatever your answer or non answer to this is, it is a perfect example of why your interpretations are considered worthless by anyone with sense.
For what it's worth I will give you an explanation why your interpretation is incorrect. The confusion you have is around the use of the word "can". In this instance the word can is used as a modal verb(google it) to show possibility. It does not mean "to be able to". Modal verbs are part of key stage 2 English (between 7 and 11 years). You are showing less understanding of English than a reasonably intelligent 11 year old.
-
To the best of MY knowledge, "can" doesn't stand alone as a modal verb. Others, off the top of my head, include "may" and "might", It's only your interpretation -or should that be insistence?- which compels it to mean "showing possibility" as opposed to "being able to".
-
Getting your excuse in early are we?
No just making clear exactly what it is that is being clarified.
Why did you bother asking for clarification if you were never going to accept the reply?
I have made clear that I will post the reply, verbatim, as I have the request. You were unwilling to do so until your hand was forced. However, as I have also made clear, your reputation of selectively quoting in order to dissemble is well known to any reader of this forum. Your interpretation of letter exchanges is, to say the least, dubious. This is why a verbatim exchange has been offered by me to preempt unsupported claims being made by you using partial quotes. You are that predictable.
It's only hearsay in your chip on the shoulder world. CAL referenced the source and acknowledged his personal contribution, that's how books work! How do you know that anything in history happened? You only have someone else's word for it! Then again in your world everything is fake news unless you experience it for yourself!
It is hearsay in anyone's world whether with chips or not. The rest of that is quite mad and irrelevant.
You won't accept accept any response from the publisher UNLESS it agrees with your interpretation - then of course, it won't be hearsay!
It will still be hearsay, self evidently. You admit it yourself when you ask,
Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'
The bit that you placed in brackets is important. By inference you are admitting that until verified by Bird it is hearsay. You are not asking Bird to verify it? Therefore it is still hearsay.
Perhaps now you could answer why you claimed that I invented the second part of the sentence "while he was engaged on the lab treatment"? It is included in your letter to the publishers so you agree that I didn't invent it. Is it perhaps because you made a mistake due to your inadequate comprehension skills? Writing opinions on something before you have read and properly digested the meaning is a demonstration of your poor comprehension.
Whatever your answer or non answer to this is, it is a perfect example of why your interpretations are considered worthless by anyone with sense.
For what it's worth I will give you an explanation why your interpretation is incorrect. The confusion you have is around the use of the word "can". In this instance the word can is used as a modal verb(google it) to show possibility. It does not mean "to be able to". Modal verbs are part of key stage 2 English (between 7 and 11 years). You are showing less understanding of English than a reasonably intelligent 11 year old.
It's not hearsay because it can be verified! What is it about that you can't grasp? Is it because gringo in gringo's world can't verify it? Then ALL non fiction to you is hearsay because you wouldn't be able to verify ANY of it!
Why do you imagine that books are referenced? So someone like you can look at it and know there is a sourceable means of clarification. If someone writes that they got the info from a guy down the pub then THAT would be hearsay!
Did Julie Mugford pass on word for word what Bamber told her? Of course not, but it was part of evidence anyway and not kicked out as hearsay! It simply her word against his!
-
The term “hearsay” refers to an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the witness reporting it (CAL was the witness and she reported it). For example, while testifying in John’s murder trial, Anthony states that John’s best friend told him that John had killed the victim. Anthony did not hear John make the admission firsthand, (BUT CAL DID!) making testimony of this statement “hearsay.” To explore this concept, consider the following hearsay definition.
Definition of Hearsay
Noun
Testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person, of which he has no personal knowledge or experience.
Unverified information acquired from another person, which is not part of one’s own knowledge.
Origin
MEANING that if someone ELSE told CAL that bird had only acted as a photographer twice, THAT would be hearsay but as he told her in person (from the horse's mouth shall we say) it is NOT!
https://legaldictionary.net/hearsay-evidence/
-
The term “hearsay” refers to an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the witness reporting it (CAL was the witness and she reported it). For example, while testifying in John’s murder trial, Anthony states that John’s best friend told him that John had killed the victim. Anthony did not hear John make the admission firsthand, (BUT CAL DID!) making testimony of this statement “hearsay.” To explore this concept, consider the following hearsay definition.
Definition of Hearsay
Noun
Testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person, of which he has no personal knowledge or experience.
Unverified information acquired from another person, which is not part of one’s own knowledge.
Origin
MEANING that if someone told CAL that brid had only ascted as a photographer twice, THAT would be hearsay but as he told her in person (from the horses mouth shall me say) it is NOT!
https://legaldictionary.net/hearsay-evidence/
Will someone not rid us of this self-obsessed, truculent p(----)? Is there to be NO end to his puerile, interminable game of semantics?
-
Will someone not rid us of this self-obsessed, truculent p(----)? Is there to be NO end to his puerile, interminable game of semantics?
Let him keep digging!
-
Julie Mugford reported on the words of Jeremy Bamber - hearsay is not that simple or any conversation wouldn't be allowed as evidence. Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'. What do you think a statement is? Is it not the reporting of another persons words? If it can be verified, it can't be hearsay. The publishers won't be supplying the answer but of course if it comes from them, it will give you the excuse not to accept it. There is little more to say in this respect.
Unless I can't understand the meaning? ::)
hearsay
NOUN
mass noun
1 Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay
I will ignore yet another personal attack - this is just more propergander from an obsessed Bamber supporter and dedicated conspiracy theorist.
You're clearly wanting to carry this on and one and I think this is now hounding!
In law Julie Mugford's evidence was not hearsay, as it was evidence of what she said that the accused, i.e. Jeremy, told her. Evidence of what the accused said to a third party is an exception to the hearsay rule. If that were not the case an admission by an accused person could never be admitted in evidence.
What David Bird said in court was not hearsay, it was his own direct evidence of what he did and what he saw. Bird's statements to CAL however are hearsay.
-
I am certain that NGB and anyone else with a reasonable command of English can confirm that it is hearsay. You admit it yourself in your own wording by inference.
"Given that it can be confirmed by Bird".
So until it is confirmed by Bird it is hearsay.
You're not asking Bird to confirm it are you? And until he does so it is hearsay. Somebody else is reporting his words. The words that CAL uses are obviously not Bird's direct quote and are paraphrased and reported by CAL.
I agree.
-
In law Julie Mugford's evidence was not hearsay, as it was evidence of what she said that the accused, i.e. Jeremy, told her. Evidence of what the accused said to a third party is an exception to the hearsay rule. If that were not the case an admission by an accused person could never be admitted in evidence.
What David Bird said in court was not hearsay, it was his own direct evidence of what he did and what he saw. Bird's statements to CAL however are hearsay.
Can we be clear, please. If someone tells the story of what they'd done in a court of law it's evidence. If they tell the same story to another person who then repeats it, it becomes hearsay. Surely that makes the same story both evidence and hearsay?
-
In law Julie Mugford's evidence was not hearsay, as it was evidence of what she said that the accused, i.e. Jeremy, told her. Evidence of what the accused said to a third party is an exception to the hearsay rule. If that were not the case an admission by an accused person could never be admitted in evidence.
What David Bird said in court was not hearsay, it was his own direct evidence of what he did and what he saw. Bird's statements to CAL however are hearsay.
Thanks NGB, presumably Dumb and Dumber will be satisfied with this.
Alternatively they may now cover a couple of pages with denunciations of your comprehension skills, calling you a supercilious prick, conspiracy theorist and an idiot who resides in NGB world.
-
Can we be clear, please. If someone tells the story of what they'd done in a court of law it's evidence. If they tell the same story to another person who then repeats it, it becomes hearsay. Surely that makes the same story both evidence and hearsay?
It is clear.
-
In law Julie Mugford's evidence was not hearsay, as it was evidence of what she said that the accused, i.e. Jeremy, told her. Evidence of what the accused said to a third party is an exception to the hearsay rule. If that were not the case an admission by an accused person could never be admitted in evidence.
What David Bird said in court was not hearsay, it was his own direct evidence of what he did and what he saw. Bird's statements to CAL however are hearsay.
That being the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), even if I did ask Bird and reported his comments here, they would still be hearsay! So, nothing would be good enough for the supercilious prick above?
-
That being the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), even if I did ask Bird and reported his comments here, they would still be hearsay! So, nothing would be good enough for the supercilious prick above?
It also appears that nothing can be reported as having been said because if its not in court it's always going to be hearsay and therefore cannot be relied upon. In fact,,, however much truth there maybe in what NGB says, it appears as its not in court, its hearsay..................even though we're not in court.
-
That being the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), even if I did ask Bird and reported his comments here, they would still be hearsay! So, nothing would be good enough for the supercilious prick above?
Now Now.
How pathetic? You have spent pages abusing me and when, even you have to admit that you were wrong, you demean yourself with such graceless nonsense. If you had understood in the first place we wouldn't have needed this extended debate. Then I wouldn't have had to explain to you part of Key Stage 2 English.
-
Now Now.
How pathetic? You have spent pages abusing me and when, even you have to admit that you were wrong, you demean yourself with such graceless nonsense. If you had understood in the first place we wouldn't have needed this extended debate. Then I wouldn't have had to explain to you part of Key Stage 2 English.
Need I remind you that "can" isn't a stand alone modal verb?
-
Now Now.
How pathetic? You have spent pages abusing me and when, even you have to admit that you were wrong, you demean yourself with such graceless nonsense. If you had understood in the first place we wouldn't have needed this extended debate. Then I wouldn't have had to explain to you part of Key Stage 2 English.
You started with the insults but from what NGB posted, it would seem that 'hearsay' is a legal term which refers to court evidence. So what is the relevance of it here? We're not in court! It's simply a way for you to reject anything that comes back from CAL to support Bird having only acted as photographer twice!
Understood? If you have understood that COLP didn't actually call Bird himself a 'specialist; it would have ended a LOT sooner!
-
Can we be clear, please. If someone tells the story of what they'd done in a court of law it's evidence. If they tell the same story to another person who then repeats it, it becomes hearsay. Surely that makes the same story both evidence and hearsay?
Yes, in the sense that if the witness gives evidence in court it is admissible and not hearsay, but if that person tells a third party and that third party repeats it, the third party's statement is hearsay.
-
That being the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), even if I did ask Bird and reported his comments here, they would still be hearsay! So, nothing would be good enough for the supercilious prick above?
If you were to ask Bird and what he told you was then posted by you here that would be hearsay. If you persuaded him to post here it would not be hearsay. I do not want to complicate matters, but sometimes "hearsay upon hearsay" is referred to. Referring to CAL's book is in that category.
-
Please tell the forum why you have suddenly popped up? It clearly isn't to discuss the case. Then again, you know nothing at all about it!
Sad existence? I have great life! Of course if it makes you feel better to think it might be worse than the sad lot you're stuck with, who am I to spoil the one bright light you hold onto.
I don't live on forums but to be fair, neither do you, you've been banned from most of them! Ta ta!
Here you go again usual garbage from you
Where exactly have I been banned from????
How many forums do you frequent????
As I said a sad existance
-
Yes, in the sense that if the witness gives evidence in court it is admissible and not hearsay, but if that person tells a third party and that third party repeats it, the third party's statement is hearsay.
If I persuaded him to post here, no one would believe it was him.
The book reference is good enough for me, I have no reason to believe that CAL would make up her sources and Bird is still alive to refute the claim. It would be a silly thing to do and it would ruin her reputation.
Thanks for clearing up the hearsay aspect, although I didn't introduce it and I don't believe it's even relevant to the original discussion but gringo seems to think we're in court.
-
Can we be clear, please. If someone tells the story of what they'd done in a court of law it's evidence. If they tell the same story to another person who then repeats it, it becomes hearsay. Surely that makes the same story both evidence and hearsay?
For FFS give it up and listen to the person who knows
I feel an apology is due for your bad behaviour
-
Thanks NGB, presumably Dumb and Dumber will be satisfied with this.
Alternatively they may now cover a couple of pages with denunciations of your comprehension skills, calling you a supercilious prick, conspiracy theorist and an idiot who resides in NGB world.
:) :) :)
-
Here you go again usual garbage from you
Where exactly have I been banned from????
How many forums do you frequent????
As I said a sad existance
I write on TWO forums Jackie and you have been banned from here and the red forum - I'd get those memory problems checked out if I were you!
Even if my life were to sink so low, that I ended up on the streets, taking drugs and drinking meths, I would always have comfort in the knowledge that I wasn't you! ;)
-
Now Now.
How pathetic? You have spent pages abusing me and when, even you have to admit that you were wrong, you demean yourself with such graceless nonsense. If you had understood in the first place we wouldn't have needed this extended debate. Then I wouldn't have had to explain to you part of Key Stage 2 English.
Wonderful
-
If you were to ask Bird and what he told you was then posted by you here that would be hearsay. If you persuaded him to post here it would not be hearsay. I do not want to complicate matters, but sometimes "hearsay upon hearsay" is referred to. Referring to CAL's book is in that category.
Thank you for making that crystal clear
-
If I persuaded him to post here, no one would believe it was him.
The book reference is good enough for me, I have no reason to believe that CAL would make up her sources and Bird is still alive to refute the claim. It would be a silly thing to do and it would ruin her reputation.
Thanks for clearing up the hearsay aspect, although I didn't introduce it and I don't believe it's even relevant to the original discussion but gringo seems to think we're in court.
I have got every reason to believe CAL would make stuff up.
She wanted to make money, a bit like the relatives who lied in court to try to swing the jury and Mugfords blood money from her now article
-
Thank you for making that crystal clear
Well you lost me about 10 posts back..
-
I have got every reason to believe CAL would make stuff up.
She wanted to make money, a bit like the relatives who lied in court to try to swing the jury and Mugfords blood money from her now article
You don't have the capacity for reason at all.
-
Well you lost me about 10 posts back..
You couldn’t understand the barrister, I am surprised
Maybe a friend could help you out
-
You don't have the capacity for reason at all.
Remind me how many forums do you spend your days on???
-
Remind me how many forums do you spend your days on???
You only have to read a couple of posts back when you asked me the same question - like I said, memory problems!
-
You only have to read a couple of posts back when you asked me the same question - like I said, memory problems!
You failed to reply, just want to know how you stimulate your mind spending most of your days on multiple forums. Your not related to Stephanie Hall are you
-
You started with the insults but from what NGB posted, it would seem that 'hearsay' is a legal term which refers to court evidence. So what is the relevance of it here? We're not in court! It's simply a way for you to reject anything that comes back from CAL to support Bird having only acted as photographer twice!
Understood? If you have understood that COLP didn't actually call Bird himself a 'specialist; it would have ended a LOT sooner!
Your failure to understand even the definition of hearsay doesn't bode well but here goes anyway.
In the COLP interviews Bird is not asked the direct question, "Are you a specialist photographer?" This has led you to erroneously believe that this is evidence that he isn't a specialist. The whole interview makes pretty clear that he is exactly that though. Why would they ask such a pointless question?
He does however concur with DS Young and Supt. McKay that crime scene photography is his specialist role. This role is referred to as a specialist role throughout the COLP interview which also refers to Bird's role as police photographer countless times. It is impossible to read the entire COLP interview without concluding that Bird is a specialist police crime scene photographer.
You are asking us to believe that Bird, despite concurring that his role as photographer was "his specialist role", several times, does not believe himself to be a specialist.
By inference Bird is a specialist and everyone can see this.
CAL does not herself claim that it was Bird's second ever time in the role. She paraphrases in such an otherwise needlessly ambiguous way, that the discerning reader (not you) immediately recognises possible intention to mislead. NGB, as a legal professional, will certainly recognise what I am talking about. Seemingly unnecessary caveats on a sentence are not even particularly subtle and immediately raise questions to the informed reader.
I am inclined to believe that CAL's caveat was not needless and that Bird had performed the role prior to being "engaged on the lab treatments".
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
Why not,
1) "The Bamber case was only his second ever as photographer", or even,
2) "The Bamber case was his second as photographer since joining Essex Police."
If it was indeed only Bird's second time in the role then both of these sentences are more appropriate.
The caveat, in my view, is intended to mislead the reader into inferring 1 or 2 whilst avoiding saying so.
-
You failed to reply, just want to know how you stimulate your mind spending most of your days on multiple forums. Your not related to Stephanie Hall are you
You do realise that technology moves right?
-
You couldn’t understand the barrister, I am surprised
Maybe a friend could help you out
Wouldn't that be classed as hearsay..
-
Your failure to understand even the definition of hearsay doesn't bode well but here goes anyway.
In the COLP interviews Bird is not asked the direct question, "Are you a specialist photographer?" This has led you to erroneously believe that this is evidence that he isn't a specialist. The whole interview makes pretty clear that he is exactly that though. Why would they ask such a pointless question?
He does however concur with DS Young and Supt. McKay that crime scene photography is his specialist role. This role is referred to as a specialist role throughout the COLP interview which also refers to Bird's role as police photographer countless times. It is impossible to read the entire COLP interview without concluding that Bird is a specialist police crime scene photographer.
You are asking us to believe that Bird, despite concurring that his role as photographer was "his specialist role", several times, does not believe himself to be a specialist.
By inference Bird is a specialist and everyone can see this.
CAL does not herself claim that it was Bird's second ever time in the role. She paraphrases in such an otherwise needlessly ambiguous way, that the discerning reader (not you) immediately recognises possible intention to mislead. NGB, as a legal professional, will certainly recognise what I am talking about. Seemingly unnecessary caveats on a sentence are not even particularly subtle and immediately raise questions to the informed reader.
I am inclined to believe that CAL's caveat was not needless and that Bird had performed the role prior to being "engaged on the lab treatments".
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
Why not,
1) "The Bamber case was only his second ever as photographer", or even,
2) "The Bamber case was his second as photographer since joining Essex Police."
If it was indeed only Bird's second time in the role then both of these sentences are more appropriate.
The caveat, in my view, is intended to mislead the reader into inferring 1 or 2 whilst avoiding saying so.
Everyone can see it? Then why do they need to keep asking him about it?
Yous said that the article said HE was a specialist and it does NOT!
Now you're accusing CAL of being deliberately misleading?
-
OK, I'm shutting you down now, I am sure everyone else is as bored with this as I am (apart from Jackie who doesn't know any better). I'll post again on this if when I get a response.
-
No, I have SAID (YOU IDIOT) that the reason given by EP is REASONABLE given that Bird was inexperienced. Whereas you, have posted nothing but utter bull. You have twisted and squirmed - changing your argument from one moment to the next because you made the claim that Bird was a professional, specialist photographer when he was nothing of the sort and you don't have the bollocks to admit your were talking crap. AND CAL's comments are NOT hearsay because they CAN be substantiated by Bird himself
This cracker should never be forgotten !
Reasonable ;D ;D
-
You do realise that technology moves right?
Answer the question you stalk multiple forums. It’s what you get off on.
So sad.
See you have thrown the towel in
Gringo 1
Caroline 0
-
This cracker should never be forgotten !
Reasonable ;D ;D
Thank you Jon nearly forgot
-
This cracker should never be forgotten !
Reasonable ;D ;D
You won't be forgotten as a cracker - your place is secured on that score.
-
Answer the question you stalk multiple forums. It’s what you get off on.
So sad.
See you have thrown the towel in
Gringo 1
Caroline 0
Nutter ;D ;D ;D ;D - I guess you didn't understand my post. This on Ice - ice melts! ;D
-
Everyone can see it? Then why do they need to keep asking him about it?
Yous said that the article said HE was a specialist and it does NOT!
Now you're accusing CAL of being deliberately misleading?
Deliberately, or otherwise, CAL's statement is ambiguous so it is by definition misleading. Do you believe that writers don't attempt to mislead?
I didn't claim that "the article said HE was a specialist". What article are you talking about?
It is a verbatim transcript of a recorded interview with the City of London Police. This is further supported by Bird's court transcript when he refers to his job as "police photographer". He performs a specialist role as a police photographer and is employed as a police photographer. This is agreed by the court, COLP, Bird and is a matter of official record. I know of no sensible person who would attempt to claim that Bird is not a specialist.
I think it is safe to explore more plausible explanations for the missing negatives than the piss poor theories advanced by you.
Does anyone know how many photographs of the gun cupboard, specifically those taken on the 7/8/85 have been disclosed?
-
Deliberately, or otherwise, CAL's statement is ambiguous so it is by definition misleading. Do you believe that writers don't attempt to mislead?
I didn't claim that "the article said HE was a specialist". What article are you talking about?
It is a verbatim transcript of a recorded interview with the City of London Police. This is further supported by Bird's court transcript when he refers to his job as "police photographer". He performs a specialist role as a police photographer and is employed as a police photographer. This is agreed by the court, COLP, Bird and is a matter of official record. I know of no sensible person who would attempt to claim that Bird is not a specialist.
I think it is safe to explore more plausible explanations for the missing negatives than the piss poor theories advanced by you.
Does anyone know how many photographs of the gun cupboard, specifically those taken on the 7/8/85 have been disclosed?
Well, of course not because to be sensible, you have to agree with you. So that you have Jackie and Jon (or Irene and Vern) backing you up! If I have to track Bird down and speak to him myself, I will do so!
-
Well, of course not because to be sensible, you have to agree with you. So that you have Jackie and Jon (or Irene and Vern) backing you up! If I have to track Bird down and speak to him myself, I will do so!
Still crying? I doubt, with the exception of you and Jane, that there is anyone who has read the thread who cannot see that Bird's role as specialist is agreed by Bird, COLP and the court. Jackie, John, Irene, Vern, NGB and everybody else can comprehend and make reasonable inferences and all can see that I have stated nothing to disagree with. You on the other hand...
-
Well, of course not because to be sensible, you have to agree with you. So that you have Jackie and Jon (or Irene and Vern) backing you up! If I have to track Bird down and speak to him myself, I will do so!
Funny how MAT just pops up out of the blue ??? You are both an embarrassment. Both sussed out long ago. Keep up your stalking on the multiple forums you use daily
-
Still crying? I doubt, with the exception of you and Jane, that there is anyone who has read the thread who cannot see that Bird's role as specialist is agreed by Bird, COLP and the court. Jackie, John, Irene, Vern, NGB and everybody else can comprehend and make reasonable inferences and all can see that I have stated nothing to disagree with. You on the other hand...
No laughing! And you have no idea why ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Funny how MAT just pops up out of the blue ??? You are both an embarrassment. Both sussed out long ago. Keep up your stalking on the multiple forums you use daily
Who are we supposed to be stalking? Stupid woman! You turned up here to goad me not the other way around. You haven't made one single post about the case since crawling out from under your stone.
-
As it is now generally agreed that the large amount of missing negatives is unlikely to be down to Bird being so inexperienced/incompetent, what other explanations are likely that have led to at least 40% of all negatives being missing.
Having been reading "the gun cupboard" thread I noticed that it is claimed that Hammersley was unaware of there being a gun cupboard.
This from Bird's COLP interview. They are asking about the 7th august:
Bird: The study
Young: Yeah. And the cupboard we're talking about is the one underneath the stairs you've just
described
Bird: Yeah
Young: Did you actually put your head inside that cupboard?
Bird: No. No. I think if you look at the pictures there's a lot of stuff in front of it and rather than kick
or knock anything over I just took the pictures and come out.
Pictures? Of the gun cupboard?
During Hammersley's cross examination in the trial transcript he claims to have been unaware of the gun cupboard for some weeks.
From the video at the beginning of this thread the CCRC state, "...on the occasions that negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction."
They were looking at the pictures during the COLP interview in 1991. By 2012 the negative strips had been cut and negative strips cut short that related to the gun cupboard.
So how many pictures of the gun cupboard taken on 7/8/85 have been disclosed to the defence?
-
As it is now generally agreed that the large amount of missing negatives is unlikely to be down to Bird being so inexperienced/incompetent, what other explanations are likely that have led to at least 40% of all negatives being missing.
Having been reading "the gun cupboard" thread I noticed that it is claimed that Hammersley was unaware of there being a gun cupboard.
This from Bird's COLP interview. They are asking about the 7th august:
Bird: The study
Young: Yeah. And the cupboard we're talking about is the one underneath the stairs you've just
described
Bird: Yeah
Young: Did you actually put your head inside that cupboard?
Bird: No. No. I think if you look at the pictures there's a lot of stuff in front of it and rather than kick
or knock anything over I just took the pictures and come out.
Pictures? Of the gun cupboard?
During Hammersley's cross examination in the trial transcript he claims to have been unaware of the gun cupboard for some weeks.
From the video at the beginning of this thread the CCRC state, "...on the occasions that negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction."
They were looking at the pictures during the COLP interview in 1991. By 2012 the negative strips had been cut and negative strips cut short that related to the gun cupboard.
So how many pictures of the gun cupboard taken on 7/8/85 have been disclosed to the defence?
Thank you for your very clear assessment of why the missing negatives were/is a major issue in this case
-
Thank you for your very clear assessment of why the missing negatives were/is a major issue in this case
You're welcome, Jackie. I think there is more to come yet.
-
Still crying? I doubt, with the exception of you and Jane, that there is anyone who has read the thread who cannot see that Bird's role as specialist is agreed by Bird, COLP and the court. Jackie, John, Irene, Vern, NGB and everybody else can comprehend and make reasonable inferences and all can see that I have stated nothing to disagree with. You on the other hand...
No laughing! And you have no idea why ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Can you two just agree to disagree? Birds capacity or job description does not warrant a debate thread exceeding 300 posts.
-
So how many pictures of the gun cupboard taken on 7/8/85 have been disclosed to the defence?
Two. Eight are missing.
-
Can you two just agree to disagree? Birds capacity or job description does not warrant a debate thread exceeding 300 posts.
Not a chance but I agree with the second part of your comment.
-
You're welcome, Jackie. I think there is more to come yet.
That’s something to look forward to
-
Which important bit gringo ? I have a magnifier here for illegible documents. ;D
-
Which important bit gringo ? I have a magnifier here for illegible documents. ;D
It is the 6th and 7th pages, Lookout where Rivlin is cross examining Bird. It is difficult to make out, good luck. Rivlin is asking about photos of gun cupboard and measurements of the gun cupboard.
-
It is the 6th and 7th pages, Lookout where Rivlin is cross examining Bird. It is difficult to make out, good luck. Rivlin is asking about photos of gun cupboard and measurements of the gun cupboard.
Okay I'll do my best.
Oh dear it's dodgy where the black ink is covering but describes the upstairs bathroom main bedroom Jeremy's bedroom and the landing then back again numbering each photograph 14,15,16 and 17 but can't make out whether all these areas were photographed.
This was page 6.
Page 7-----cupboard measurement=4' 7x55ins
-
From what I can make out there appear to be no photo's of the gun cupboard taken on 7/8/85 produced at trial. If JB's defence have had only two pictures of the gun cupboard disclosed then it has to be the two taken on the 23/9/85 which Bird is questioned about during the trial.
So where are the photographs that Bird took on 7/8/85 which he was shown and asked about in 1991 by COLP? but now supposedly don't exist
-
DC David Robert Hammersley Trial Transcript------is worth a look.
-
DC David Robert Hammersley Trial Transcript------is worth a look.
I had read it earlier and there is much of interest in there. His guardedness during cross examination is apparent. Viewed alongside his breakdown in the COLP interview where he says, "it wasn't me who found it" or words to that effect, he gives the distinct impression that he has something to hide.
He also denied knowledge of the gun cupboard until weeks later, presumably because the pictures were from 23/9/85. The whole story around the gun cupboard presented by EP is self evidently a pack of lies.
1) Bird takes pictures of the gun cupboard on 7/8/85. In 1991 he views and discusses said pictures
with COLP.
2) Bird in court is examined and cross examined and the only photographs discussed are ones taken
on the 23/9/85.
3) Hammersley when examined and cross examined denies even knowing that there was a gun
cupboard until weeks later despite examining WHF on the 7th, 8th and 9th August.
Is it even remotely feasible that Hammersley couldn't know this. It seems reasonably clear that the court was seriously misled here.
What exactly do the photographs taken by Bird on 7/8/85 show? It would appear to be something that EP are desperate to hide.
It is also difficult to believe that the firearms team had not asked and found out about the gun cupboard before the raid. The knowledge of the gun cupboard was available on the 7th and the feigned EP ignorance is preposterous and shown to be a lie anyway by Bird's COLP interview.
-
And Adams!
-
It's happened to me lookout-something I wrote in 2012 or thereabouts whilst I was in a bad mood is quoted to show that that is the true reflection of an individual..
I'm placid by nature Steve because people in the " real " world don't try my patience.
-
I'm placid by nature Steve because people in the " real " world don't try my patience.
They probably aren't interested in the Bamber case.
-
It's been said dozens of times that Sheila's hands were clean.
-
I think this is one more thread for Maggie to lock.
-
DC David Robert Hammersley Trial Transcript------is worth a look.
Reading both Hammersley's and Bird's cross examinations, one of the photos discussed, photo 20, shows the gun cupboard with another cupboard in front of it. Staining on the cupboard is discussed which wasn't examined, we are told, and this picture was taken on 11/9/85. Following timelines it appears that around this date is when the fabrication and making the evidence fit was taking shape.
I suspect the contents of the Bird photos of the gun cupboard taken on the day would be most revealing.
-
I think this is one more thread for Maggie to lock.
I have removed a number of posts from this thread. I do ask members to debate the issues, but avoid personal attacks.
-
Reading both Hammersley's and Bird's cross examinations, one of the photos discussed, photo 20, shows the gun cupboard with another cupboard in front of it. Staining on the cupboard is discussed which wasn't examined, we are told, and this picture was taken on 11/9/85. Following timelines it appears that around this date is when the fabrication and making the evidence fit was taking shape.
I suspect the contents of the Bird photos of the gun cupboard taken on the day would be most revealing.
Yes, and it would also be very interesting to have access to a photograph which was taken in the downstairs bathroom by DS Jones on the first morning of the police investigation - Jones had returned to the scene from Jeremy's cottage at around 11.15am, and thereupon he proceeded to seize or to take a total of 4 exhibits, which were originally earmarked the following exhibit references:-
SBJ/4
SBJ/3
SBJ/2
SBJ/1 (silencer)
According to document I have in my possession, the photograph that Stan Jones took in the downstairs toilet which was the location where Anthony Pargeter always kept his .22 Brno bolt action rifle, his silencer, and his .22 ammunition, the photograph in question was earmarked to be 'destroyed', in rather suspicious circumstances! On occasions when I either had occasion to speak or to write to Jeremy about this particular photograph he was of the firm opinion that that photograph had not been destroyed, he suggesting that he had in fact had sight of it, and that it shows that Anthony Pargeters Brno rifle and silencer (attached to barrel of gun) was captured in the said photograph! If this is true, it begs the question why did Anthony Pargeter alter the contents of his first witness statement in which he stated that he owed a Brno .22 bolt action rifle, Parker Hale silencer, and a large quantity of .22 ammunition which he always kept inside the downstairs toilet at whf, but that as a precaution how he always removed the bolt from that gun and took that away with him when he went home at the end of his week-end visits to his home in Bournend, in Buckinghamshire, so that no-one could fire it!
However, by the time of the COLP investigation, 1991, Anthony Pargeter made an additional witness statement in which he suggested that his Brno rifle was not at white House farm at the time of the shooting tragedy involving the Bamber family, he said that he had taken it home with him on the penultimate week-end beforehand!
But..
If Jeremy is correct and the photograph which Stan Jones took in the downstairs toilet on the first morning of the police investigation, then Pargeter has deliberately made a false witness statement concerning the whereabouts of his .22 rifle and silencer at a critical point of the investigations into the shootings! Let us also not forget that Stan Jones took possession of a silencer on that very same morning, a Parker Hale silencer (SBJ/1) that belonged to Anthony Pargeters .22 rifle!
-
I haven't even watched the video yet. Forgot why this topic was even started. ;D
-
If Jeremy is correct and the photograph which Stan Jones took in the downstairs toilet on the first morning of the police investigation, then Pargeter has deliberately made a false witness statement concerning the whereabouts of his .22 rifle and silencer at a critical point of the investigations into the shootings! Let us also not forget that Stan Jones took possession of a silencer on that very same morning, a Parker Hale silencer (SBJ/1) that belonged to Anthony Pargeters .22 rifle!
Essex police, the relatives, and the Lab' experts are all havin' a laugh making out a false case that there was only one silencer, found once, fingerprinted once, checked for blood once, paint found ingrained into the end of only one silencer, handed over once by the relatives, having a variety of different exhibit references at different stages of the police investigation, despite the prosecution duping the jury into believing it had only had one exhibit reference (DRB/1), one Lab' item no. 23, and that the unique blood belonging to Sheila Caffell, and red paint from the kitchen aga surround found on the same silencero!
What a complete load of codswallop!
-
I haven't even watched the video yet. Forgot why this topic was even started. ;D
;D ;D
-
Essex police, the relatives, and the Lab' experts are all havin' a laugh making out a false case that there was only one silencer, found once, fingerprinted once, checked for blood once, paint found ingrained into the end of only one silencer, handed over once by the relatives, having a variety of different exhibit references at different stages of the police investigation, despite the prosecution duping the jury into believing it had only had one exhibit reference (DRB/1), one Lab' item no. 23, and that the unique blood belonging to Sheila Caffell, and red paint from the kitchen aga surround found on the same silencero!
What a complete load of codswallop!
You cannot trust the police, you cannot trust the police witnesses, and you cannot trust the police experts!
They fabricate evidence, they tampered with the contents of witness statements, and they are experts say moving the goal posts, and presenting an argument that may not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with the case on trial!
I am being serious when I say that / this...
-
You cannot trust the police, you cannot trust the police witnesses, and you cannot trust the police experts!
They fabricate evidence, they tampered with the contents of witness statements, and they are experts say moving the goal posts, and presenting an argument that may not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with the case on trial!
I am being serious when I say that / this...
I believe that when a trial takes place that everybody who testified should be on trial, at peril of being convicted of fabricating or tampering with the evidence, with criminal contempt! It's the only way forward, the jury should be entitled to point out any witness who has given evidence which they feel was given totally dishonestly, and in such instances the trial judge should be able to impose a minimum sentence comparable to the minimum sentence any defendant could receive if convicted. We need to stamp out the lies which are being told in these trials, and punish the liars accordingly!
-
The only reason I can think of for the photos of the gun cupboard being destroyed. Is that they could have showed the Pargheter rifle was also at the scene.
-
The only reason I can think of for the photos of the gun cupboard being destroyed. Is that they could have showed the Pargheter rifle was also at the scene.
I agree. There has always been a question mark over the Pargeter rifle.
-
I haven't even watched the video yet. Forgot why this topic was even started. ;D
The issue is also explained to some extent here. Just ignore the part about him getting out of prison:
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-withholding-of-crime-scene.html
-
The issue is also explained to some extent here. Just ignore the part about him getting out of prison:
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-withholding-of-crime-scene.html
I posted this on Red Roch - I think it's fair comment.
The Bamber blogs states that
"On 09.10.2002, Mr John MacLeod examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 429 negative images and reached the conclusion that a total of 249 frames of film had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to him.
On 01.10.08, Mr Peter Suthurst examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 416 negative images and he reached the conclusion that 262 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film that had been disclosed to him.
In 2011, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) disclosed photographic negatives to photography experts who examined 58 rolls of photographic film. They viewed 406 negative images and reached the conclusion that 272 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to them."
So Mr John MacLeod saw 13 more images than Suthurst and 23 more than photography experts but he reported nothing untoward. Nothing that was remarkable and certainly none of the things that Bamber claims they 'may' reveal;
"It is probable that they showed all of the guns in the house including those belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the telephone I supposedly hid in magazines actually being on a shelf in the office and they will no doubt reveal further proof that Sheila was moved by the police and that her hands and feet were not spotlessly clean as they informed the jury they were."
Mr Peter Suthurst saw 10 more images than the photography experts and hasn't claimed (other than the scratches) any of the above either.
Are we meant to believe that EP just kept chopping away at the negatives, even though they kept allowing people to look through them, realising (presumably afterwards) that they needed to chop more? Wouldn't that lead to MacLeod and Suthurst wondering what they had seen, that they shouldn't have?
-
Are we meant to believe that EP just kept chopping away at the negatives, even though they kept allowing people to look through them, realising (presumably afterwards) that they needed to chop more? Wouldn't that lead to MacLeod and Suthurst wondering what they had seen, that they shouldn't have?
The CCRC has the power to gain disclosure of materials from any public body. EP had no option but to allow the experts to have a look. So they had no option to chop if they had something to hide.
-
I posted this on Red Roch - I think it's fair comment.
The Bamber blogs states that
"On 09.10.2002, Mr John MacLeod examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 429 negative images and reached the conclusion that a total of 249 frames of film had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to him.
On 01.10.08, Mr Peter Suthurst examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 416 negative images and he reached the conclusion that 262 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film that had been disclosed to him.
In 2011, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) disclosed photographic negatives to photography experts who examined 58 rolls of photographic film. They viewed 406 negative images and reached the conclusion that 272 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to them."
So Mr John MacLeod saw 13 more images than Suthurst and 23 more than photography experts but he reported nothing untoward. Nothing that was remarkable and certainly none of the things that Bamber claims they 'may' reveal;
"It is probable that they showed all of the guns in the house including those belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the telephone I supposedly hid in magazines actually being on a shelf in the office and they will no doubt reveal further proof that Sheila was moved by the police and that her hands and feet were not spotlessly clean as they informed the jury they were."
Mr Peter Suthurst saw 10 more images than the photography experts and hasn't claimed (other than the scratches) any of the above either.
Are we meant to believe that EP just kept chopping away at the negatives, even though they kept allowing people to look through them, realising (presumably afterwards) that they needed to chop more? Wouldn't that lead to MacLeod and Suthurst wondering what they had seen, that they shouldn't have?
Yes.
With regard to my 'ignore' remark, I simply meant Jeremy will not be released, no matter what evidence of wrongdoing comes to light.
In answer to your other question. Also yes. The case has been deliberately 'managed' by successive coming and going modern EP officers, who were / are not as familiar with the case complexities as say (for example) you, David, Gringo, Hartey, ngb, Bill etc.
EP will have cut from the negatives as per their knowledge developed, regarding pertinent issues that posed a risk.
As for Sutherst and McLeod et al. While they may have been given pointers, I doubt they viewed the negatives as 'experts' on the case. It was not their remit. Hypothetically, If Jeremy Bamber had been allowed to view the negatives provided to McLeod, that would equate to a very risky situation for EP, as he would no doubt have very much represented a 'case expert' viewing a higher number of negatives.
-
Wouldn't that lead to MacLeod and Suthurst wondering what they had seen, that they shouldn't have?
Forgot to answer this bit.. but.. yes again.
If you are EP, what would you rather...
(A) Neglect to snip negatives showing the Pargeter rifle or some other bombshell?
(B) Have some dothery old scout leader muttering on East Anglia local news about there being more negatives missing than when the last photographic expert viewed them?
You can dismiss (B) by hiding behind the fig leaf CCRC and by issuing generic PR statements, saying that EP have 'fully cooperated' etc.
But you cant dismiss (A) if it ends up being featured in the press.
-
Forgot to answer this bit.. but.. yes again.
If you are EP, what would you rather...
(A) Neglect to snip negatives showing the Pargeter rifle or some other bombshell?
(B) Have some dothery old scout leader muttering on East Anglia local news about there being more negatives missing than when the last photographic expert viewed them?
You can dismiss (B) by hiding behind the fig leaf CCRC and by issuing generic PR statements, saying that EP have 'fully cooperated' etc.
But you cant dismiss (A) if it ends up being featured in the press.
LMAO
-
You can dismiss (B) by hiding behind the fig leaf CCRC and by issuing generic PR statements, saying that EP have 'fully cooperated' etc.
EP did fully cooperate but they cut corners in doing so (literally)
-
Essex police have given a plausible innocent explanation for the missing strips. And for all we know it could be the correct answer. However considering Essex Polices track record in this case and that this just so happens to involve the location of where the centrepiece of Jeremy's conviction resided. I find it astonishing the CCRC have given Essex police the benefit of the doubt and thus denied it to Jeremy.
-
Forgot to answer this bit.. but.. yes again.
If you are EP, what would you rather...
(A) Neglect to snip negatives showing the Pargeter rifle or some other bombshell?
(B) Have some dothery old scout leader muttering on East Anglia local news about there being more negatives missing than when the last photographic expert viewed them?
You can dismiss (B) by hiding behind the fig leaf CCRC and by issuing generic PR statements, saying that EP have 'fully cooperated' etc.
But you cant dismiss (A) if it ends up being featured in the press.
Well were A the case, I'm sure they would have snipped away all they had to rather than leave more for Suthurst find. I had they spotted something after MacLeod viewed then, I think they would have gone over them with a fine tooth comb. If someone goes and checks them now - will there be more missing?
-
Essex police have given a plausible innocent explanation for the missing strips. And for all we know it could be the correct answer. However considering Essex Polices track record in this case and that this just so happens to involve the location of where the centrepiece of Jeremy's conviction resided. I find it astonishing the CCRC have given Essex police the benefit of the doubt and thus denied it to Jeremy.
So why didn't you back me when I suggested this?
-
EP did fully cooperate but they cut corners in doing so (literally)
I don't understand this.
Essex police have given a plausible innocent explanation for the missing strips. And for all we know it could be the correct answer.
This just reads like an HG post. Plausible? Have you heard of the phrase 'disguised compliance'? To use it here is to take it out of its original context.. however it seems a more apt description of EP's actions than do 'plausible' and 'innocent'.
Presumably, each time EP checked the negatives prior to handing them over, they successively found further faulty exposures that required removal. How come they didn't notice them all the first time?
-
Well were A the case, I'm sure they would have snipped away all they had to rather than leave more for Suthurst find. I had they spotted something after MacLeod viewed then, I think they would have gone over them with a fine tooth comb.
This would take comprehensive case knowledge regarding exactly what to scour the negatives for. Whereas I think EP have been less knowledgeable and more reactionary.
If someone goes and checks them now - will there be more missing?
I don't know is the honest answer. I don't know whether the defence had all the negatives issued to them in 2011 printed at the lab. If so, it would seem pointless for EP to then remove even more (i.e. of the same strips of negs).
-
I don't understand this.
This just reads like an HG post. Plausible? Have you heard of the phrase 'disguised compliance'? To use it here is to take it out of its original context.. however it seems a more apt description of EP's actions than do 'plausible' and 'innocent'.
Presumably, each time EP checked the negatives prior to handing them over, they successively found further faulty exposures that required removal. How come they didn't notice them all the first time?
Or the second time or the third time?
-
Or the second time or the third time?
If their aim was a run of the mill procedural one (i.e. to remove faulty exposures) then they could have dispensed with them in one clean sweep. Discerning troublesome content is a different matter altogether, requiring an in-depth case knowledge.
-
If their aim was a run of the mill procedural one (i.e. to remove faulty exposures) then they could have dispensed with them in one clean sweep. Discerning troublesome content is a different matter altogether, requiring an in-depth case knowledge.
Just to show I'm not always biased https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/353510/Missing-negatives-of-police-baton-attack-photo-from-1984-Miners-strike-have-vanished
-
Just to show I'm not always biased https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/353510/Missing-negatives-of-police-baton-attack-photo-from-1984-Miners-strike-have-vanished
Interesting. Thanks for posting it up. I was still at school for the miners strike (only just).
-
Just to show I'm not always biased https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/353510/Missing-negatives-of-police-baton-attack-photo-from-1984-Miners-strike-have-vanished
Very fair of you .
Allowed to get away with it once ...
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hillsborough-jury-told-consider-video-10937648
-
[quote
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hillsborough-jury-told-consider-video-10937648
[/quote]Surely not Jon2!!! ::) as if!!!!
-
So why didn't you back me when I suggested this?
I have only read a fraction of this thread.
-
Yes.
With regard to my 'ignore' remark, I simply meant Jeremy will not be released, no matter what evidence of wrongdoing comes to light.
In answer to your other question. Also yes. The case has been deliberately 'managed' by successive coming and going modern EP officers, who were / are not as familiar with the case complexities as say (for example) you, David, Gringo, Hartey, ngb, Bill etc.
EP will have cut from the negatives as per their knowledge developed, regarding pertinent issues that posed a risk.
As for Sutherst and McLeod et al. While they may have been given pointers, I doubt they viewed the negatives as 'experts' on the case. It was not their remit. Hypothetically, If Jeremy Bamber had been allowed to view the negatives provided to McLeod, that would equate to a very risky situation for EP, as he would no doubt have very much represented a 'case expert' viewing a higher number of negatives.
To expand on this line of thinking further, Roch, it should not be forgotten that when the photographs were first examined by John Macleod in 2002 and he viewed 429 negative images there were already 249 missing.
Are EP seriously claiming that between 2001(when the strips were in uncut form) and 2002 when they were viewed by a defence expert, they cut the strips to remove 249 unexposed negatives but missed a further 23 unexposed negatives? We are also supposed to believe that 6 years later again, "coincidentally", just before another viewing by an expert for the defence that EP "found" a further 13 of these erm. cough cough "unexposed negatives".
It is even more of a stretch to imagine that after all of this analysis by EP that there could have been any more "unexposed negatives" to be found. But in 2011, again and obviously by massive coincidence, just prior to a viewing by another defence expert, EP discovered that there were 10 more of these "unexposed negatives".
EP have not given a "plausible innocent explanation".
Is it credible, that rather than send the strips in full, as we know they were in 2001, that they assigned some officer or other the task of sifting through them to remove "unexposed negatives" to help the defence expert, by presumably saving him the miniscule amount of time that the expert would otherwise waste in determining this fact. Nobody can seriously believe the EP explanation. Why would EP waste the manpower of sifting and removing negatives and then assign this task again 6 years later, in case the first guy missed some presumably. Then again 3 years later, have another check, just in case they missed some "unexposed negatives" the first two times.
Do the experts that viewed the negatives in 2002 and 2008 refer to any unexposed negatives in their reports? There ought to be some reference surely. When Macleod viewed the negatives in 2002, there would obviously have been 23 "unexposed negatives" in the 429 that he viewed. That is if EP are telling the truth. Also when Sutherst viewed the negatives in 2008, if EP are to be believed, there were still 10 "unexposed negatives" to be discovered. Does Sutherst in his report refer to 10 or any unexposed negatives?
It is probable, in my view, that the initial 249 missing negatives are those that obviously blow a hole in the official narrative. Things like guns in view that officially weren't there amongst other things. By the time Sutherst viewed them in 2008, EP and the defence will have been aware of some of the discrepancies being looked for and sifted "as their knowledge developed", as you say.
The contents of the reports may reveal more.
-
To expand on this line of thinking further, Roch, it should not be forgotten that when the photographs were first examined by John Macleod in 2002 and he viewed 429 negative images there were already 249 missing.
Are EP seriously claiming that between 2001(when the strips were in uncut form) and 2002 when they were viewed by a defence expert, they cut the strips to remove 249 unexposed negatives but missed a further 23 unexposed negatives? We are also supposed to believe that 6 years later again, "coincidentally", just before another viewing by an expert for the defence that EP "found" a further 13 of these erm. cough cough "unexposed negatives".
It is even more of a stretch to imagine that after all of this analysis by EP that there could have been any more "unexposed negatives" to be found. But in 2011, again and obviously by massive coincidence, just prior to a viewing by another defence expert, EP discovered that there were 10 more of these "unexposed negatives".
EP have not given a "plausible innocent explanation".
Is it credible, that rather than send the strips in full, as we know they were in 2001, that they assigned some officer or other the task of sifting through them to remove "unexposed negatives" to help the defence expert, by presumably saving him the miniscule amount of time that the expert would otherwise waste in determining this fact. Nobody can seriously believe the EP explanation. Why would EP waste the manpower of sifting and removing negatives and then assign this task again 6 years later, in case the first guy missed some presumably. Then again 3 years later, have another check, just in case they missed some "unexposed negatives" the first two times.
Do the experts that viewed the negatives in 2002 and 2008 refer to any unexposed negatives in their reports? There ought to be some reference surely. When Macleod viewed the negatives in 2002, there would obviously have been 23 "unexposed negatives" in the 429 that he viewed. That is if EP are telling the truth. Also when Sutherst viewed the negatives in 2008, if EP are to be believed, there were still 10 "unexposed negatives" to be discovered. Does Sutherst in his report refer to 10 or any unexposed negatives?
It is probable, in my view, that the initial 249 missing negatives are those that obviously blow a hole in the official narrative. Things like guns in view that officially weren't there amongst other things. By the time Sutherst viewed them in 2008, EP and the defence will have been aware of some of the discrepancies being looked for and sifted "as their knowledge developed", as you say.
The contents of the reports may reveal more.
It beggars believe. There is NO plausible explanation for the removal of these negatives
-
To expand on this line of thinking further, Roch, it should not be forgotten that when the photographs were first examined by John Macleod in 2002 and he viewed 429 negative images there were already 249 missing.
Are EP seriously claiming that between 2001(when the strips were in uncut form) and 2002 when they were viewed by a defence expert, they cut the strips to remove 249 unexposed negatives but missed a further 23 unexposed negatives? We are also supposed to believe that 6 years later again, "coincidentally", just before another viewing by an expert for the defence that EP "found" a further 13 of these erm. cough cough "unexposed negatives".
It is even more of a stretch to imagine that after all of this analysis by EP that there could have been any more "unexposed negatives" to be found. But in 2011, again and obviously by massive coincidence, just prior to a viewing by another defence expert, EP discovered that there were 10 more of these "unexposed negatives".
EP have not given a "plausible innocent explanation".
Is it credible, that rather than send the strips in full, as we know they were in 2001, that they assigned some officer or other the task of sifting through them to remove "unexposed negatives" to help the defence expert, by presumably saving him the miniscule amount of time that the expert would otherwise waste in determining this fact. Nobody can seriously believe the EP explanation. Why would EP waste the manpower of sifting and removing negatives and then assign this task again 6 years later, in case the first guy missed some presumably. Then again 3 years later, have another check, just in case they missed some "unexposed negatives" the first two times.
Do the experts that viewed the negatives in 2002 and 2008 refer to any unexposed negatives in their reports? There ought to be some reference surely. When Macleod viewed the negatives in 2002, there would obviously have been 23 "unexposed negatives" in the 429 that he viewed. That is if EP are telling the truth. Also when Sutherst viewed the negatives in 2008, if EP are to be believed, there were still 10 "unexposed negatives" to be discovered. Does Sutherst in his report refer to 10 or any unexposed negatives?
It is probable, in my view, that the initial 249 missing negatives are those that obviously blow a hole in the official narrative. Things like guns in view that officially weren't there amongst other things. By the time Sutherst viewed them in 2008, EP and the defence will have been aware of some of the discrepancies being looked for and sifted "as their knowledge developed", as you say.
The contents of the reports may reveal more.
Makes perfect sense imo. Excellent reasoning gringo.
-
Here is my breakdown of the crime scene photos from 7th of August.
each hash sign represents a photo in a film strip.
Black = not missing.
Red = missing and looking fishy
Green = possibly missing but nothing fishy
############ Kitchen + Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Landing + Twins Room
############ Twins Room
############ Upstairs rooms
############ Living Room
############ CloakRoom + BackDoor
############ Kitchen + Backdoor
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Stairs + Bedrooms
############ Sheila's room + Stairs
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior House
############ Exterior House
############ Missing
############ Farmland
############ Cars
############ Farmland
############ Garden and Settee + 2X PM
PS: Don't assume this is accurate or reliable.
-
What does the red hash line and "missing" represent?
-
Here is my breakdown of the crime scene photos from 7th of August.
each hash sign represents a photo in a film strip.
Black = not missing.
Red = missing and looking fishy
Green = possibly missing but nothing fishy
############ Kitchen + Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Landing + Twins Room
############ Twins Room
############ Upstairs rooms
############ Living Room
############ CloakRoom + BackDoor
############ Kitchen + Backdoor
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Stairs + Bedrooms
############ Sheila's room + Stairs
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior House
############ Exterior House
############ Missing
############ Farmland
############ Cars
############ Farmland
############ Garden and Settee + 2X PM
PS: Don't assume this is accurate or reliable.
I will try not to assume your red, green & black hash signs are accurrate.
-
The problem that Essex police had, was that prior to and including the trial in October 1986, the cops were making out that all the crime scene photographs which had been taken at the scene on the 7th and 8th August 1985, had been taken solely by PC David Bird (SOCO) who had supposedly started taking photographs inside the farmhouse from about 10 O'clock onwards, he not having arrived at the scene until 9.20am, in the company of Detective Inspector Ron Cook, who we are told was put in charge of the farmhouse soon after his arrival. However, this narrative that Essex police pinned it's case on wasn't true at all. This is because DCI Harris, Chief Inspector Gibbons, DCI Clarke and DCI Jones were in total control of the various scenes inside the farmhouse, and had been in charge of the same since before Ron Cook and his side kick PC David Bird had even arrived at the scene (9.20am). Also in attendance inside the farmhouse prior to the arrival of Ron Cook and PC David Bird at 9.20am, were police Inspector Ivor Montgomery, and PS Woodcock, together with two CID officers from headquarters SOCO (DC Henderson and DC Oakey)..
It was DC Henderson and DC Oakey who had already started taking photographs of the bodies of victims, insitu at just after 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig had ceremoniously pronounced everyone as being dead by that time!
Henderson and Oakey were the first SOCO team to take photographs of the victims bodies, upstairs in the two bedrooms, and downstairs in the kitchen. For the avoidance of doubt it should be noted that at 8.44am Sheila Caffell's body was laid on the far side of the bed! I know people have tried to twist the truth by claiming that Sheila's body was on the bedroom floor by that stage! But, all I shall say is that when Stan Jones and Mick Clark arrived in the main bedroom soon after 9.05am, they saw Sheila Caffell's body laying on top of the bed, next to the body of her mother, June Bamber! Jones and Clark recounted what they saw when later that same morning whilst they were at Jeremy Bambers cottage taking a witness statement from him, they told Ann Eaton and other relatives gathered there, that there was a rifle resting on the bed in-between the two bodies, and that Sheila had got a Bible resting on her chest! Ann Eaton was told on this occasion, that Sheila had been shot once in the neck, and they were told by Jones and Clark that this single shot had killed her!
What is known, is that Sheila Caffell's body was never resting on top of the bed at any stage after Ron Cook or PC David Bird arrived at the scene, and they duly arrived there at 9.20am...
With this in mind, PC Bird could not have taken any photographs of Sheila Caffell's body and June Bambers body laid on top of the bed!
By 9.30am, the Coroner's officer, PC Wright arrived at the scene and went to the main bedroom at that time and he viewed the bodies of Sheila Caffell and June Bamber, laid on different parts of the bedroom floor! He states that the rifle had been removed from the body by that stage, and that Sheila had two bullet entry wounds to her neck when he first saw her body (9.30am) - PC David Bird had not yet even entered the farmhouse by that stage and he would not do so for another half an hour or so at 10.00am...
What we now know, but of course the court which tried the case did not, is that between 9.00am and 10.00am Senior Officers performed a training exercise known as 'informatives', which involved them moving the bodies of victims about, moving weapons about, and moving furniture around! Whilst this was going on Henderson and Oakey took photographs and video footage capturing the fact that it was the police themselves who had staged the death scenes of the three adult victims, namely the death of Neville Bamber downstairs in the kitchen, with his head inside the steel rim of the coal bucket! Upstairs at the entrance to the main bedroom, they left June Bambers badly injured body partly propped up against the bedroom door! Sheila's body was laid on the floor on the opposite side of the bedroom in possession of the anshuzt rifle!
Once Harris, Gibbons, Clarke, Miller and Jones were satisfied with how they had set the scene, only then was the second team of SOCO permitted to enter the premises at which point PC David Bird started to take his photographs, showing the bodies of victims insitu as left by the Senior Officers without knowing that the bodies in question had been found differently, and that in Sheila Caffell's case, there had been three different locations where her body had been including the scene set by the police by around 10 0'clock (the kitchen, laid on top of the bed, and laid on the bedroom floor). PC Bird only photographed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, and he photographed June's body propped up against and slumped by the bedroom door! He also photographed Neville Bamber with his head in the coal bucket downstairs in the kitchen!
Of course, we now know that the first team of SOCO (Henderson and Oakey) captured the Senior Officers whilst they were engaged in practising 'informatives', which involved repositioning the bodies of victims, moving the rifle about from place to place, and with it ending up in the possession of Sheila Caffell, etc, etc, etc...
Make no bones about it, it was the police who staged Sheila Caffell's death on the bedroom floor, and this is despite the fact that there had been two shouts (police radio messages timed at 7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am and 7.45am) earlier on during the police Operation that Sheila had died downstairs in the kitchen, her death at that stage, being talked about as a suicide! Later on once her body arrived in the parents bedroom, she had collapsed onto her parents bed, and was once again referred to as being dead, by Dr Craig (8.44am), at a time when she only had one bullet entry wound to her neck! Remember also, that by the time Stan Jones and Mick Clark visited the main bedroom, they saw Sheila's body laid on top of the bed, June Bambers body was laid next to Sheila's body on top of the same bed, Sheila had been shot once in the neck, there was a rifle laid on the bed in-between the two bodies, and Sheila had a Bible on her chest!
-
The claim that missing negatives were / are all blanks is absolute nonsense - Essex police have removed all the damning photographs that were taken by the first group of SOCO (Henderson and Oakey), which captured the bodies of victims in different position be in the kitchen (Neville Bamber) and upstairs in the main bedroom, which captured Sheila's body laid on top of the bed!
I know this to be true because I have seen two photographs of Sheila's body laid on top of the bed, and she was only shot once by that stage! By a reliance upon the testimony of the Coroners officer PC Wright, we know that by 9.30am that the cops had moved Sheila's body into the bedroom floor, and that she had received the second shot to her neck in-between that time (9.30am), and the occasion when Stan Jones and Mick Clark had seen Sheila's body laid on the bed with one shot, and they arrived inside the bedroom at about 9.10am...
How did the anshuzt rifle which was resting against a first floor box room window at around 7.15am, end up on the bed in-between the bodies of Sheila and June by about 9.10am?
How did Sheila shoot herself with the rifle at the first floor box room window when she was present downstairs in the kitchen and was shot when the internal kitchen door was forced open?
Essex police are responsible for shooting dead Sheila Caffell, in somewhat bizarre circumstances, she was shot once downstairs in the kitchen and mistakenly presumed to be dead, after which once she made a brief recovery she made her way upstairs and upon reaching the main bedroom she collapsed again onto the bed, hence why the police surgeon, Dr Craig was able to pronounce her as being dead at 8.44am, despite she having only been shot once in the neck!
She had still only got one bullet entry wound to her neck when Stan Jones and Mick Clark viewed Sheila's body that was still laid on top of the bed at about 9.10am...
But, she had been shot a second time by 9.30am, according to the Coroner's officer PC Wright, her body then being upon the bedroom floor minus the weapon that had been used to fire the second shot!
-
The problem that Essex police had, was that prior to and including the trial in October 1986, the cops were making out that all the crime scene photographs which had been taken at the scene on the 7th and 8th August 1985, had been taken solely by PC David Bird (SOCO) who had supposedly started taking photographs inside the farmhouse from about 10 O'clock onwards, he not having arrived at the scene until 9.20am, in the company of Detective Inspector Ron Cook, who we are told was put in charge of the farmhouse soon after his arrival. However, this narrative that Essex police pinned it's case on wasn't true at all. This is because DCI Harris, Chief Inspector Gibbons, DCI Clarke and DCI Jones were in total control of the various scenes inside the farmhouse, and had been in charge of the same since before Ron Cook and his side kick PC David Bird had even arrived at the scene (9.20am). Also in attendance inside the farmhouse prior to the arrival of Ron Cook and PC David Bird at 9.20am, were police Inspector Ivor Montgomery, and PS Woodcock, together with two CID officers from headquarters SOCO (DC Henderson and DC Oakey)..
It was DC Henderson and DC Oakey who had already started taking photographs of the bodies of victims, insitu at just after 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig had ceremoniously pronounced everyone as being dead by that time!
Henderson and Oakey were the first SOCO team to take photographs of the victims bodies, upstairs in the two bedrooms, and downstairs in the kitchen. For the avoidance of doubt it should be noted that at 8.44am Sheila Caffell's body was laid on the far side of the bed! I know people have tried to twist the truth by claiming that Sheila's body was on the bedroom floor by that stage! But, all I shall say is that when Stan Jones and Mick Clark arrived in the main bedroom soon after 9.05am, they saw Sheila Caffell's body laying on top of the bed, next to the body of her mother, June Bamber! Jones and Clark recounted what they saw when later that same morning whilst they were at Jeremy Bambers cottage taking a witness statement from him, they told Ann Eaton and other relatives gathered there, that there was a rifle resting on the bed in-between the two bodies, and that Sheila had got a Bible resting on her chest! Ann Eaton was told on this occasion, that Sheila had been shot once in the neck, and they were told by Jones and Clark that this single shot had killed her!
What is known, is that Sheila Caffell's body was never resting on top of the bed at any stage after Ron Cook or PC David Bird arrived at the scene, and they duly arrived there at 9.20am...
With this in mind, PC Bird could not have taken any photographs of Sheila Caffell's body and June Bambers body laid on top of the bed!
By 9.30am, the Coroner's officer, PC Wright arrived at the scene and went to the main bedroom at that time and he viewed the bodies of Sheila Caffell and June Bamber, laid on different parts of the bedroom floor! He states that the rifle had been removed from the body by that stage, and that Sheila had two bullet entry wounds to her neck when he first saw her body (9.30am) - PC David Bird had not yet even entered the farmhouse by that stage and he would not do so for another half an hour or so at 10.00am...
What we now know, but of course the court which tried the case did not, is that between 9.00am and 10.00am Senior Officers performed a training exercise known as 'informatives', which involved them moving the bodies of victims about, moving weapons about, and moving furniture around! Whilst this was going on Henderson and Oakey took photographs and video footage capturing the fact that it was the police themselves who had staged the death scenes of the three adult victims, namely the death of Neville Bamber downstairs in the kitchen, with his head inside the steel rim of the coal bucket! Upstairs at the entrance to the main bedroom, they left June Bambers badly injured body partly propped up against the bedroom door! Sheila's body was laid on the floor on the opposite side of the bedroom in possession of the anshuzt rifle!
Once Harris, Gibbons, Clarke, Miller and Jones were satisfied with how they had set the scene, only then was the second team of SOCO permitted to enter the premises at which point PC David Bird started to take his photographs, showing the bodies of victims insitu as left by the Senior Officers without knowing that the bodies in question had been found differently, and that in Sheila Caffell's case, there had been three different locations where her body had been including the scene set by the police by around 10 0'clock (the kitchen, laid on top of the bed, and laid on the bedroom floor). PC Bird only photographed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, and he photographed June's body propped up against and slumped by the bedroom door! He also photographed Neville Bamber with his head in the coal bucket downstairs in the kitchen!
Of course, we now know that the first team of SOCO (Henderson and Oakey) captured the Senior Officers whilst they were engaged in practising 'informatives', which involved repositioning the bodies of victims, moving the rifle about from place to place, and with it ending up in the possession of Sheila Caffell, etc, etc, etc...
Make no bones about it, it was the police who staged Sheila Caffell's death on the bedroom floor, and this is despite the fact that there had been two shouts (police radio messages timed at 7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am and 7.45am) earlier on during the police Operation that Sheila had died downstairs in the kitchen, her death at that stage, being talked about as a suicide! Later on once her body arrived in the parents bedroom, she had collapsed onto her parents bed, and was once again referred to as being dead, by Dr Craig (8.44am), at a time when she only had one bullet entry wound to her neck! Remember also, that by the time Stan Jones and Mick Clark visited the main bedroom, they saw Sheila's body laid on top of the bed, June Bambers body was laid next to Sheila's body on top of the same bed, Sheila had been shot once in the neck, there was a rifle laid on the bed in-between the two bodies, and Sheila had a Bible on her chest!
where is your evidence for this practising "informatives" ? why would any police force do that to a crime scene that they had just encountered? I have never heard of the police ever doing such a thing
-
where is your evidence for this practising "informatives" ? why would any police force do that to a crime scene that they had just encountered? I have never heard of the police ever doing such a thing
Ha! You may WELL ask. Many of us previously have ;) ;D
-
where is your evidence for this practising "informatives" ? why would any police force do that to a crime scene that they had just encountered? I have never heard of the police ever doing such a thing
It is often difficult to arrive at the unadulterated truth, which Jane hints at in her post. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-police-used-my-familys-107641
-
In my book " informants/informatives, usually ex-cops and criminals are never always a means of finding the truth in any case. I always reflect back on " Nicholls ?" who was an informer in the Essex/Rettendon case, a rogue !
Worse than unfrocked vicars-------and we've seen enough of those !
-
Ha! You may WELL ask. Many of us previously have ;) ;D
the clock's ticking,,, i will be waiting ;D
-
the clock's ticking,,, i will be waiting ;D
Make sure you don't hold your breath :-\
-
Wouldn't you agree that due to the enormity of the case that you'd have questioned the ability of those concerned in it ?
-
Wouldn't you agree that due to the enormity of the case that you'd have questioned the ability of those concerned in it ?
I would question the decisions made at the start because that affected everything else.
-
I would question the decisions made at the start because that affected everything else.
Wouldn't you question the U-Turn after a month ?
-
Wouldn't you question the U-Turn after a month ?
What? After they had had time to investigate further - no! Innocent supporters complain that the CS wasn't protected and that police didn't do a very good job at the initial stages but defend Taff Jones to the bitter end. I'm afraid it was down to Taff Jones to make sure the initial investigation followed procedures. He made a snap decision and was too stubborn to admit it. He should have had an open mind from the beginning and not rely on what Bamber told him.
-
Wouldn't you question the U-Turn after a month ?
That would depend on where I stood. If I was just a bobby doing what I was paid to do, I expect I'd have been pretty p****d off at the thought that even MORE leave would be canceled and that I'd have to go through it all again. Then again, I might think that I KNEW they'd got it wrong in the first place and be glad they'd had a rethink. OR I might wonder why they were bothering as it would be easier to leave well enough alone and pin it on the girl. OR I'd have been pig sick that they'd listened to the posh b*****d who'd pulled the wool over their eyes in the first place.
-
What? After they had had time to investigate further - no! Innocent supporters complain that the CS wasn't protected and that police didn't do a very good job at the initial stages but defend Taff Jones to the bitter end. I'm afraid it was down to Taff Jones to make sure the initial investigation followed procedures. He made a snap decision and was too stubborn to admit it. He should have had an open mind from the beginning and not rely on what Bamber told him.
Why was JB bailed for a year when EP knew the answer ? Wouldn't you think it unfathomable to bail a person who is highly suspect ? No bail is granted for those under suspicion of murder but JB was bailed without conditions ?
-
Why was JB bailed for a year when EP knew the answer ? Wouldn't you think it unfathomable to bail a person who is highly suspect ? No bail is granted for those under suspicion of murder but JB was bailed without conditions ?
that is unusual ,
-
that is unusual ,
It is considering that SJ had his " gut-feeling " pretty well straightaway after JB had been questioned and the relatives " knew " days after.
-
I'm aware that police have to be given time before they charge someone-------but a year later ??
-
The " ironic " situation in JB's bail having been granted would have been done through the courts who would have stipulated that JB hadn't posed a threat to the public--------yet he'd supposedly murdered 5 people ??
-
It is considering that SJ had his " gut-feeling " pretty well straightaway after JB had been questioned and the relatives " knew " days after.
I guess, if you've ever 'dressed' a stage, and/or those on it, you'd understand that it's all about illusion. JUST enough is done to make the audience believe that what they're seeing is real, after which, if the work requires a narrator, that person will tell the audience what they're about to see played out. I think Jeremy managed it all remarkably well.
-
The " ironic " situation in JB's bail having been granted would have been done through the courts who would have stipulated that JB hadn't posed a threat to the public--------yet he'd supposedly murdered 5 people ??
Jeremy was never interested in "the public". He wasn't going to inherit from them.
-
I guess, if you've ever 'dressed' a stage, and/or those on it, you'd understand that it's all about illusion. JUST enough is done to make the audience believe that what they're seeing is real, after which, if the work requires a narrator, that person will tell the audience what they're about to see played out. I think Jeremy managed it all remarkably well.
I'm afraid Jeremy didn't have a clue what anything was about. Afterall if you're being accused of something you didn't do and know yourself that you didn't do, how can you "act out" any such situation other than stand in disbelief as he did. No hissy fits or wailing or collapsing in a heap--------just the honest truth which he delivered in no other way but normal.
The acting came from JM. Her tears cut no ice with me. Nor do others when they cry in court.
-
I'm afraid Jeremy didn't have a clue what anything was about. Afterall if you're being accused of something you didn't do and know yourself that you didn't do, how can you "act out" any such situation other than stand in disbelief as he did. No hissy fits or wailing or collapsing in a heap--------just the honest truth which he delivered in no other way but normal.
The acting came from JM. Her tears cut no ice with me. Nor do others when they cry in court.
Naturally, Julie would have been acting along with Jeremy, but he certainly wasn't the moronic cretin you portray him as being. For one, he had a very well honed sense of entitlement and he certainly seemed to know his way around getting out of working on the farm. He lied very cleverly when explaining that he'd only broken into the holiday site office to highlight it's lack of security. He forgot to explain why he took the money. If it was for safe-keeping, it was kept safely in the till of the restaurant where he paid for a slap up meal on the proceeds. Nor did it take him long to find someone to cart away his family's belongings. Quite naturally, he wanted to put on a certain style when it came to dressing for the funeral and spending money as if it was going out of fashion afterwards. I'd feel more inclined to describe him as cleverly devious with his eyes always open to the main chance.
-
Why was JB bailed for a year when EP knew the answer ? Wouldn't you think it unfathomable to bail a person who is highly suspect ? No bail is granted for those under suspicion of murder but JB was bailed without conditions ?
BAILED?? ;D ;D ;D He was REMANDED! That's pretty basic stuff Lookout!
-
The " ironic " situation in JB's bail having been granted would have been done through the courts who would have stipulated that JB hadn't posed a threat to the public--------yet he'd supposedly murdered 5 people ??
I'd stop there if I were you Lookout, Jeremy was remanded for the year before his trial. ;D ;D
-
I'd stop there if I were you Lookout, Jeremy was remanded for the year before his trial. ;D ;D
Someone stood bail for him.
-
I'm afraid Jeremy didn't have a clue what anything was about. Afterall if you're being accused of something you didn't do and know yourself that you didn't do, how can you "act out" any such situation other than stand in disbelief as he did. No hissy fits or wailing or collapsing in a heap--------just the honest truth which he delivered in no other way but normal.
The acting came from JM. Her tears cut no ice with me. Nor do others when they cry in court.
There seems to be a lot of that about!
Jeremy was bailed after being arrested for the robbery at the caravan park. He was arrested for murder on his return from the south of France and never walked free again.
-
Someone stood bail for him.
He didn't GET bail after being charged with murder he was REMANDED!
-
Read Jeremy's own words about his time on REMAND!
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2016/10/on-30th-anniversary-of-jeremys.html
-
There seems to be a lot of that about!
Jeremy was bailed after being arrested for the robbery at the caravan park. He was arrested for murder on his return from the south of France and never walked free again.
Speak for yourself.
-
He didn't GET bail after being charged with murder he was REMANDED!
I'm talking about before/during the 12 months ( which gave everyone else plenty of time to concoct a joint decision )
-
Speak for yourself.
Why? I knew he was remanded!
-
I think Andrew Hunter offered to stand bail.
-
As a murder suspect he'd have NOT remained on remand.They are detained in prison.
-
I think Andrew Hunter offered to stand bail.
He didn't because he was never offered bail after being charged with murder!
-
I'm talking about before/during the 12 months ( which gave everyone else plenty of time to concoct a joint decision )
Here we go! ::)
This is what you said;
Why was JB bailed for a year when EP knew the answer ? Wouldn't you think it unfathomable to bail a person who is highly suspect ? No bail is granted for those under suspicion of murder but JB was bailed without conditions ?
After being charged with murder on his return from the South of France (approx a year BEFORE the trial), Jeremy was remanded and stayed in prison until his trial. I'm not sure what you're talking about but he wasn't bailed after being charged.
-
He didn't because he was never offered bail after being charged with murder!
I'm talking about the time between September 1985 to October 1986. As a suspect.
-
Betty Howie stood bail.
-
Read Jeremy's own words about his time on REMAND!
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2016/10/on-30th-anniversary-of-jeremys.html
Well-argued and such a waste of a lives, but what can you do once someone is convicted of multiple murders and less serious offences?
-
Betty Howie stood bail.
Thanks Steve. I knew someone did.
-
Betty Howie stood bail.
Yes, after he had been arrested for the caravan park robbery. He did not get bail when he was charged with murder. After he appeared in court charged with murder on 30th September 1985 - he was remanded and DID NOT get bail. He spent approximately a year on remand before his trial.
-
I'm talking about the time between September 1985 to October 1986. As a suspect.
SO AM I!
-
The " ironic " situation in JB's bail having been granted would have been done through the courts who would have stipulated that JB hadn't posed a threat to the public--------yet he'd supposedly murdered 5 people ??
Nothing ironic. Didn't happen.
-
Yes, after he had been arrested for the caravan park robbery. He did not get bail when he was charged with murder. After he appeared in court charged with murder on 30th September 1985 - he was remanded and DID NOT get bail. He spent approximately a year on remand before his trial.
I KNOW enough that they don't bail after arrests for murder.
-
Why was JB bailed for a year when EP knew the answer ? Wouldn't you think it unfathomable to bail a person who is highly suspect ? No bail is granted for those under suspicion of murder but JB was bailed without conditions ?
-
I KNOW enough that they don't bail after arrests for murder.
And they DIDN'T grant him bail!
-
SO AM I!
I'm not deaf.
-
He got bail before he was charged with murder ! Which is what I've been saying.
-
He got bail before he was charged with murder ! Which is what I've been saying.
No it wasn't what you said at all.
-
No it wasn't what you said at all.
It damn well is if you'd read my posts properly.
-
It damn well is if you'd read my posts properly.
Oh here we go! You didn't say that AT ALL!
Why was JB bailed for a year when EP knew the answer ? Wouldn't you think it unfathomable to bail a person who is highly suspect ? No bail is granted for those under suspicion of murder but JB was bailed without conditions ?
You thought he was free for a year until his trial!
-
As a murder suspect he'd have NOT remained on remand.They are detained in prison.
Where do you imagine inmates on remand stay?
-
Where do you imagine inmates on remand stay?
Prison.
-
Oh here we go! You didn't say that AT ALL!
You thought he was free for a year until his trial!
Not free-------on bail as I'd said, after someone stood bail for him.
-
Not free-------on bail as I'd said, after someone stood bail for him.
Thats not bail.
-
Thats not bail.
What is it then ?
-
The " ironic " situation in JB's bail having been granted would have been done through the courts who would have stipulated that JB hadn't posed a threat to the public--------yet he'd supposedly murdered 5 people ??
I think this is where the confusion has arisen , why would they be considering that he had supposedly murdered 5 people if they were bailing him for the caravan theft?
-
I think this is where the confusion has arisen , why would they be considering that he had supposedly murdered 5 people if they were bailing him for the caravan theft?
Because EP had nothing on JB as regards the murders they came up with the idea/pretext of arresting him for the burglary with a view to also throwing in the murders for good measure in 1986.
It was in the September 1985 when he was questioned by police, then bailed until his arrest in October 1986. Which meant he was on bail for a year up until his arrest.
-
I think this is where the confusion has arisen , why would they be considering that he had supposedly murdered 5 people if they were bailing him for the caravan theft?
Well Police had been questioning him all week from Sunday 8 September 1985 hoping to break him. By Friday 13 September they only had the Osea Road theft to charge him with without the confession, and they knew that the magistrates at Chelmsford would have to grant him bail. Thereafter he fled to France for the holiday.
-
I can't seem to make myself understood for some reason.
-
I think this is where the confusion has arisen , why would they be considering that he had supposedly murdered 5 people if they were bailing him for the caravan theft?
JB was questioned under cautioned for the murders a few days before he went on holiday. From my point of view had they taken Julie's malicious crap seriously they would never have allowed him to leave the country in the first place.
-
JB was questioned under cautioned for the murders a few days before he went on holiday. From my point of view had they taken Julie's malicious crap seriously they would never have allowed him to leave the country in the first place.
so what additional evidence did they have when he came back that meant they could charge him ?
-
so what additional evidence did they have when he came back that meant they could charge him ?
Human blood was found inside the silencer. (Prior to that it was only found outside the silencer)
-
None.
-
Because EP had nothing on JB as regards the murders they came up with the idea/pretext of arresting him for the burglary with a view to also throwing in the murders for good measure in 1986.
It was in the September 1985 when he was questioned by police, then bailed until his arrest in October 1986. Which meant he was on bail for a year up until his arrest.
Why do you keep repeating this because it's completely untrue! He was NOT bailed, he was remanded into custody and stayed in custody until his trial. He was in prison for the year prior to trial!
-
What is it then ?
You said he was on BAILfor a year, he wasn't. He was on REMAND. You were wrong and instead of saying you were wrong, like we've all been at some point, you just pretended you weren't talking about that even though your posts from earlier have been re-posted numerous times.
And you keep on repeating it! Clueless.
Because EP had nothing on JB as regards the murders they came up with the idea/pretext of arresting him for the burglary with a view to also throwing in the murders for good measure in 1986.
It was in the September 1985 when he was questioned by police, then bailed until his arrest in October 1986. Which meant he was on bail for a year up until his arrest.
-
ok he was arrested in connection with the murders on 8 September 1985 , he was BAILED from the POLICE STATION on 13 September which is when he went on his holiday to Saint-Tropez , ( amazing that the police didnt include a condition to surrender his passport ! ) then when he returned 29 September he was re arrested and charged , as far as i know he didn't get bail again.
-
Yes------BAILED. Which I'll never understand as it's only given to those " who don't pose a threat " yet-----------------he'd allegedly murdered 5 people ??
-
Yes------BAILED. Which I'll never understand as it's only given to those " who don't pose a threat " yet-----------------he'd allegedly murdered 5 people ??
You're doing it again, pretending you didn't say he was on bail for a year prior to the trial. The police are only allowed to keep an individual in custody for a certain time without charging them. Once CHARGED with murder, he was remanded.
-
You're doing it again, pretending you didn't say he was on bail for a year prior to the trial. The police are only allowed to keep an individual in custody for a certain time without charging them. Once CHARGED with murder, he was remanded.
It still begs the question when after them KNOWING he was guilty of the murders why he was allowed to travel abroad when they " knew " he'd committed murder and KNEW what their intentions would have been future-wise. He could easily have scarpered to Australia to lose himself ? Why didn't he ?
-
It still begs the question when after them KNOWING he was guilty of the murders why he was allowed to travel abroad when they " knew " he'd committed murder and KNEW what their intentions would have been future-wise. He could easily have scarpered to Australia to lose himself ? Why didn't he ?
He thought he'd outwitted them?
-
He thought he'd outwitted them?
Clever-----he wasn't.
-
It still begs the question when after them KNOWING he was guilty of the murders why he was allowed to travel abroad when they " knew " he'd committed murder and KNEW what their intentions would have been future-wise. He could easily have scarpered to Australia to lose himself ? Why didn't he ?
I doubt he told them he was going.
-
Clever-----he wasn't.
I doubt he'd have agreed with you.
-
I doubt he told them he was going.
I would have thought that EP would have demanded his passport after he'd been questioned. Isn't it customary when you're a " suspect " on a murder charge ? And a " threat to others ?"
-
I doubt he told them he was going.
And I doubt they had anything on him which is why they never asked for his passport.
-
And I doubt they had anything on him which is why they never asked for his passport.
They could easily have asked for his passport - he was on bail for the robbery. They should have asked for it, they didn't but as it happened - it was no biggy.
-
They could easily have asked for his passport - he was on bail for the robbery. They should have asked for it, they didn't but as it happened - it was no biggy.
It could well have been if he'd have known what was going to happen to himself. Any other " psychopathic murderer " would have made a run for it.
-
There'd have been a method in the madness of EP in that if they'd have removed his passport JB would have smelt a rat immediately so instead they said nothing then did the dirty on him on his return.
-
It could well have been if he'd have known what was going to happen to himself. Any other " psychopathic murderer " would have made a run for it.
You can speak for 'any other psychopathic murderer'? Where was he going to go and with what?
-
You can speak for 'any other psychopathic murderer'? Where was he going to go and with what?
Aren't these type supposed to be clever as well as self-sufficient ? As most " murdering psychopaths " are ?
-
Aren't these type supposed to be clever as well as self-sufficient ? As most " murdering psychopaths " are ?
MUCH too clever to go anywhere with empty pockets.
-
Didn't he have a couple of thousand in the bank ? Why did he bother about paying for a funeral ? It seems out of character for a " murdering psychopath " who could have pocketed a fair amount and fled ?
-
Psychopaths by their very nature stop at nothing, grab what they can flog, take off and end up in Spain where the other deadbeats are.
-
Psychopaths by their very nature stop at nothing, grab what they can flog, take off and end up in Spain where the other deadbeats are.
WOW!! Lookout's trying to out expert experts on psychopathy!! Gee, Lookout, if you think the text books on it -written by those who DO know- are dumb, they're not a PATCH on what you've just posted.
-
WOW!! Lookout's trying to out expert experts on psychopathy!! Gee, Lookout, if you think the text books on it -written by those who DO know- are dumb, they're not a PATCH on what you've just posted.
Psychopaths are ruthless aren't they and take chances/risks without fear of any consequences ? Which I've more or less described but sadly for all those who say that JB is a psychopath I'm afraid he doesn't come anywhere near the life of a psycho.
-
Psychopaths are ruthless aren't they and take chances/risks without fear of any consequences ? Which I've more or less described but sadly for all those who say that JB is a psychopath I'm afraid he doesn't come anywhere near the life of a psycho.
Just how do you know WHAT goes on in his inner, secret, world, Lookout, any more than you know what goes on in ANYONE'S inner, secret world, other than your own? Yes, psychopaths are ruthless. They are also devious. They won't display ruthlessness so that everyone is aware of it -it's not writ large across their foreheads, or even hidden in more intimate areas that only lovers will see- they're MORE likely to play naive and helpless. How would any of us know that behind the mask of helplessness there's a risk taker with no sense of fear? I really don't know how you can make such a sweeping statement as "he doesn't come anywhere near the life of a psychopath" when the only part of his life you know of has been prison life. Prisons are full of psychopaths. I'll bet every single one of them reveals a different personality. It's what goes on in their inner, secret, world which is telling. THAT'S the one they don't reveal to anyone.
-
It could well have been if he'd have known what was going to happen to himself. Any other " psychopathic murderer " would have made a run for it.
agreed, a psychopath wouldnt have thought twice about taking the risk and absconding whilst he could
-
Just how do you know WHAT goes on in his inner, secret, world, Lookout, any more than you know what goes on in ANYONE'S inner, secret world, other than your own? Yes, psychopaths are ruthless. They are also devious. They won't display ruthlessness so that everyone is aware of it -it's not writ large across their foreheads, or even hidden in more intimate areas that only lovers will see- they're MORE likely to play naive and helpless. How would any of us know that behind the mask of helplessness there's a risk taker with no sense of fear? I really don't know how you can make such a sweeping statement as "he doesn't come anywhere near the life of a psychopath" when the only part of his life you know of has been prison life. Prisons are full of psychopaths. I'll bet every single one of them reveals a different personality. It's what goes on in their inner, secret, world which is telling. THAT'S the one they don't reveal to anyone.
I'm quoting through the mind of what a psychopath would have done, not Jeremy. Jeremy wasn't even streetwise let alone well up on the ins and outs of a psycho.
-
I'm quoting through the mind of what a psychopath would have done, not Jeremy. Jeremy wasn't even streetwise let alone well up on the ins and outs of a psycho.
And side stepped answering my question, which was how do you know what goes on in anyone's inner, secret, world, other than your own. Psychopaths aren't clones of each other, any more than all supporters are clones of each other.
-
And side stepped answering my question, which was how do you know what goes on in anyone's inner, secret, world, other than your own. Psychopaths aren't clones of each other, any more than all supporters are clones of each other.
Not only didn't I sidestep your question------I didn't read it.
-
I'm quoting through the mind of what a psychopath would have done, not Jeremy. Jeremy wasn't even streetwise let alone well up on the ins and outs of a psycho.
But you would have had to have read it to put up the above argument. You just can't admit you CAN'T answer. I find it laughable that you think he'd need to be "well up on the ins and outs of a psycho".
-
Aren't these type supposed to be clever as well as self-sufficient ? As most " murdering psychopaths " are ?
No, not all of them, they just believe they are.
-
Psychopaths are ruthless aren't they and take chances/risks without fear of any consequences ? Which I've more or less described but sadly for all those who say that JB is a psychopath I'm afraid he doesn't come anywhere near the life of a psycho.
When did you meet him? Others who have met him, have described him in terms similar to those traits of a psychopath.
-
Besides, he did take a risk, he came back went to trial and it didn't pay off for him.
-
I'm quoting through the mind of what a psychopath would have done, not Jeremy. Jeremy wasn't even streetwise let alone well up on the ins and outs of a psycho.
No you aren't - you're guessing what a psychopath would have done. Fact is, they're all individuals and wouldn't have all done the same thing!
-
No you aren't - you're guessing what a psychopath would have done. Fact is, they're all individuals and wouldn't have all done the same thing!
They wouldn't have phoned the police like JB did.
-
They wouldn't have phoned the police like JB did.
Cause they would - it was his alibi. A normal loving son would have called 999
-
They wouldn't have phoned the police like JB did.
How else was he to establish his alibi?
-
When did you meet him? Others who have met him, have described him in terms similar to those traits of a psychopath.
Can you name these people ?
-
Can you name these people ?
His old school master for one!
-
Can you name these people ?
Yes Caroline why don’t you name them all ????
-
His old school master for one!
For one ????
-
His old school master for one!
How funny because his old friend at Gresham Matt Baker said he finds it impossible to believe Jeremy was capable of the murders
-
Yes Caroline why don’t you name them all ????
How many of his old friends stood by him?
-
How many of his old friends stood by him?
Well you don’t know that do you?
That is a fact isn’t it
-
Well you don’t know that do you?
That is a fact isn’t it
Neither do YOU! But I would say NONE!
-
This one didn't think much pf him https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/famous-people-wot-went-to-your-skool.127172/page-3
-
SJ hated his guts but it's still no reason for having him convicted of murder.
-
" It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one " Voltaire.
-
SJ hated his guts but it's still no reason for having him convicted of murder.
No he didn't ::)
-
No he didn't ::)
Oh he did----he must have done for it to spur him on with his so-called " investigation ". He had to finish what he'd started to justify his gut feeling.
-
Oh he did----he must have done for it to spur him on with his so-called " investigation ". He had to finish what he'd started to justify his gut feeling.
Perhaps you're simply reflecting what your own gut feeling leads you to do?
-
Perhaps you're simply reflecting what your own gut feeling leads you to do?
I'm not in the habit of jailing people though.
-
Well, we've only your word on that. Your soul may tell another story.
My soul tells me the same if you must know. Middle-aged and elderly have no place in prison.
-
My soul tells me the same if you must know. Middle-aged and elderly have no place in prison.
Eh? Where should they be? So no matter what the crime, once someone is deemed middle aged or elderly, they should be released?
-
Eh? Where should they be? So no matter what the crime, once someone is deemed middle aged or elderly, they should be released?
I originally meant the relatives and Mugford after 30 odd years----------that they wouldn't be imprisoned or shouldn't be if found to have perjured their ways through the trial.
I don't like to hear of elderly people in jail, no but I DIDN'T say they should be released----you said that !
-
I originally meant the relatives and Mugford after 30 odd years----------that they wouldn't be imprisoned or shouldn't be if found to have perjured their ways through the trial.
I don't like to hear of elderly people in jail, no but I DIDN'T say they should be released----you said that !
Their names carry a taint and that is likely to be their only 'sentence'.
-
Their names carry a taint and that is likely to be their only 'sentence'.
My thoughts too.
-
I originally meant the relatives and Mugford after 30 odd years----------that they wouldn't be imprisoned or shouldn't be if found to have perjured their ways through the trial.
I don't like to hear of elderly people in jail, no but I DIDN'T say they should be released----you said that !
As usual, you are full of contadictions and not making much sense - Juile Mugford isn't elderly (by the way).
-
Their names carry a taint and that is likely to be their only 'sentence'.
Only for the few who believe Bamber innocent.
-
As usual, you are full of contadictions and not making much sense - Juile Mugford isn't elderly (by the way).
Middle-aged ::)
-
Middle-aged ::)
I think this is the silliest argument yet!
-
I think this is the silliest argument yet!
Well of course you would.
-
Well of course you would.
So what's the age limit you believe should exempt people from prison?
-
So what's the age limit you believe should exempt people from prison?
Depending on their overall state of health, not beyond 60. A rehabilitation unit would be better served as a correctional building for those prisoners/offenders whose mental/ physical health is impaired rather than a prison cell and everything that goes with it.
Old age is horrendous if you haven't got good health and prison isn't the place to improve it. To start with those who commit crime be it petty or heinous already suffer mental health issues or they wouldn't commit crime would they ? We all hopefully know right from wrong, but these people don't it's as simple as that and prison is no place to learn.
The whole prison system needs overhauling anyway, but left to who's in charge ::) I can't see that happening any time soon if Birmingham's anything to go by.
-
Depending on their overall state of health, not beyond 60. A rehabilitation unit would be better served as a correctional building for those prisoners/offenders whose mental/ physical health is impaired rather than a prison cell and everything that goes with it.
Old age is horrendous if you haven't got good health and prison isn't the place to improve it. To start with those who commit crime be it petty or heinous already suffer mental health issues or they wouldn't commit crime would they ? We all hopefully know right from wrong, but these people don't it's as simple as that and prison is no place to learn.
The whole prison system needs overhauling anyway, but left to who's in charge ::) I can't see that happening any time soon if Birmingham's anything to go by.
Where is there evidence that those who commit crime.........................suffer mental health issues? If they think they're too clever to get caught, it may suggest personality disorders, but such don't constitute mental illness.
-
Personality disorder doesn't constitute mental illness ??
It's how it reads to me !
-
Personality disorder doesn't constitute mental illness ??
It's how it reads to me !
How d'ya make that out? We may not like each other's personalities, but there's sod all squared that either of us can do about it because there's no pill which will cure it. Those who are mentally ill don't necessarily have personality disorders when they're well. Mental illness, if it can't be cured, can be controlled. A personality disorder is part of who a person is.
-
How d'ya make that out? We may not like each other's personalities, but there's sod all squared that either of us can do about it because there's no pill which will cure it. Those who are mentally ill don't necessarily have personality disorders when they're well. Mental illness, if it can't be cured, can be controlled. A personality disorder is part of who a person is.
Personality Disorder does count as a mental illness. Personality without the disorder is part of a person's makeup.
-
Who was it who Sheila thought she was ? That's a Personality Disorder !
-
Who was it who Sheila thought she was ? That's a Personality Disorder !
No! It isn't. Under the influence of mental illness patients may believe they're someone else. THAT is a symptom of the mental illness, NOT a personality disorder. Personality disorder CANNOT be cured. Mental illness can. When it's under control/cured the patient's own personality surfaces again.
-
No! It isn't. Under the influence of mental illness patients may believe they're someone else. THAT is a symptom of the mental illness, NOT a personality disorder. Personality disorder CANNOT be cured. Mental illness can. When it's under control/cured the patient's own personality surfaces again.
Personality Disorder comes under the umbrella of mental illness.
-
It is what it states---------a disorder of your personality which gives out a list as long as your arm on the type of disorder you suffer from.
-
I don't have a problem ! I am who I am and don't wish or crave to be anyone else.
The problem is " cured " in much the same way as many others, counselling support and medication followed by a determination to get better.
I imagine there are many who suffer this problem by not accepting who they are with a need to emulate others. Depends how easily led one is I suppose.
Which is EXACTLY how those with personality disorders see themselves, ie We're just fine, thank-you. We don't have a problem. We're all capable of change, but only within certain parameters. We can't be OTHER than who we are. SOME may have been forced, from childhood, into becoming other than who they really are -it has NOTHING to do with being "easily led" -they're likely to feel lost. Counselling MAY help, providing they're aware enough that life could be better for them. Medication, unless depression has set in, WON'T. NONE of the aforementioned has anything to do with personality disorder.
-
Which is EXACTLY how those with personality disorders see themselves, ie We're just fine, thank-you. We don't have a problem. We're all capable of change, but only within certain parameters. We can't be OTHER than who we are. SOME may have been forced, from childhood, into becoming other than who they really are -it has NOTHING to do with being "easily led" -they're likely to feel lost. Counselling MAY help, providing they're aware enough that life could be better for them. Medication, unless depression has set in, WON'T. NONE of the aforementioned has anything to do with personality disorder.
I am fine though and have never wanted nor wished to be anyone else.
Easily led by copying others-------don't you understand ? Some people only have to don a hat and their personality changes. What's that about ? I get told that " I'm no different and haven't changed " My answer usually is " that I should hope not ". Imagine being a different person every time you met someone ?
-
Also the use of maggots for ulcerated legs.
-
Hope you're not having spaghetti in tomato sauce for dinner. :)) :)) :)) :))
-
I've seen venesection ( blood-letting ) done by leeches.
I believe they're being used again in the very successful treatment of ulcerated legs?
-
You're welcome, Jackie. I think there is more to come yet.
There is indeed. I have now received a reply from CAL in respect to PC Bird and his experience as a scenes of crime photographer. The Bamber case was indeed only the second major incident he had attended after having taken the Scenes of Crime course when he joined Chelmsford. I have sent the proof of contact to NGB but have copied her response below,
"Dave Bird; he joined the police in 1976 (Canvey Island) but it wasn’t until he joined the Chelmsford lot that he decided to specialise in crime scene photography and took the required course. Bamber was his second major assignment in that capacity".
-
There is indeed. I have now received a reply from CAL in respect to PC Bird and his experience as a scenes of crime photographer. The Bamber case was indeed only the second major incident he had attended after having taken the Scenes of Crime course when he joined Chelmsford. I have sent the proof of contact to NGB but have copied her response below,
"Dave Bird; he joined the police in 1976 (Canvey Island) but it wasn’t until he joined the Chelmsford lot that he decided to specialise in crime scene photography and took the required course. Bamber was his second major assignment in that capacity".
PHEW! 'Twas hardly the kind of SOC for a raw rookie to cut his teeth on!!!
-
There is indeed. I have now received a reply from CAL in respect to PC Bird and his experience as a scenes of crime photographer. The Bamber case was indeed only the second major incident he had attended after having taken the Scenes of Crime course when he joined Chelmsford. I have sent the proof of contact to NGB but have copied her response below,
"Dave Bird; he joined the police in 1976 (Canvey Island) but it wasn’t until he joined the Chelmsford lot that he decided to specialise in crime scene photography and took the required course. Bamber was his second major assignment in that capacity".
So what is the relevance of this information? He may have been too green round the edges to understand the implication of indexing and recording the scenes fully ? He would have to be guided by others ? Take instructions ?
-
So what is the relevance of this information? He may have been too green round the edges to understand the implication of indexing and recording the scenes fully ? He would have to be guided by others ? Take instructions ?
Who do you think took time out from that carnage to "instruct" a rookie? I think it would have been a question of every man getting on with the job they were trained for as best they could.
-
So what is the relevance of this information? He may have been too green round the edges to understand the implication of indexing and recording the scenes fully ? He would have to be guided by others ? Take instructions ?
The relevance is that when I received a reply, I promised to post it. The counter argument was that he was an expert - he wasn't and neither you nor I know if he was guided by others or not - he certainly doesn't indicate that he was.
-
Who do you think took time out from that carnage to "instruct" a rookie? I think it would have been a question of every man getting on with the job they were trained for as best they could.
I am sure he did that but he was no expert.
-
I am sure he did that but he was no expert.
Nor, I imagine, would there have been one there to guide or instruct him.
-
Nor, I imagine, would there have been one there to guide or instruct him.
The suggestion is an assumption.
-
The relevance is that when I received a reply, I promised to post it. The counter argument was that he was an expert - he wasn't and neither you nor I know if he was guided by others or not - he certainly doesn't indicate that he was.
That is a big responsibility for a newly qualified person . What sort of idiots were in charge of this case . Honestly.
-
The suggestion is an assumption.
I bet he wished he'd never done that course. He'd probably have felt totally out of his depth.
-
That is a big responsibility for a newly qualified person . What sort of idiots were in charge of this case . Honestly.
Where were they to find another at a moment's notice?
-
Where were they to find another at a moment's notice?
He probably did his job well, but ANY mistakes allow Bamber to claim conspiracy.
-
He probably did his job well, but ANY mistakes allow Bamber to claim conspiracy.
Ye Gods! We've already had enough fake photos on here to fill all the lavatories in the National Portrait Gallery!!!
-
Ye Gods! We've already had enough fake photos on here to fill all the lavatories in the National Portrait Gallery!!!
Nowt to do with Bird's originals though.
-
He probably did his job well, but ANY mistakes allow Bamber to claim conspiracy.
Imagine the confusion for him, they had just changed Laboratories as well from London to Huntington. The forms were different and he actually uses DB/1 reference as a soil sample and he had it twice. He had got DB/4 and DB/5 the wrong way round the yellow glove. I like that bit where he says there is no one lower than him (the photographer) and the van driver 😂😂😂
-
Imagine the confusion for him, they had just changed Laboratories as well from London to Huntington. The forms were different and he actually uses DB/1 reference as a soil sample and he had it twice. He had got DB/4 and DB/5 the wrong way round the yellow glove. I like that bit where he says there is no one lower than him (the photographer) and the van driver 😂😂😂
His memories of his first -and appalling- major assignment could well have been that of "a spare one at a wedding".
-
Imagine the confusion for him, they had just changed Laboratories as well from London to Huntington. The forms were different and he actually uses DB/1 reference as a soil sample and he had it twice. He had got DB/4 and DB/5 the wrong way round the yellow glove. I like that bit where he says there is no one lower than him (the photographer) and the van driver 😂😂😂
This was an argument that lasted for days and it was obvious from the off that he was new to the role but as always - it got twisted.
-
I wonder if it'll show the scratches on the fire-surround ?
Which hadn't appeared until SJ took over the case !
-
I wonder if it'll show the scratches on the fire-surround ?
Which hadn't appeared until SJ took over the case !
I haven't seen any photos of the underside of the mantelpiece taken right after the murders though, so how does anyone know if the scratches were there or not?
-
I haven't seen any photos of the underside of the mantelpiece taken right after the murders though, so how does anyone know if the scratches were there or not?
Apparently there was no sign of any scratches when the area was first photographed. They appeared later because Sutherst examined the area and didn't find any debris left behind, meaning that whoever did it cleaned up after them .
-
There is indeed. I have now received a reply from CAL in respect to PC Bird and his experience as a scenes of crime photographer. The Bamber case was indeed only the second major incident he had attended after having taken the Scenes of Crime course when he joined Chelmsford. I have sent the proof of contact to NGB but have copied her response below,
"Dave Bird; he joined the police in 1976 (Canvey Island) but it wasn’t until he joined the Chelmsford lot that he decided to specialise in crime scene photography and took the required course. Bamber was his second major assignment in that capacity".
I can confirm that I have seen the messages.
-
This was an argument that lasted for days and it was obvious from the off that he was new to the role but as always - it got twisted.
There is one thing about CAL Caroline, she did her research
-
Apparently there was no sign of any scratches when the area was first photographed. They appeared later because Sutherst examined the area and didn't find any debris left behind, meaning that whoever did it cleaned up after them .
Yes, but there weren't any close ups of that area when the kitchen was first photographed, so what was Mr Sutherst comparing the later photographs to?
Mr Sutherst didn't go to the farm did he? I thought he worked from photographs. Nobody could see such minute flakes of paint - even if they had fallen on the floor.
-
There is one thing about CAL Caroline, she did her research
Exactly but the fact that Bird was new to Crime Scene Photography just didn't suit. Had it not been for CAL's book, this is a FACT we never would have known and it has implications for how the negatives were dealt with.
-
Yes, but there weren't any close ups of that area when the kitchen was first photographed, so what was Mr Sutherst comparing the later photographs to?
Mr Sutherst didn't go to the farm did he? I thought he worked from photographs. Nobody could see such minute flakes of paint - even if they had fallen on the floor.
Sutherst was relying on photographs as he hadn't physically seen the fireplace at WHF.
Initially on crime scene photographs which had been taken by " police photographers " no scratches could be seen.
It was over a month that Sutherst had looked at photo's of the fireplace and had reconstructed the evidence by examining the area and looking for chipped paint on the floor.
Sutherst had ony learned that the fireplace photo's he looked at and which were shown at trial had been taken on the 10th of September.
-
Sutherst was relying on photographs as he hadn't physically seen the fireplace at WHF.
Initially on crime scene photographs which had been taken by " police photographers " no scratches could be seen.
It was over a month that Sutherst had looked at photo's of the fireplace and had reconstructed the evidence by examining the area and looking for chipped paint on the floor.
Sutherst had ony learned that the fireplace photo's he looked at and which were shown at trial had been taken on the 10th of September.
This is nothing to do with the topic we were discussing nor the thread title.
-
This is nothing to do with the topic we were discussing nor the thread title.
Photographs ??
-
Photographs ??
It's about non-disclosure and my point for bumping up the thread was to post a response to a question I asked CAL, whoch I promised to post once received.
-
Sutherst was relying on photographs as he hadn't physically seen the fireplace at WHF.
Initially on crime scene photographs which had been taken by " police photographers " no scratches could be seen.
It was over a month that Sutherst had looked at photo's of the fireplace and had reconstructed the evidence by examining the area and looking for chipped paint on the floor.
Sutherst had ony learned that the fireplace photo's he looked at and which were shown at trial had been taken on the 10th of September.
Yes I know, but there aren't any close ups of the scratched area from the initial crime scene photos, so how could he know if there were scratches or not? Same with the floor.
-
There is one thing about CAL Caroline, she did her research
She's also admitted to using gossip from the internet---to add spice to the drama I suppose. I bet she's rubbing her hands too !! Wow, the people who've made a fortune from the downfall of an innocent man is obscene.
-
She's also admitted to using gossip from the internet---to add spice to the drama I suppose. I bet she's rubbing her hands too !! Wow, the people who've made a fortune from the downfall of an innocent man is obscene.
Are you saying that she claimed to use unverified material without substantiating it?
-
She's also admitted to using gossip from the internet---to add spice to the drama I suppose. I bet she's rubbing her hands too !! Wow, the people who've made a fortune from the downfall of an innocent man is obscene.
Oh I didn’t know that Lookout?
-
Yes, but there weren't any close ups of that area when the kitchen was first photographed, so what was Mr Sutherst comparing the later photographs to?
Mr Sutherst didn't go to the farm did he? I thought he worked from photographs. Nobody could see such minute flakes of paint - even if they had fallen on the floor.
He'd compared them to police photographs. He had powerful equipment being a photographer attached to forensics.
-
It's about non-disclosure and my point for bumping up the thread was to post a response to a question I asked CAL, whoch I promised to post once received.
Non-disclosure of photographs then.
-
Yes I know, but there aren't any close ups of the scratched area from the initial crime scene photos, so how could he know if there were scratches or not? Same with the floor.
That's because we've never seen the originals of when it was a murder/suicide.
-
Are you saying that she claimed to use unverified material without substantiating it?
Why not ? It stretches the drama out and adds extra spice to those who can't tell the difference between guilt and innocence.
-
Oh I didn’t know that Lookout?
It wouldn't be published if it wasn't true, then again-----------
-
Non-disclosure of photographs then.
mind you jb didnt disclose the nude photos of sheila,he just tried to sell them :)) :))
-
He'd compared them to police photographs. He had powerful equipment being a photographer attached to forensics.
I haven't seen any police photos showing the underside of the mantelpiece. I don't think they exist. If they do, why hasn't Mr Sutherst published them?
-
Lookout I saw pics of the kitchen sink well after the murders and it looked rather untidy but prior to that it may have looked much better
-
mind you jb didnt disclose the nude photos of sheila,he just tried to sell them :)) :))
Yes shocking that Sami. Did it get brought up at trial does anyone know?
-
Lookout I saw pics of the kitchen sink well after the murders and it looked rather untidy but prior to that it may have looked much better
I found this pic of the kitchen window area which was allegedly taken just after the murders.
(https://crowdjustice.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/uploads/froala_editor/images/Picture%20shown%20to%20Jury%20Window.jpg)
-
mind you jb didnt disclose the nude photos of sheila,he just tried to sell them :)) :))
There is a limit as well as a huge difference in something that matters and something that doesn't.
-
Yes shocking that Sami. Did it get brought up at trial does anyone know?
not sure rj,but the sun newspape made sure all the uk knew about it,normally i curse the sun newspaper but on this occasion they did an excellent job,
-
Why not ? It stretches the drama out and adds extra spice to those who can't tell the difference between guilt and innocence.
Why? The drama doesn't need stretching and there's more than enough spice in the real thing. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to your claims of having found something amiss.
-
There is a limit as well as a huge difference in something that matters and something that doesn't.
i suppose your right,lookout
-
not sure rj,but the sun newspape made sure all the uk knew about it,normally i curse the sun newspaper but on this occasion they did an excellent job,
Makes you wonder if the caravan robbery he did, got brought up at his trial Sami?
-
Kaldin I apologise once again the sink and surrounding area does look tidy I think the pic I saw is after AE emptied the buckets of bloodied water and I saw the window sill splashed
-
Lookout I saw pics of the kitchen sink well after the murders and it looked rather untidy but prior to that it may have looked much better
Even the kitchen looked as though it had been turned over by vandals so you wouldn't know if there'd been a scuffle or not.
-
not sure rj,but the sun newspape made sure all the uk knew about it,normally i curse the sun newspaper but on this occasion they did an excellent job,
I agree Sami. Must admit Sami I was going to leave the forum, but with all these new posters coming back it’s given me the energy again
-
Hahaha lookout you tell it so well. I think farmers tend to live like that I remember seeing pics of the laundry room and store room how untidy they were
-
Why? The drama doesn't need stretching and there's more than enough spice in the real thing. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to your claims of having found something amiss.
" Found something amiss ?" It hasn't started yet. A bit premature aren't you ? Or are you living in hope ?
-
Kaldin I apologise once again the sink and surrounding area does look tidy I think the pic I saw is after AE emptied the buckets of bloodied water and I saw the window sill splashed
Maybe. I've seen a later pic of the kitchen and there are cups and other stuff all over the draining board, but I think the kitchen had been cleaned up then.
-
Lookout I have always thought the facts given in any book are somewhat embellished to kinda fill in like putting pickle on a beef sarnie hehehe
-
I agree Sami. Must admit Sami I was going to leave the forum, but with all these new posters coming back it’s given me the energy again
they must have known you were feeling that way,cause as it happens in spring they all sprouted out :))
-
" Found something amiss ?" It hasn't started yet. A bit premature aren't you ? Or are you living in hope ?
No, it hasn't..................buy you have! You're all geared up and ready to hunt out perceived errors.
-
Lookout I have always thought the facts given in any book are somewhat embellished to kinda fill in like putting pickle on a beef sarnie hehehe
Oh, a lot of embellishments are added, Susan.
-
Kaldin I agree with you I am very rusty as it is a year or more since I was on the forum and have forgotten the little bit that I knew.
-
No, it hasn't..................buy you have! You're all geared up and ready to hunt out perceived errors.
" Geared up " doesn't describe me as a person I'm afraid as I could just as easily forget it's on if I'm distracted by another programme as has happened over these past few days.
-
Oh, a lot of embellishments are added, Susan.
has jb ever written a book explaining his side of events
-
Kaldin I agree with you I am very rusty as it is a year or more since I was on the forum and have forgotten the little bit that I knew.
That's OK. I find myself talking about the same subjects several times - because I've forgotten the details from before. ;D
-
You're welcome, Jackie. I think there is more to come yet.
There is indeed. I have now received a reply from CAL in respect to PC Bird and his experience as a scenes of crime photographer. The Bamber case was indeed only the second major incident he had attended after having taken the Scenes of Crime course when he joined Chelmsford. I have sent the proof of contact to NGB but have copied her response below,
"Dave Bird; he joined the police in 1976 (Canvey Island) but it wasn’t until he joined the Chelmsford lot that he decided to specialise in crime scene photography and took the required course. Bamber was his second major assignment in that capacity".
-
has jb ever written a book explaining his side of events
Has he ever been given the chance ? However there wouldn't be much to read, would there ? How could he begin to write about something which he was never involved in ? Difficult.
-
There are plenty of threads to post unrelated 'stuff' - I guess the innocent side aren't keen on the fact that PC Bird wasn't an expert because it has implications for the negatives and put the mockers on a conspiracy. It's OK though - I'll just keep reposting CAL's response - just so you don't forget ;)
-
There are plenty of threads to post unrelated 'stuff' - I guess the innocent side aren't keen on the fact that PC Bird wasn't an expert because it has implications for the negatives and put the mockers on a conspiracy. It's OK though - I'll just keep reposting CAL's response - just so you don't forget ;)
yes i agree,that sums it up nicely
-
There are plenty of threads to post unrelated 'stuff' - I guess the innocent side aren't keen on the fact that PC Bird wasn't an expert because it has implications for the negatives and put the mockers on a conspiracy. It's OK though - I'll just keep reposting CAL's response - just so you don't forget ;)
They never want to debate truth Caroline, they follow a Parrot script unfortunately, talking of Parrots there’s some dirt Posted on here😂😂😂
-
They never want to debate truth Caroline, they follow a Parrot script unfortunately, talking of Parrots there’s some dirt just flew in 😂😂😂
Projection time is it RJ? 8)
-
Kaldin I know the feeling :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Projection time is it RJ? 8)
Yes 😂😂😂. Forgot you were an expert
-
There are plenty of threads to post unrelated 'stuff' - I guess the innocent side aren't keen on the fact that PC Bird wasn't an expert because it has implications for the negatives and put the mockers on a conspiracy. It's OK though - I'll just keep reposting CAL's response - just so you don't forget ;)
I find that sad really as all it does is give the impression that you have nothing else to say or discuss except to expect some sort of inflammatory response from a bit of information to which I'm personally not interested in as the person in question has to start somewhere doesn't he ? So what's the big deal about an " apprentice " being incompetent when you have so-called trained for years police officers who can't even do their job properly ?
-
I find that sad really as all it does is give the impression that you have nothing else to say or discuss except to expect some sort of inflammatory response from a bit of information to which I'm personally not interested in as the person in question has to start somewhere doesn't he ? So what's the big deal about an " apprentice " being incompetent when you have so-called trained for years police officers who can't even do their job properly ?
Or to put it another way, it's perfectly correct for Lookout et al to shout loudly about the incompetency of long-trained EP generally, but a definite No No for detractors to to make the same observations of an only just trained police photographer?
-
Or to put it another way, it's perfectly correct for Lookout et al to shout loudly about the incompetency of long-trained EP generally, but a definite No No for detractors to to make the same observations of an only just trained police photographer?
And why not ?
-
And why not ?
Going by your answer, it does rather sound as if you're prepared to use the dirty tactics you accuse others of using.
-
Going by your answer, it does rather sound as if you're prepared to use the dirty tactics you accuse others of using.
Maybe that's your " dirty " mind ??
-
Maybe that's your " dirty " mind ??
How's that, Lookout. You've agreed that it's fair game for you to apply tactics that it's not okay for detractors to use.
-
How's that, Lookout. You've agreed that it's fair game for you to apply tactics that it's not okay for detractors to use.
It's not me who uses tactics.Why would I ? My mind was made up years ago---yours wasn't !!
-
It's not me who uses tactics.Why would I ? My mind was made up years ago---yours wasn't !!
So I can see why tactics might be necessary for you to hold on to that belief. To hold any belief for years without questioning it seems rather like having faith. It certainly doesn't require any deep thinking, just acceptance......................and you have the temerity to call us "sheep"?!!!!
-
So I can see why tactics might be necessary for you to hold on to that belief. To hold any belief for years without questioning it seems rather like having faith. It certainly doesn't require any deep thinking, just acceptance......................and you have the temerity to call us "sheep"?!!!!
I didn't need a band of people to make my mind up. I did it all by myself with how I'd worked things out.
I don't necessarily follow anyone, I'm my own person.
-
I didn't need a band of people to make my mind up. I did it all by myself with how I'd worked things out.
I don't necessarily follow anyone, I'm my own person.
what is the best piece of evidence that makes you feel jb is innocent
-
what is the best piece of evidence that makes you feel jb is innocent
The best piece of evidence is that there isn't any.
-
You're welcome, Jackie. I think there is more to come yet.
There is indeed. I have now received a reply from CAL in respect to PC Bird and his experience as a scenes of crime photographer. The Bamber case was indeed only the second major incident he had attended after having taken the Scenes of Crime course when he joined Chelmsford. I have sent the proof of contact to NGB but have copied her response below,
"Dave Bird; he joined the police in 1976 (Canvey Island) but it wasn’t until he joined the Chelmsford lot that he decided to specialise in crime scene photography and took the required course. Bamber was his second major assignment in that capacity".
-
There is indeed. I have now received a reply from CAL in respect to PC Bird and his experience as a scenes of crime photographer. The Bamber case was indeed only the second major incident he had attended after having taken the Scenes of Crime course when he joined Chelmsford. I have sent the proof of contact to NGB but have copied her response below,
"Dave Bird; he joined the police in 1976 (Canvey Island) but it wasn’t until he joined the Chelmsford lot that he decided to specialise in crime scene photography and took the required course. Bamber was his second major assignment in that capacity".
That's really interesting, Caroline. It's not something previously known, I feel certain.
-
That's really interesting, Caroline. It's not something previously known, I feel certain.
What ? I'll be seeing it in my sleep. :)) :)) :)) :)) At least you've got something to hang on to.
-
What ? I'll be seeing it in my sleep. :)) :)) :)) :)) At least you've got something to hang on to.
I didn't post it for you, there are lots of other threads to keep you awake.
-
You're welcome, Jackie. I think there is more to come yet.
There is indeed. I have now received a reply from CAL in respect to PC Bird and his experience as a scenes of crime photographer. The Bamber case was indeed only the second major incident he had attended after having taken the Scenes of Crime course when he joined Chelmsford. I have sent the proof of contact to NGB but have copied her response below,
"Dave Bird; he joined the police in 1976 (Canvey Island) but it wasn’t until he joined the Chelmsford lot that he decided to specialise in crime scene photography and took the required course. Bamber was his second major assignment in that capacity".
-
Oh dear. Remind me not to go on this particular thread. :-[
-
Oh dear. Remind me not to go on this particular thread. :-[
you mustnt ignore facts lookout
-
There is indeed. I have now received a reply from CAL in respect to PC Bird and his experience as a scenes of crime photographer. The Bamber case was indeed only the second major incident he had attended after having taken the Scenes of Crime course when he joined Chelmsford. I have sent the proof of contact to NGB but have copied her response below,
"Dave Bird; he joined the police in 1976 (Canvey Island) but it wasn’t until he joined the Chelmsford lot that he decided to specialise in crime scene photography and took the required course. Bamber was his second major assignment in that capacity".
hi caroline
i don’t personally find that an excuse, surely if he had finished training and had done one other major scene the training he recieved should have been fresh in his head as to what to do.
it’s a bit lame imo
-
hi caroline
i don’t personally find that an excuse, surely if he had finished training and had done one other major scene the training he recieved should have been fresh in his head as to what to do.
it’s a bit lame imo
Again, I didn't post it as a discussion - it is the answer to a question I asked CAL and promised to post to settle an argument.
-
hi caroline
i don’t personally find that an excuse, surely if he had finished training and had done one other major scene the training he recieved should have been fresh in his head as to what to do.
it’s a bit lame imo
I feel certain, after his course of-how long do you think? a residential weekend? a week? a fortnight?- he'd have been more than competent to carry out photography duties in a theoretical or classroom situation. This 'exercise' would have been beyond his worst nightmares. I suspect that much of the training he'd received in the quiet of a classroom situation, may have left him, at least, momentarily, when he entered that scene of carnage and found colleagues stepping over each other, all trying to do jobs they were trained for in difficult circumstances.
-
I feel certain, after his course of-how long do you think? a residential weekend? a week? a fortnight?- he'd have been more than competent to carry out photography duties in a theoretical or classroom situation. This 'exercise' would have been beyond his worst nightmares. I suspect that much of the training he'd received in the quiet of a classroom situation, may have left him, at least, momentarily, when he entered that scene of carnage and found colleagues stepping over each other, all trying to do jobs they were trained for in difficult circumstances.
good point jane ,he must have been overawed
-
Again, I didn't post it as a discussion - it is the answer to a question I asked CAL and promised to post to settle an argument.
oh ok sorry
-
Again, I didn't post it as a discussion - it is the answer to a question I asked CAL and promised to post to settle an argument.
Which argument was that then ?
-
hi caroline
i don’t personally find that an excuse, surely if he had finished training and had done one other major scene the training he recieved should have been fresh in his head as to what to do.
it’s a bit lame imo
I don't think he is behind the film strips being cut.
-
I don't think he is behind the film strips being cut.
i haven’t watched the youtube as on phone but are you saying someone else took photos and that they hadn’t done thier job properly?
-
I feel certain, after his course of-how long do you think? a residential weekend? a week? a fortnight?- he'd have been more than competent to carry out photography duties in a theoretical or classroom situation. This 'exercise' would have been beyond his worst nightmares. I suspect that much of the training he'd received in the quiet of a classroom situation, may have left him, at least, momentarily, when he entered that scene of carnage and found colleagues stepping over each other, all trying to do jobs they were trained for in difficult circumstances.
sorry jane i’m not really buying that. he’d done one other major crime and if he wasn’t up to the job why do you think they put him on it. i think he should have been perfectly competent
-
i haven’t watched the youtube as on phone but are you saying someone else took photos and that they hadn’t done thier job properly?
No, its not the photographer that's the problem. Its the fact that the photo films have been cut and negatives are missing.
The Kodacolor strips come in sets of 12. The red hashes below are what's missing.
############ Kitchen + Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Landing + Twins Room
############ Twins Room
############ Upstairs rooms
############ Living Room
############ CloakRoom + BackDoor
############ Kitchen + Backdoor
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Stairs + Bedrooms
############ Sheila's room + Stairs
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior House
############ Exterior House
############ Missing
############ Farmland
############ Cars
############ Farmland
############ Garden and Settee + 2X PM
-
sorry jane i’m not really buying that. he’d done one other major crime and if he wasn’t up to the job why do you think they put him on it. i think he should have been perfectly competent
From where do you imagine they were going to conjure up another at that time of the morning? I don't imagine police photographers are ten a penny. You note that he "should" have been perfectly competent. At any other time, at any other SOC, you're probably right, but this was a SOC like no other.
-
From where do you imagine they were going to conjure up another at that time of the morning? I don't imagine police photographers are ten a penny. You note that he "should" have been perfectly competent. At any other time, at any other SOC, you're probably right, but this was a SOC like no other.
probably never been to one like it for the rest of his career
-
No, its not the photographer that's the problem. Its the fact that the photo films have been cut and negatives are missing.
The Kodacolor strips come in sets of 12. The red hashes below are what's missing.
############ Kitchen + Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Landing + Twins Room
############ Twins Room
############ Upstairs rooms
############ Living Room
############ CloakRoom + BackDoor
############ Kitchen + Backdoor
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Stairs + Bedrooms
############ Sheila's room + Stairs
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior House
############ Exterior House
############ Missing
############ Farmland
############ Cars
############ Farmland
############ Garden and Settee + 2X PM
you would think that every photo would have been relevant ? And if photos were missing there should have been a statement why ?
I think ( may be wrong) that the photographer was asked about this in court ?
-
you would think that every photo would have been relevant ? And if photos were missing there should have been a statement why ?
I think ( may be wrong) that the photographer was asked about this in court ?
no excuses for the missing photos,other then computers were not about as we have them today,store millions of stuff on a sd card no bigger than a stamp
-
Information was kept on micro-fiches back then because we had those at the hospital with a patients information on them which was all transferred when we went computerised in 1990. What a job !!
-
No, its not the photographer that's the problem. Its the fact that the photo films have been cut and negatives are missing.
The Kodacolor strips come in sets of 12. The red hashes below are what's missing.
############ Kitchen + Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Landing + Twins Room
############ Twins Room
############ Upstairs rooms
############ Living Room
############ CloakRoom + BackDoor
############ Kitchen + Backdoor
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Stairs + Bedrooms
############ Sheila's room + Stairs
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior House
############ Exterior House
############ Missing
############ Farmland
############ Cars
############ Farmland
############ Garden and Settee + 2X PM
I'm sure we'd all agree that it is best if the graphic fatal injuries to the twins are not shown. The question remains as to what from the master bundle has been concealed, if in fact some have.
-
I'm sure we'd all agree that it is best if the graphic fatal injuries to the twins are not shown. The question remains as to what from the master bundle has been concealed, if in fact some have.
gun cupboard missing ones are interesting . And there is a difference between being withheld and missing .
-
Mike always said that the master bundle never saw daylight.
-
Mike always said that the master bundle never saw daylight.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Mike always said that the master bundle never saw daylight.
I think the important bit is whether the defence saw all the photos - what is used in court is up to the prosecution and defence. But there should be full disclosure to the defence - the police should not pick and chose what they see.
-
I think the important bit is whether the defence saw all the photos - what is used in court is up to the prosecution and defence. But there should be full disclosure to the defence - the police should not pick and chose what they see.
I agree.
-
There is indeed. I have now received a reply from CAL in respect to PC Bird and his experience as a scenes of crime photographer. The Bamber case was indeed only the second major incident he had attended after having taken the Scenes of Crime course when he joined Chelmsford. I have sent the proof of contact to NGB but have copied her response below,
"Dave Bird; he joined the police in 1976 (Canvey Island) but it wasn’t until he joined the Chelmsford lot that he decided to specialise in crime scene photography and took the required course. Bamber was his second major assignment in that capacity".
After nearly a year and a half this response is even worse than I predicted. It is abundantly clear that the poor state of the photographic record is because of EP malfeasance. It is the tampering with and withholding of this photographic evidence that is the issue at hand. The lack of experience of Bird was just some nonsense put forward by you in order to divert from the main issues of misconduct by the prosecution.
This latest attempt to insert the, "Bird was inexperienced" canard demonstrates even more clearly than ever that it has zero basis in fact. CAL and her publisher can't even agree on PC Bird's experience or lack of. According to CAL it was only Bird's second time acting as crime scene photographer. According to the publisher, it was Bird's second major assignment (his first major assignment being the Coggeshall murder some four months previously). Both CAL and the publisher hedged their statements by claiming it was his second job/major assignment since either "starting work on the lab treatments", (CAL) or after joining the Chelmsford lot and specialising in crime scene photography.
As an aside here it is worth pointing out that you spent quite some time arguing that Bird was not a specialist. You claimed that the COLP interview showed this by posting out of context quotes and also stated that Bird himself did not claim to be a specialist. When I posted the full COLP interview and it was clear that Bird was referred to throughout the interview by himself and the interviewer(Supt. Mckay) numerous times as a specialist crime scene photographer you fell back on "Bird's interview" in the CAL book to "prove" he wasn't a specialist.
Needless to say this interview turned out to be nothing of the sort and in fact was some badly paraphrased claim made on Bird's behalf by CAL. Basically, a worthless piece of hearsay. You even spent pages arguing ridiculously that CAL's words weren't hearsay. Only when NGB intervened at your request did you agree what everybody else already knew but then tried to sweeten the pill of being wrong by convincing yourself that hearsay has a different meaning in English Law than it does in the English language(it doesn't by the way, obviously). It is now clear that CAL and her publisher cannot even agree on the details themselves. However the publisher now agrees that Bird was a specialist.
I said earlier in the thread when this issue arose that CAL's publisher would, if replying at all, only confirm CAL's words rather than clear up the question of how many times Bird had acted as photographer. I myself wrote, as you know, but got no reply and left it as unimportant. You have obviously prompted for a reply desperate to be proven right and fail to comprehend that it weakens rather than strengthens your case.
Your question to the publisher posted earlier in the thread, similarly to my own question, made this distinction clear. How many times has Bird acted as a police photographer? Not since some arbitrary event occurred, Just, quite simply, how many times has Bird acted as police photographer?
Neither of them have clarified the question asked and in fact have muddied the waters even further leading to the obvious conclusion that Bird had way more experience than they are attempting to imply.
The publisher has in fact backed off from claiming that it was only Bird's second assignment since arbitrary event A as a photographer which was CAL's claim. The publisher claims a different arbitrary event, B, to avoid the direct question and now adds "major" to the claim, leaving the obvious possibility of an untold number of non major incidents that Bird has previously worked on. It's not even hearsay now, it's just gossip and chinese whispers and this is the entirety of your evidence to show Bird's inexperience.
I would suggest that the COLP interview(transcript not hearsay) and the court transcript of PC Bird's evidence(again transcript earlier in this thread) along with the commonly agreed fact that EP malfeasance with the photographic record has been ongoing for years are stronger evidence of Bird's professionalism than your hearsay from CAL which only appears to claim otherwise by making equivocal statements which are not even confirmed by her own publisher.
-
Thank you Gringo for such a detailed reply. As expected another author trying to make money out of a miscarriage of justice case. Cal should be ashamed of herself and it begs the question why on earth would Colin get involved in this further attempt to cover up the truth. I will be interested what NGB says about this post or if he comments as I would like to hear a legal point of view.
Interestingly Stephen Grahame on Graham Norton last night he had to be careful what he said as this was an ongoing investigation so at least the programme makers accept this and are probably now worried how they stand legally. I bet that wetted the appetite of a lot of viewers watching last night. Maybe one authors lust for making money might lead to the truth being exposed. Public opinion is everything
-
Thank you Gringo for such a detailed reply. As expected another author trying to make money out of a miscarriage of justice case. Cal should be ashamed of herself and it begs the question why on earth would Colin get involved in this further attempt to cover up the truth. I will be interested what NGB says about this post or if he comments as I would like to hear a legal point of view.
Interestingly Stephen Grahame on Graham Norton last night he had to be careful what he said as this was an ongoing investigation so at least the programme makers accept this and are probably now worried how they stand legally. I bet that wetted the appetite of a lot of viewers watching last night. Maybe one authors lust for making money might lead to the truth being exposed. Public opinion is everything
Sorry I have to disagree with one thing . The makers of the programme won’t have any worries . It is advertised as a drama not a documentary so it won’t really matter what they say or do . They have given themselves artistic licence. And I think we have to respect Colin’s reasons for being involved . He says he wants the emotional effect of the crime to be known from his point of view. And his perspective is his perspective. He went through an awful time that none of us can really imagine .
-
Sorry I have to disagree with one thing . The makers of the programme won’t have any worries . It is advertised as a drama not a documentary so it won’t really matter what they say or do . They have given themselves artistic licence. And I think we have to respect Colin’s reasons for being involved . He says he wants the emotional effect of the crime to be known from his point of view. And his perspective is his perspective. He went through an awful time that none of us can really imagine .
Thank-you for that, Jan. I tire of hearing Colin alluded to as pimping off this tragedy.
-
Sorry I have to disagree with one thing . The makers of the programme won’t have any worries . It is advertised as a drama not a documentary so it won’t really matter what they say or do . They have given themselves artistic licence. And I think we have to respect Colin’s reasons for being involved . He says he wants the emotional effect of the crime to be known from his point of view. And his perspective is his perspective. He went through an awful time that none of us can really imagine .
My thoughts go to the McCann's on this score, to keep their case in the public arena. Sadly their end isn't in sight.
-
But Jan we are talking about someone possibly innocent that’s been in prison for over 30 years and we are once again discussing missing photographs
Every few years one of the family goes on TV saying they know Jeremy is guilty or bragging they have spent are the hard earned Bamber money
There are too many coverups in this case for there not to be something seriously wrong with the conviction
Let’s concentrate on getting to the truth and as Colin appears to have taken the word of Julie Mugford has he ever said that he worried about his judgement when he found out Julie had signed the news of the world deal
Before trial.
If I had lost my 2 children in such tragic circumstances I would not stop till I found out the truth and I would
certainly be concerned about the way the investigation has panned out over 30 years
As for the programme makers not being worried you should watch Graham Norton because Stephen Grahame certainly was worried about talking about the programne
-
Sorry I have to disagree with one thing . The makers of the programme won’t have any worries . It is advertised as a drama not a documentary so it won’t really matter what they say or do . They have given themselves artistic licence. And I think we have to respect Colin’s reasons for being involved . He says he wants the emotional effect of the crime to be known from his point of view. And his perspective is his perspective. He went through an awful time that none of us can really imagine .
Jan this is how itv are promoting the new drama
Factual
ITV's six part factual drama, White House Farm, revolves around one fateful ... with Mark Addy as DS Stan Jones and Stephen Graham as DCI 'Taff' Jones. ..... The most talked about guessing game on TV returns.
-
But Jan we are talking about someone possibly innocent that’s been in prison for over 30 years and we are once again discussing missing photographs
Every few years one of the family goes on TV saying they know Jeremy is guilty or bragging they have spent are the hard earned Bamber money
There are too many coverups in this case for there not to be something seriously wrong with the conviction
Let’s concentrate on getting to the truth and as Colin appears to have taken the word of Julie Mugford has he ever said that he worried about his judgement when he found out Julie had signed the news of the world deal
Before trial.
If I had lost my 2 children in such tragic circumstances I would not stop till I found out the truth and I would
certainly be concerned about the way the investigation has panned out over 30 years
As for the programme makers not being worried you should watch Graham Norton because Stephen Grahame certainly was worried about talking about the programne
Yes but Colin obviously trusts the court so that’s his angle . Whatever the truth it was either his ex wife or someone he considered a friend . So really it’s a no win situation for him . It won’t bring back the boys will it .
I found his book a bit odd but I don’t think jeremy being in jail is his responsibility . And I can’t see anyway he has been able to speak up even if he wanted to .
-
Colin hadn't put much trust in the relatives after he'd received a phone-call from DB meant for AP about the " blockbusting " headlines showing JB as the killer.
Stan Jone's hadn't proved himself to be too friendly towards Colin either when he told Colin he'd have to go and identify the bodies of his sons. Colin clearly told him " he couldn't ", but insisted as he was the only one who could tell them apart. Colin had still refused and said he couldn't believe the man because he was so pressing.
When Heather had offered, Jones ignored her.
-
Jan this is how itv are promoting the new drama
Factual
ITV's six part factual drama, White House Farm, revolves around one fateful ... with Mark Addy as DS Stan Jones and Stephen Graham as DCI 'Taff' Jones. ..... The most talked about guessing game on TV returns.
Yes but still a drama it excuses them from legal liability. Unless they portray EP as the keystone cops and they get angry , could be interesting .
-
Colin hadn't put much trust in the relatives after he'd received a phone-call from DB meant for AP about the " blockbusting " headlines showing JB as the killer.
Stan Jone's hadn't proved himself to be too friendly towards Colin either when he told Colin he'd have to go and identify the bodies of his sons. Colin clearly told him " he couldn't ", but insisted as he was the only one who could tell them apart. Colin had still refused and said he couldn't believe the man because he was so pressing.
When Heather had offered, Jones ignored her.
Which is why Julie did it.
-
Which is why Julie did it.
Which would be very brave and thoughtful of her if she did not already know why they had been killed and by whom .
Her opportunity to tell someone .
-
Which would be very brave and thoughtful of her if she did not already know why they had been killed and by whom .
Her opportunity to tell someone .
It was indeed - I imagine that first day everyone was in shock and confused - even Julie. There is no question that she should have told at the earliest opportunity. However, she didn't sit on it for years or months, it was 4 weeks (ish).
-
It was indeed - I imagine that first day everyone was in shock and confused - even Julie. There is no question that she should have told at the earliest opportunity. However, she didn't sit on it for years or months, it was 4 weeks (ish).
You would have thought tonight’s the night would have been a little clue though.
It’s also a shame that shock and confusion can be used as an excuse for some but not others .
-
You would have thought tonight’s the night would have been a little clue though.
It’s also a shame that shock and confusion can be used as an excuse for some but not others .
I could say the same in reverse. However, you'd hardly be in shock if you were the killer.
-
You would have thought tonight’s the night would have been a little clue though.
It’s also a shame that shock and confusion can be used as an excuse for some but not others .
The problem here is empathy, or more correctly, LACK of it. You, and others, are SO certain how you'd have felt and sure of what you'd have done. The truth is, you only THINK you know. Unless you -or I- were any of those who played a part in this tragedy, and had their history, we haven't a clue.
-
The problem here is empathy, or more correctly, LACK of it. You, and others, are SO certain how you'd have felt and sure of what you'd have done. The truth is, you only THINK you know. Unless you -or I- were any of those who played a part in this tragedy, and had their history, we haven't a clue.
Jeremy didn't actually say he killed the family, he said it was MM who at the time, was supposed to be a mercenary. That's quite a bit to take in.
-
I could say the same in reverse. However, you'd hardly be in shock if you were the killer.
Not sure that every murderer reacts in the same way tbh. That’s a bit of a generalisation.
Apparently jeremy was in shock and vomiting as confirmed by the police and other observers.
-
Not sure that every murderer reacts in the same way tbh. That’s a bit of a generalisation.
Apparently jeremy was in shock and vomiting as confirmed by the police and other observers.
He walked into the middle of the poppy field, a couple of fingers down the throat would induce that.
-
Not sure that every murderer reacts in the same way tbh. That’s a bit of a generalisation.
Apparently jeremy was in shock and vomiting as confirmed by the police and other observers.
Did anyone actually see evidence of what he vomited?
-
Colin hadn't put much trust in the relatives after he'd received a phone-call from DB meant for AP about the " blockbusting " headlines showing JB as the killer.
Stan Jone's hadn't proved himself to be too friendly towards Colin either when he told Colin he'd have to go and identify the bodies of his sons. Colin clearly told him " he couldn't ", but insisted as he was the only one who could tell them apart. Colin had still refused and said he couldn't believe the man because he was so pressing.
When Heather had offered, Jones ignored her.
When did heather offer
-
The problem here is empathy, or more correctly, LACK of it. You, and others, are SO certain how you'd have felt and sure of what you'd have done. The truth is, you only THINK you know. Unless you -or I- were any of those who played a part in this tragedy, and had their history, we haven't a clue.
Jane you are an absolute joke and I can hardly bare to read your ridiculous posts
You promote Mugford at every opportunity as a poor girl yet when Colin has been through the most horrendous trial whoever was responsible where was the empathy from the disgusting Mugford for Colin she was straight in the newspaper grinning from ear to ear with her £25,000 in her underwear
She should have handed that money straight over to Colin if she was telling the truth
-
He walked into the middle of the poppy field, a couple of fingers down the throat would induce that.
Have you replied to Gringo yet?
-
Did anyone actually see evidence of what he vomited?
Excuse me ? You are now going to make an assumption that the vomiting was fake and induced ? Feel free because that’s something that I am sure can not be proved either way .
-
He walked into the middle of the poppy field, a couple of fingers down the throat would induce that.
Are you positive you have the timing of the vomiting and the “walk “ in the right order , because I was just reading that officer’s statement . What a coincidence .
-
Jane you are an absolute joke and I can hardly bare to read your ridiculous posts
You promote Mugford at every opportunity as a poor girl yet when Colin has been through the most horrendous trial whoever was responsible where was the empathy from the disgusting Mugford for Colin she was straight in the newspaper grinning from ear to ear with her £25,000 in her underwear
She should have handed that money straight over to Colin if she was telling the truth
I'm not responsible for others' empathy or lack of it, anymore, thankfully, than I am for vitriol and jealousy you exhibit towards Julie.
-
We were all doing so well .
And it’s a bit early to be on the vino .
Perhaps in the spirit of 2020 try to keep off the personal posts .
-
Excuse me ? You are now going to make an assumption that the vomiting was fake and induced ? Feel free because that’s something that I am sure can not be proved either way .
It could easily have been either. He could have made retching noises and produced nothing, OR stuck his fingers down his throat to induce it.
-
I'm not responsible for others' empathy or lack of it, anymore, thankfully, than I am for vitriol and jealousy you exhibit towards Julie.
You seem to think your experienced to declare who has empathy or not
You haven’t got a clue
What Julie did to Colin when she signed that contract was despicable
She will go down in history for what she did
They should make a six part drama just about her
-
It could easily have been either. He could have made retching noises and produced nothing, OR stuck his fingers down his throat to induce it.
Could of. No evidence that he did . And the police seemed to think he was genuinely in shock and sobbing to see his father .
So yet again if he is guilty their years of experience in judging people deserted them .
-
Did anyone actually see evidence of what he vomited?
i thank stan jones said it looked like he was (trying) to be sick
-
The famous
‘I think’
-
Could of. No evidence that he did . And the police seemed to think he was genuinely in shock and sobbing to see his father .
So yet again if he is guilty their years of experience in judging people deserted them .
The police, as a unit, seemed genuinely to believe Sheila was guilty so it's hardly surprising if they genuinely believed the only remaining family member was genuinely vomiting.
-
To wretch/vomit is an involuntary act brought on/induced by shock or a trauma. There's usually no need to " stick fingers down throats ". When people are given bad news it's not unusual for this to happen and a person can be sick on the spot.
-
At the hour of the morning that it was I'd hardly think that JB had anything in his stomach to bring up.
-
i thank stan jones said it looked like he was (trying) to be sick
I just read. The statements I don’t think it was referring to the accusation it was self induced .
-
To wretch/vomit is an involuntary act brought on/induced by shock or a trauma. There's usually no need to " stick fingers down throats ". When people are given bad news it's not unusual for this to happen and a person can be sick on the spot.
Mmm. Then there are eating disorders, migraines, even excess of alcohol. All relieved by the placement of fingers in throats.
-
Mmm. Then there are eating disorders, migraines, even excess of alcohol. All relieved by the placement of fingers in throats.
That’s stating the obvious . There is no evidence to suggest he was faking vomiting.
-
That’s stating the obvious . There is no evidence to suggest he was faking vomiting.
Was anyone expecting fakery?
-
At the hour of the morning that it was I'd hardly think that JB had anything in his stomach to bring up.
He'd been given a whisky by Dr Craig.
-
Mmm. Then there are eating disorders, migraines, even excess of alcohol. All relieved by the placement of fingers in throats.
Migraines will invariably bring involuntary heaving/vomiting.
Eating disorders are an entirely different condition and self induced after eating.
Alcohol, much the same as migraine.
Nobody would stick their fingers down their throat unless they were neurotic and trying to prove something as it's not the norm in a healthy person. JB was/is probably not a sickly person and stopped himself from throwing up, but as I said his stomach would have been empty anyway and he'd just have wretched.
-
Migraines will invariably bring involuntary heaving/vomiting.
Eating disorders are an entirely different condition and self induced after eating.
Alcohol, much the same as migraine.
Nobody would stick their fingers down their throat unless they were neurotic and trying to prove something as it's not the norm in a healthy person. JB was/is probably not a sickly person and stopped himself from throwing up, but as I said his stomach would have been empty anyway and he'd just have wretched.
REALLY? Lookout, in the days when I suffered them, I regularly put my fingers down my throat to relieve migraine, and as it was something recommended by a fellow sufferer, I guess I'm not alone.
-
He'd been given a whisky by Dr Craig.
That wouldn't have had any effect than perhaps make him heave if it wasn't JB's tipple.
-
That’s stating the obvious . There is no evidence to suggest he was faking vomiting.
theres no evidence to say he vomited either
-
I just read. The statements I don’t think it was referring to the accusation it was self induced .
i try and read but my memory is not as good as yours
-
REALLY? Lookout, in the days when I suffered them, I regularly put my fingers down my throat to relieve migraine, and as it was something recommended by a fellow sufferer, I guess I'm not alone.
I just had a good heave-ho and that would usually guarantee a migraine to go, though I'd feel as though I'd been through the mangle for a couple of days, before another started up.
-
To wretch/vomit is an involuntary act brought on/induced by shock or a trauma. There's usually no need to " stick fingers down throats ". When people are given bad news it's not unusual for this to happen and a person can be sick on the spot.
There is if you're acting.
-
The problem here is empathy, or more correctly, LACK of it. You, and others, are SO certain how you'd have felt and sure of what you'd have done. The truth is, you only THINK you know. Unless you -or I- were any of those who played a part in this tragedy, and had their history, we haven't a clue.
The same argument goes for those who say they would have called 999 or gone straight to the farm, or whatever.
-
I just read. The statements I don’t think it was referring to the accusation it was self induced .
Just read Jones's testimony - no one actually saw him being sick "he appeared to be being sick, he put he body forwards as if he was trying to be sick' - he was 100 yards away with his back toward Jones and Craig.
-
theres no evidence to say he vomited either
He appeared to be vomiting according to police statements .
-
He appeared to be vomiting according to police statements .
'Appeared' - no one saw him actually being sick.
-
Does it matter?
-
Just read Jones's testimony - no one actually saw him being sick "he appeared to be being sick, he put he body forwards as if he was trying to be sick' - he was 100 yards away with his back toward Jones and Craig.
Oh another of his plans to deceive then that backfired because he was not close enough .
Should have tried harder.
-
'Appeared' - no one saw him actually being sick.
thanks caroline,i was just about to post the same
-
Oh another of his plans to deceive then that backfired because he was not close enough .
Should have tried harder.
He wasn't close enough for a reason. Why walk 100 yards away? :-\ If you need to be sick, you need to be sick.
-
Does it matter?
Not really . Just a general case of some people are excused because they are in shock and when others show the same signs they are immediately faking it . Par for the course really .
-
Oh another of his plans to deceive then that backfired because he was not close enough .
Should have tried harder.
i agree should have tried harder,theres a few things he wishes he should have done and should not have done.hindsight is a wonderful thing
-
Not really . Just a general case of some people are excused because they are in shock and when others show the same signs they are immediately faking it . Par for the course really .
Oh I see. I don't think it's relevant. Perhaps he felt sick, perhaps he felt a bit faint, perhaps he was pretending. Nobody knows.
-
Oh another of his plans to deceive then that backfired because he was not close enough .
Should have tried harder.
Who, given the circumstances, would have suspected fakery?
-
SJ had also said that JB was " heard laughing " but in actual fact it could well have been a choked/stifled sob as it was heard outside the room and not inside where it would have been visible.
Of course it can be turned into a laugh if it suited the agenda at the time.
-
Who, given the circumstances, would have suspected fakery?
Well apparently now it’s all crystal clear that everything he did was contrived ridiculous and fake and has no logic whatsoever . he led the police operation and was within a few days the greatest actor ever and next the worst . As it’s all so obvious I am shocked those experienced police men did not spot it immediately .
And still no answer why as a guilty man he did not just wait and call 999 . Rather than looking like an idiot .
-
I wonder how straight-forward it would have been had he rang 999.? That would have been taken as " part of his plan ", surely ? He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't really.
-
SJ had also said that JB was " heard laughing " but in actual fact it could well have been a choked/stifled sob as it was heard outside the room and not inside where it would have been visible.
Of course it can be turned into a laugh if it suited the agenda at the time.
good point lookout ,he may have got that wrong especially if had been on the bottle
-
Well apparently now it’s all crystal clear that everything he did was contrived ridiculous and fake and has no logic whatsoever . he led the police operation and was within a few days the greatest actor ever and next the worst . As it’s all so obvious I am shocked those experienced police men did not spot it immediately .
And still no answer why as a guilty man he did not just wait and call 999 . Rather than looking like an idiot .
As you've spent most of this thread repeating the same question, and STILL claim impartiality, perhaps it's time you came up with something as opposed to ridiculing what others say?
-
good point lookout ,he may have got that wrong especially if had been on the bottle
At that time of the morning!!! Oh Sami!!!!
-
At that time of the morning!!! Oh Sami!!!!
he may have needed one jane,after listening to jb,s bullshit :)) :))
-
As you've spent most of this thread repeating the same question, and STILL claim impartiality, perhaps it's time you came up with something as opposed to ridiculing what others say?
The other side to the argument is already known . Everyone says he must be guilty because he did not call 999 and rush to the farm . It is implicated it shows his guilt. So why would I repeat that ?
And I am perfectly entitled to look at it from the other angle . And I am saying that assuming he IS guilty why did he get the call so wrong or if it was planned that way then why ?
I have also said I am leaning towards innocent I have never ever hidden that . But still asking questions.
-
The other side to the argument is already known . Everyone says he must be guilty because he did not call 999 and rush to the farm . It is implicated it shows his guilt. So why would I repeat that ?
And I am perfectly entitled to look at it from the other angle . And I am saying that assuming he IS guilty why did he get the call so wrong or if it was planned that way then why ?
I have also said I am leaning towards innocent I have never ever hidden that . But still asking questions.
I can't speak for others. There isn't one SINGLE factor which says guilt to me. It's an amalgam of which his failure to dial 999 is just a part. We have no idea what time the murders occurred so it's reasonable to assume that he may have wanted to buy some time to put space between the killing and the finding before calling for assistance. His behaviours, later, can do no other than raise suspicion.
-
If he wanted to buy time he could have just called half an hour later he had already set the crime scene .
-
He could have said nothing at all and just turned up for work ??
-
If he wanted to buy time he could have just called half an hour later he had already set the crime scene .
But whilst you claim "he could have" you're not Jeremy. This is you giving him permission so this is from your perspective.
-
He could have said nothing at all and just turned up for work ??
You're trying to reorganize it for him. He'd have done what he'd planned to do. It can't not have shaken him having to shoot Sheila twice. That he may have have needed some breathing space isn't unreasonable.
-
Well apparently now it’s all crystal clear that everything he did was contrived ridiculous and fake and has no logic whatsoever . he led the police operation and was within a few days the greatest actor ever and next the worst . As it’s all so obvious I am shocked those experienced police men did not spot it immediately .
And still no answer why as a guilty man he did not just wait and call 999 . Rather than looking like an idiot .
Most of his actions must have been contrived, some may have been the result of circumstances. I have seen many people defend the fact that he didn't call 999 but now you're saying that there is no logic?
You may not have an answer you like, but it has been answered today and on previous occasions. I never said he was a good actor - it's what alerted Jones to the idea that he was the guilty party and Stan Jones did spot it immediately.
-
The other side to the argument is already known . Everyone says he must be guilty because he did not call 999 and rush to the farm . It is implicated it shows his guilt. So why would I repeat that ?
And I am perfectly entitled to look at it from the other angle . And I am saying that assuming he IS guilty why did he get the call so wrong or if it was planned that way then why ?
I have also said I am leaning towards innocent I have never ever hidden that . But still asking questions.
No Jan, posters don’t think he’s guilty because of the 999 call, if it was based on that and that alone he wouldn’t have been convicted, it just looks suspicious from a guilty standpoint that’s all. Bamber's actions and Bamber's reasons we will never know, like Maggie said everything can cancel each argument out, but on a item like this you can only think how you would react given the same scenarios.
I can honestly say, if my Father rang and asked me to get over, I would without hesitation dash straight there, I wouldn’t ring my girlfriend and get her out bed, what advice could she give me, I wouldn’t ring police because if my Dad thought it series he would have, so why do I need to ring police, he’s not asked me to ring police.
-
No Jan, posters don’t think he’s guilty because of the 999 call, if it was based on that and that alone he wouldn’t have been convicted, it just looks suspicious from a guilty standpoint that’s all. Bamber's actions and Bamber's reasons we will never know, like Maggie said everything can cancel each argument out, but on a item like this you can only think how you would react given the same scenarios.
I can honestly say, if my Father rang and asked me to get over, I would without hesitation dash straight there, I wouldn’t ring my girlfriend and get her out bed, what advice could she give me, I wouldn’t ring police because if my Dad thought it series he would have, so why do I need to ring police, he’s not asked me to ring police.
I think my point is he would have just planned the call more carefully if it was intended as his alibi and I can’t see any reason why he did not .
If he was innocent and half asleep when he took the call and did not know what to do then his actions were obviously not the best but only he can say what his thought process was . We don’t all act the same in a crisis .
But if the call and the phoning the police were his alibi I think he definitely would not have made a mess of it . IMO of course .
-
I think my point is he would have just planned the call more carefully if it was intended as his alibi and I can’t see any reason why he did not .
If he was innocent and half asleep when he took the call and did not know what to do then his actions were obviously not the best but only he can say what his thought process was . We don’t all act the same in a crisis .
But if the call and the phoning the police were his alibi I think he definitely would not have made a mess of it . IMO of course .
I part agree Jan, but the best planning in the world can trick you into feeling safe? It always doesn’t go to plan Jan, I admire your knowledge about the case and admit there are flaws with the case, but guilt always makes you unable to think straight, the truth is straight down the line and doesn’t deviate.
-
I think my point is he would have just planned the call more carefully if it was intended as his alibi and I can’t see any reason why he did not .
If he was innocent and half asleep when he took the call and did not know what to do then his actions were obviously not the best but only he can say what his thought process was . We don’t all act the same in a crisis .
But if the call and the phoning the police were his alibi I think he definitely would not have made a mess of it . IMO of course .
You obviously don't believe the call to have been well planned. Jeremy must have believed it had been.
I believe he treated the whole procedure like the first cold read of a production before the actors have had time to develop their character's emotions. This meant, at times, he had to backtrack to get it right, ie, he wasn't aware the situation was serious/his father had sounded terrified, he didn't think calling 999 would get police there any faster/berating them for keeping him waiting.
-
I part agree Jan, but the best planning in the world can trick you into feeling safe? It always doesn’t go to plan Jan, I admire your knowledge about the case and admit there are flaws with the case, but guilt always makes you unable to think straight, the truth is straight down the line and doesn’t deviate.
thats nicely put rj
-
thats nicely put rj
Thanks Sami, it’s the new me, RJ is reformed 😇
-
I part agree Jan, but the best planning in the world can trick you into feeling safe? It always doesn’t go to plan Jan, I admire your knowledge about the case and admit there are flaws with the case, but guilt always makes you unable to think straight, the truth is straight down the line and doesn’t deviate.
Sorry but I just have to say that that make Julie the biggest liar then . Her story not only completely changed but had several versions .
No straight down the line there I am afraid .
-
I think my point is he would have just planned the call more carefully if it was intended as his alibi and I can’t see any reason why he did not .
If he was innocent and half asleep when he took the call and did not know what to do then his actions were obviously not the best but only he can say what his thought process was . We don’t all act the same in a crisis .
But if the call and the phoning the police were his alibi I think he definitely would not have made a mess of it . IMO of course .
So you think the call is odd and he made a mess of it? Same here. He obviously didn't think it was a mess and perhaps the planning and the execution were two very different things, unfortunately for him, he couldn't press stop and rewind.
-
So you think the call is odd and he made a mess of it? Same here. He obviously didn't think it was a mess and perhaps the planning and the execution were two very different things, unfortunately for him, he couldn't press stop and rewind.
Yes depends which way you look at it . At least we both agree on that .
Unusual to successfully complete everything else and then fall at the last hurdle .
-
Sorry but I just have to say that that make Julie the biggest liar then . Her story not only completely changed but had several versions .
No straight down the line there I am afraid .
Im not a Julie supporter Jan, she didn’t conduct herself the way I would expect my daughter to behave, Julie does lie yes, most women would like their men to be kind, empathic, understanding, and respectful. But and ( please don’t take offence anyone) some are attracted and defend the rogue type, till the shit hits the pan.
-
Im not a Julie supporter Jan, she didn’t conduct herself the way I would expect my daughter to behave, Julie does lie yes, most women would like their men to be kind, empathic, understanding, and respectful. But and ( please don’t take offence anyone) some are attracted and defend the rogue type, till the shit hits the pan.
your in top form tonight rj,another excellent post
-
your in top form tonight rj,another excellent post
Thanks Sami, it’s the new me, cool calm and Collective The three C’s
-
Thanks Sami, it’s the new me, cool calm and Collective The three C’s
Although we do not agree about the case overall RJ, you talk a lot of sense generally. You do have a real insight.
-
Although we do not agree about the case overall RJ, you talk a lot of sense generally. You do have a real insight.
I had a good tutor, now let me think NGB 👍. I think there’s some excellent posters NGB and I put myself below many, but in practical terms I’m up there. I don’t study from hatred, I study from experience if that makes sense. I’m a practical man.
-
I had a good tutor, now let me think NGB 👍. I think there’s some excellent posters NGB and I put myself below many, but in practical terms I’m up there. I don’t study from hatred, I study from experience if that makes sense. I’m a practical man.
You are RJ. You deserve a lot of respect.
-
Yes depends which way you look at it . At least we both agree on that .
Unusual to successfully complete everything else and then fall at the last hurdle .
What was he successful in completing?
-
Im not a Julie supporter Jan, she didn’t conduct herself the way I would expect my daughter to behave, Julie does lie yes, most women would like their men to be kind, empathic, understanding, and respectful. But and ( please don’t take offence anyone) some are attracted and defend the rogue type, till the shit hits the pan.
I can’t believe your post, it’s just like Prince Andrew describing his paedophile mates behaviour as unbecoming
You wouldn’t expect your daughter to behave that way??? The women is a monster whichever way you look at her
There is no excuse, not one. Either she completely stitched Jeremy up or she offered to view the bodies of two young boys and three adults (remind me how many bullets were in the children’s heads) and then hopped into bed with the person responsible and then rubbed Colin’s nose in it by arranging the NOTW deal.
No shame. No guilt nothing
Perhaps I have lived in a sheltered world but I didn’t know such wicked people existed and the other alternative is she has put an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life out of pure blind jealousy
You are making out on here as if Jeremy’s behaviour was disgusting yet he was just like any young man of his age just out having a good time with lots of girls
-
Im not a Julie supporter Jan, she didn’t conduct herself the way I would expect my daughter to behave, Julie does lie yes, most women would like their men to be kind, empathic, understanding, and respectful. But and ( please don’t take offence anyone) some are attracted and defend the rogue type, till the shit hits the pan.
Oh yes I know someone like that .
-
I can’t believe your post, it’s just like Prince Andrew describing his paedophile mates behaviour as unbecoming
You wouldn’t expect your daughter to behave that way??? The women is a monster whichever way you look at her
There is no excuse, not one. Either she completely stitched Jeremy up or she offered to view the bodies of two young boys and three adults (remind me how many bullets were in the children’s heads) and then hopped into bed with the person responsible and then rubbed Colin’s nose in it by arranging the NOTW deal.
No shame. No guilt nothing
Perhaps I have lived in a sheltered world but I didn’t know such wicked people existed and the other alternative is she has put an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life out of pure blind jealousy
You are making out on here as if Jeremy’s behaviour was disgusting yet he was just like any young man of his age just out having a good time with lots of girls
iam sure we have all been in love its a wonderful thing ,it can make one do all sorts of things others might mind gross
-
I can’t believe your post, it’s just like Prince Andrew describing his paedophile mates behaviour as unbecoming
You wouldn’t expect your daughter to behave that way??? The women is a monster whichever way you look at her
There is no excuse, not one. Either she completely stitched Jeremy up or she offered to view the bodies of two young boys and three adults (remind me how many bullets were in the children’s heads) and then hopped into bed with the person responsible and then rubbed Colin’s nose in it by arranging the NOTW deal.
No shame. No guilt nothing
Perhaps I have lived in a sheltered world but I didn’t know such wicked people existed and the other alternative is she has put an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life out of pure blind jealousy
You are making out on here as if Jeremy’s behaviour was disgusting yet he was just like any young man of his age just out having a good time with lots of girls
I agree with you that whatever your view on the case JM comes across as dreadful. I do not hold back in my total condemnation of her. This is my continuing battle with some members here, particularly Steve_UK, but also to an extent Jane and even Caroline, whom I respect a lot even though I disagree with her on some aspects of the case (but agree more than you might realise on others). However RJ has been fairly balanced in relation to JM. He is certainly not a supporter of her. He has a view on JB based upon people he knows and although I do not share his view I recognise that it is sincerely held and fairly argued. I think sensible debate is the answer here, particularly if we hope to persuade people of our view.
-
Thanks Sami, it’s the new me, cool calm and Collective The three C’s
As long as it’s not CBS
Calm before storm.
-
I agree with you that whatever your view on the case JM comes across as dreadful. I do not hold back in my total condemnation of her. This is my continuing battle with some members here, particularly Steve_UK, but also to an extent Jane and even Caroline, whom I respect a lot even though I disagree with her on some aspects of the case (but agree more than you might realise on others). However RJ has been fairly balanced in relation to JM. He is certainly not a supporter of her. He has a view on JB based upon people he knows and although I do not share his view I recognise that it is sincerely held and fairly argued. I think sensible debate is the answer here, particularly if we hope to persuade people of our view.
Thanks NGB, I had to think what and how to put it so not to offend, Ive no time for Julie in how she behaved, I think to a certain degree she was part of it, along with A N Other. I do think with the advances in DNA and police techniques she wouldn’t be needed if the crime was committed recently and she would have been charged more than likely, but back then, with the case finally balanced she became a necessity to tip the scales.
-
As long as it’s not CBS
Calm before storm.
🙈🙈🙈. I’m going off air till the bloody series has finished 😂😂😂
-
we must remember she did not plan or commit the actual murders,and its common for criminals to turn queens evidence,against their friends,its happened to steel n whomes,range rover murders.as she said she didnt think anyone would believe her
-
I agree with you that whatever your view on the case JM comes across as dreadful. I do not hold back in my total condemnation of her. This is my continuing battle with some members here, particularly Steve_UK, but also to an extent Jane and even Caroline, whom I respect a lot even though I disagree with her on some aspects of the case (but agree more than you might realise on others). However RJ has been fairly balanced in relation to JM. He is certainly not a supporter of her. He has a view on JB based upon people he knows and although I do not share his view I recognise that it is sincerely held and fairly argued. I think sensible debate is the answer here, particularly if we hope to persuade people of our view.
I suppose if you believe this is a miscarriage of justice case then what she has done is unthinkable but I still find it impossible to believe anyone takes her word for any of it, yet people on here believe her for no reason at at. My sticking point has always been as know is the visit to the mortuary. I will never accept the reason as identifying the twins. If you are training to be a teacher the vision of two children with holes in their heads would never leave you.
To see your boyfriends handiwork would not be possible
-
iam sure we have all been in love its a wonderful thing ,it can make one do all sorts of things others might mind gross
Spot on Sami, you have a great way with describing, it’s totally true, it’s an unsettling idea for lots of people, love makes you do loads of stupid things, I once bought a bunch of flowers, “can you believe it” 😂😂😂
-
I suppose if you believe this is a miscarriage of justice case then what she has done is unthinkable but I still find it impossible to believe anyone takes her word for any of it, yet people on here believe her for no reason at at. My sticking point has always been as know is the visit to the mortuary. I will never accept the reason as identifying the twins. If you are training to be a teacher the vision of two children with holes in their heads would never leave you.
To see your boyfriends handiwork would not be possible
the wounds were to the head not the face ,would the mortuary attendant not cover up the wounds to the head with bandages but leave the faces visible.i think he might
-
Spot on Sami, you have a great way with describing, it’s totally true, it’s an unsettling idea for lots of people, love makes you do loads of stupid things, I once bought a bunch of flowers, “can you believe it” 😂😂😂
See you have just made light of her involvement again. RJ you have no idea in statements or in interviews if she is lying or telling the truth do you.
-
I suppose if you believe this is a miscarriage of justice case then what she has done is unthinkable but I still find it impossible to believe anyone takes her word for any of it, yet people on here believe her for no reason at at. My sticking point has always been as know is the visit to the mortuary. I will never accept the reason as identifying the twins. If you are training to be a teacher the vision of two children with holes in their heads would never leave you.
To see your boyfriends handiwork would not be possible
To be honest Jackie, I think you could become a better poster if you lost some of your hatred, it’s not all about JM that Bamber got convicted, I think the net was closing in and she became part of it, she took the flack and spotlight away from the shoddy police work, she was the catch up for the lost ground and got protected in return.
-
See you have just made light of her involvement again. RJ you have no idea in statements or in interviews if she is lying or telling the truth do you.
Lying for most in her first interview, possibly 80% telling the truth in the second, playing down her involvement, I’m not a lawyer or a judge I’m a poster with an interest that’s all. Julie is a twat Jackie does that make you feel better.
-
To be honest Jackie, I think you could become a better poster if you lost some of your hatred, it’s not all about JM that Bamber got convicted, I think the net was closing in and she became part of it, she took the flack and spotlight away from the shoddy police work, she was the catch up for the lost ground and got protected in return.
In those days the police did have licence to do whatever they could to get their man . It was a different era .
But it does not mean they are above the law now .
-
I agree with you that whatever your view on the case JM comes across as dreadful. I do not hold back in my total condemnation of her. This is my continuing battle with some members here, particularly Steve_UK, but also to an extent Jane and even Caroline, whom I respect a lot even though I disagree with her on some aspects of the case (but agree more than you might realise on others). However RJ has been fairly balanced in relation to JM. He is certainly not a supporter of her. He has a view on JB based upon people he knows and although I do not share his view I recognise that it is sincerely held and fairly argued. I think sensible debate is the answer here, particularly if we hope to persuade people of our view.
Thanks NGB - likewise! :)
-
In those days the police did have licence to do whatever they could to get their man . It was a different era .
But it does not mean they are above the law now .
Never said it does Jan, I think now they do try (not everyone) to cross all the “Ts”:so to speak, they are under more scrutiny than before, it’s became harder for a DC to get a case accepted by the CPS, so yes times have changed along with advances in DNA, but everything is not always against the accused, the victim is sometimes hard done by, you talk of evidence being withheld from the defence I bet there is more withheld from the Jury that would support the victim. I’m not talking about the Bamber case Jan, I’m talking cases overall.
-
Im not a Julie supporter Jan, she didn’t conduct herself the way I would expect my daughter to behave, Julie does lie yes, most women would like their men to be kind, empathic, understanding, and respectful. But and ( please don’t take offence anyone) some are attracted and defend the rogue type, till the shit hits the pan.
A very balanced and insightful post, RJ.
-
I agree with you that whatever your view on the case JM comes across as dreadful. I do not hold back in my total condemnation of her. This is my continuing battle with some members here, particularly Steve_UK, but also to an extent Jane and even Caroline, whom I respect a lot even though I disagree with her on some aspects of the case (but agree more than you might realise on others). However RJ has been fairly balanced in relation to JM. He is certainly not a supporter of her. He has a view on JB based upon people he knows and although I do not share his view I recognise that it is sincerely held and fairly argued. I think sensible debate is the answer here, particularly if we hope to persuade people of our view.
I'm not certain why you should feel the need to battle with me, NGB. I've never concealed my dislike of Julie going back to when I thought Jeremy was innocent. However, I'll admit my dislike of her then may, compared to now, have an uncomfortable resemblance to how Jeremy's 'would be' sees her now. Now, MY view of her is more balanced. I've learned something of her background from someone who knew her family. I've said, on countless occasions, that I find her behaviour appalling. I've said that I'd have been ashamed to have called her my daughter. I'm not certain what more I could say to get across that I don't support her. However, in a court of law -and despite some treating it that way, this forum isn't- everything which isn't white, is black. REAL life isn't like that. None of us are more than products of our upbringings and the standards we've witnessed and experienced -if we see our care-givers "getting away with it" it stands to reason we'll do the same- it's understandable when we're children. Children aren't responsible. It doesn't excuse those behaviours, as adults, we fail to take responsibility for but it helps to explain.
What she did was wrong, almost beyond belief, BUT -and in the legal world of black or white it really doesn't matter what was the driving force behind it- she came good and did the right thing. That the decision was taken not to prosecute her ISN'T her fault, but she may have paid for it since. I wonder, for how long she's expected to pay? How long is this sick vendetta against her going to last? It seems to me that if her "crimes" are measured as being on a par with Jeremy's, the "crimes" of those -some of whom appear to be coming from a position of jealousy- who actively seek to destroy her life and family, are every bit as bad as those they accuse her of.
-
A very balanced and insightful post, RJ.
Thanks Jane, I do try 🙈
I think Bamber was in and out of love with Julie, the times he was in love with her she probably painted pictures in her mind of their future together, she probably loved to hear his stories of what he was going to give her and their future together, this then became her window of opportunity, so long as she could distance herself from the eventuality, in her mind it made it easier for her.
-
I suppose if you believe this is a miscarriage of justice case then what she has done is unthinkable but I still find it impossible to believe anyone takes her word for any of it, yet people on here believe her for no reason at at. My sticking point has always been as know is the visit to the mortuary. I will never accept the reason as identifying the twins. If you are training to be a teacher the vision of two children with holes in their heads would never leave you.
To see your boyfriends handiwork would not be possible
Why might that be, Jackie? Whose word is more likely to contain truth? Yours, or hers? How altruistic is your desire for revenge? You deny any feelings for Jeremy but do little to conceal them when you speak of him.
You labour the identification point. Don't you think others were given the chance? Are you SO consumed with hatred for Julie that you believe she somehow engineered it. Are you saying she refused to let anyone else do it? You've named those, who, in your opinion, would have been more suitable. How do you know they were? If they were unable to tell the boys apart, it was hardly Julie's fault. For whatever reason, the offer from one other person was rejected -I suspect it came down to the fact that Julie was there and Heather wasn't. THAT wasn't Julie's fault either.
-
Thanks Jane, I do try 🙈
I think Bamber was in and out of love with Julie, the times he was in love with her she probably painted pictures in her mind of their future together, she probably loved to hear his stories of what he was going to give her and their future together, this then became her window of opportunity, so long as she could distance herself from the eventuality, in her mind it made it easier for her.
I couldn't have said it better, RJ! They were any young couple, tied together in love and lust, with lots of talk about a together future to add fuel to it. It may well have been all fantasy on her part until the moment it became real.
-
I'm not certain why you should feel the need to battle with me, NGB. I've never concealed my dislike of Julie going back to when I thought Jeremy was innocent. However, I'll admit my dislike of her then may, compared to now, have an uncomfortable resemblance to how Jeremy's 'would be' sees her now. Now, MY view of her is more balanced. I've learned something of her background from someone who knew her family. I've said, on countless occasions, that I find her behaviour appalling. I've said that I'd have been ashamed to have called her my daughter. I'm not certain what more I could say to get across that I don't support her. However, in a court of law -and despite some treating it that way, this forum isn't- everything which isn't white, is black. REAL life isn't like that. None of us are more than products of our upbringings and the standards we've witnessed and experienced -if we see our care-givers "getting away with it" it stands to reason we'll do the same- it's understandable when we're children. Children aren't responsible. It doesn't excuse those behaviours, as adults, we fail to take responsibility for but it helps to explain.
What she did was wrong, almost beyond belief, BUT -and in the legal world of black or white it really doesn't matter what was the driving force behind it- she came good and did the right thing. That the decision was taken not to prosecute her ISN'T her fault, but she may have paid for it since. I wonder, for how long she's expected to pay? How long is this sick vendetta against her going to last? It seems to me that if her "crimes" are measured as being on a par with Jeremy's, the "crimes" of those -some of whom appear to be coming from a position of jealousy- who actively seek to destroy her life and family, are every bit as bad as those they accuse her of.
I love reading your posts Jane, such warmth and understanding of the subject being painted and the picture your seeing, I think NGB respects you though Jane, although he doesn’t see eye to eye, he values your views and forum input. 👍👍👍
-
I couldn't have said it better, RJ! They were any young couple, tied together in love and lust, with lots of talk about a together future to add fuel to it. It may well have been all fantasy on her part until the moment it became real.
Ive had a good tutor over the years 👍
-
I love reading your posts Jane, such warmth and understanding of the subject being painted and the picture your seeing, I think NGB respects you though Jane, although he doesn’t see eye to eye, he values your views and forum input. 👍👍👍
:-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
I agree with you that whatever your view on the case JM comes across as dreadful. I do not hold back in my total condemnation of her. This is my continuing battle with some members here, particularly Steve_UK, but also to an extent Jane and even Caroline, whom I respect a lot even though I disagree with her on some aspects of the case (but agree more than you might realise on others). However RJ has been fairly balanced in relation to JM. He is certainly not a supporter of her. He has a view on JB based upon people he knows and although I do not share his view I recognise that it is sincerely held and fairly argued. I think sensible debate is the answer here, particularly if we hope to persuade people of our view.
With regard to the comment above it’s entirely up to you who you respect but previously your judgement seems to have let you down very badly especially over Mat the troll. I have NEVER had a public apology from you regarding being accused of giving out your personal details on clearly a fake account which you eventually and only recently accepted in a pm. Why have you never apologised personally or openly on an open forum after letting forum members believe I had done something so nasty.
It’s obvious I am not highly regarded as a forum member by yourself yet I am regarded highly enough by people trying to keep Jeremy in prison to make up false accounts to try to get me banned.
Who else suffers that kind of behaviour?
I can’t even get my head around it and yet you let Jane and Caroline’s friend continue to post on the forum.
I guess we both have a different level of how we choose to respect people. You obviously don’t think Caroline and Jane are rude to innocent posters like Kaldin and Jan in the hope they will leave the forum. You obviously don’t think people gang up on me on the forum. Are you blind.
You respect these people
Nobody knows for sure if Jeremy is innocent or guilty and I am only interested in the facts.
Caroline can post a million times on the forum about the phone calls and it’s a complete waste of time as there is NO proof either way.
Mugfords statements can be ignored as there is not a person alive who can pull of lying and deception better than her
At least you have made it clear what type of posters you are looking to encourage on the forum
Let’s see how quickly this post gets removed
-
With regard to the comment above it’s entirely up to you who you respect but previously your judgement seems to have let you down very badly especially over Mat the troll. I have NEVER had a public apology from you regarding being accused of giving out your personal details on clearly a fake account which you eventually and only recently accepted in a pm. Why have you never apologised personally or openly on an open forum after letting forum members believe I had done something so nasty.
It’s obvious I am not highly regarded as a forum member by yourself yet I am regarded highly enough by people trying to keep Jeremy in prison to make up false accounts to try to get me banned.
Who else suffers that kind of behaviour?
I can’t even get my head around it and yet you let Jane and Caroline’s friend continue to post on the forum.
I guess we both have a different level of how we choose to respect people. You obviously don’t think Caroline and Jane are rude to innocent posters like Kaldin and Jan in the hope they will leave the forum. You obviously don’t think people gang up on me on the forum. Are you blind.
You respect these people
Nobody knows for sure if Jeremy is innocent or guilty and I am only interested in the facts.
Caroline can post a million times on the forum about the phone calls and it’s a complete waste of time as there is NO proof either way.
Mugfords statements can be ignored as there is not a person alive who can pull of lying and deception better than her
At least you have made it clear what type of posters you are looking to encourage on the forum
Let’s see how quickly this post gets removed
I hope the post stays, if posters had doubts about your sanity I don’t think they will be in doubt now 😂😂😂. NGB is what this forum is all about, opinions and debate that’s all. I had no argument with Kaldin, he gave as good as he got, but he finds my choice of words not to taste, it’s best we don’t interact to save any more arguments.
-
With regard to the comment above it’s entirely up to you who you respect but previously your judgement seems to have let you down very badly especially over Mat the troll. I have NEVER had a public apology from you regarding being accused of giving out your personal details on clearly a fake account which you eventually and only recently accepted in a pm. Why have you never apologised personally or openly on an open forum after letting forum members believe I had done something so nasty.
It’s obvious I am not highly regarded as a forum member by yourself yet I am regarded highly enough by people trying to keep Jeremy in prison to make up false accounts to try to get me banned.
Who else suffers that kind of behaviour?
I can’t even get my head around it and yet you let Jane and Caroline’s friend continue to post on the forum.
I guess we both have a different level of how we choose to respect people. You obviously don’t think Caroline and Jane are rude to innocent posters like Kaldin and Jan in the hope they will leave the forum. You obviously don’t think people gang up on me on the forum. Are you blind.
You respect these people
Nobody knows for sure if Jeremy is innocent or guilty and I am only interested in the facts.
Caroline can post a million times on the forum about the phone calls and it’s a complete waste of time as there is NO proof either way.
Mugfords statements can be ignored as there is not a person alive who can pull of lying and deception better than her
At least you have made it clear what type of posters you are looking to encourage on the forum
Let’s see how quickly this post gets removed
Jackie, when it comes to rudeness, I hail you. You have it down to a fine art. You wear the crown. It may have escaped your notice, despite Sami pointing it out to you, that we had a whole evening of good debate until you came on line and wrecked it.
It's your own behaviours which have caused you to be banned, deservedly, and they go back a long time before I joined. Holding grudges is a particularly unattractive trait along with digging out old posts to score points. Worse is the "poor ME" attitude which colours the above post. I have NO desire to be rude but I'll defend myself against it. I, nor others, will simply sit back and allow your insults. You complain that you're "ganged up on" yet seem to think you have a perfect right to encourage others to gang up on the poor soul you pick out as your latest victim. You are the only person who can do anything to change the status in which you feel yourself to be held. It's not down to others to change their opinions of you until you give them reason to do so.
-
I’m going to personally PM NGB to offer my complete support even though we differ in debate, he is the last person who should be subjected to this vile attack, I hope other posters do the same please. Thank you
-
I’m going to personally PM NGB to offer my complete support even though we differ in debate, he is the last person who should be subjected to this vile attack, I hope other posters do the same please. Thank you
He has my FULL support in this regard, RJ. He's supported Jackie above and beyond the call of duty and she repays him with this hateful and unwarranted post whinging about how badly she feels he's treated her.
-
He has my FULL support in this regard, RJ. He's supported Jackie above and beyond the call of duty and she repays him with this hateful and unwarranted post whinging about how badly she feels he's treated her.
Im sometimes ashamed to be on the same forum as her Jane. I’ve PM NGB I suggest EVERYONE does the same.
-
He has my FULL support in this regard, RJ. He's supported Jackie above and beyond the call of duty and she repays him with this hateful and unwarranted post whinging about how badly she feels he's treated her.
Don’t worry I have sent him the same. So he has your full support for me being falsely accused of something by him and him not acknowledging he was completely wrong and being completely fooled by a troll.
He obviously thinks that was ok
What it’s like to be in Jeremy’s shoes, I know exactly
So for the record are you saying Neil didn’t accuse me?
Are you saying Mat isn’t a troll?
Are you saying it wasn’t any of your friends who set up a false account to get me banned because of all the influential people I got involved in the case?
Are you saying I shouldn’t have had an apology?
Please spell it out to me ?
-
I hope the post stays, if posters had doubts about your sanity I don’t think they will be in doubt now 😂😂😂. NGB is what this forum is all about, opinions and debate that’s all. I had no argument with Kaldin, he gave as good as he got, but he finds my choice of words not to taste, it’s best we don’t interact to save any more arguments.
No your wrong you were rude and Kaldin complained about ganging up.
Kaldin was here before me, before you and before Caroline and he has always been a brilliant poster
When I posted then we had brilliant debates and we did not allow trolls like Mat on the forum
-
No your wrong you were rude and Kaldin complained about ganging up.
Kaldin was here before me, before you and before Caroline and he has always been a brilliant poster
When I posted then we had brilliant debates and we did not allow trolls like Mat on the forum
Ive been here since 2010, when it started joining early 2011 I think, anyway that has nothing to do with it, I’m not getting into your very sick and sad arguments, it’s the new me, RJ Reformed 😇😇
-
Hello RJ
maybe you can tell the forum why you have totally ignored me for well over a year when we were best friends the only reason I can think of was I disagreed strongly with a post of yours. You referred to dirt has flown in when I came back a couple of days ago wonder what you meant by that but I see the post has now been changed. I was very hurt by your behaviour to me and I did apologise if I offended you. In her defence Jackie has never ignored or been nasty to me.
-
Ive been here since 2010, when it started joining early 2011 I think, anyway that has nothing to do with it, I’m not getting into your very sick and sad arguments, it’s the new me, RJ Reformed 😇😇
So be falsely accused (like Jeremy) of something horrendous is sick and sad
There you go
-
Hello RJ
maybe you can tell the forum why you have totally ignored me for well over a year when we were best friends the only reason I can think of was I disagreed strongly with a post of yours. You referred to dirt has flown in when I came back a couple of days ago wonder what you meant by that but I see the post has now been changed. I was very hurt by your behaviour to me and I did apologise if I offended you. In her defence Jackie has never ignored or been nasty to me.
So you referred to Susan as the dirt has flown back in ??
You can’t really take that back can you
What did she ever do to deserve that
-
Jackie he did not name me but it was when I came back he must have realised he was out of order so he changed the post I did not deserve that and he made me feel I should not have come back and I wish I had stayed away Reference was made to Parrots I was agreeing with Kaldin as I could not remember what had happened terrible
-
The only major thing aledged non disclosed documents may show, is proof of the industrial frame. But surely these documents would have been destroyed.
One document may question one piece of evidence. That would not prove innocence as there is so much other circumstantial and forensic evidence. However it may mean Bamber can go for a technicality.
It is a good idea to claim non disclosure as it may get sympathy from the general public.
-
Jackie he did not name me but it was when I came back he must have realised he was out of order so he changed the post I did not deserve that and he made me feel I should not have come back and I wish I had stayed away Reference was made to Parrots I was agreeing with Kaldin as I could not remember what had happened terrible
A leopard never changes his spots
I wonder what an earth you could have done to provoke horrendous attack???
-
Jackie he did not name me but it was when I came back he must have realised he was out of order so he changed the post I did not deserve that and he made me feel I should not have come back and I wish I had stayed away Reference was made to Parrots I was agreeing with Kaldin as I could not remember what had happened terrible
SUSAN youve got it wrong,it wasnt meant for you i can assure of that %100 because rj messaged me to say who that post was aimed at,and i totally agreed with him :)
-
So you referred to Susan as the dirt has flown back in ??
You can’t really take that back can you
What did she ever do to deserve that
stop shit stirring,youve done worse on several occasions
-
stop shit stirring,youve done worse on several occasions
I am agreeing with Susan it’s unacceptable behaviour
Since when did you start worrying about my ‘blood pressure’ Sami’ ???
-
Don’t worry I have sent him the same. So he has your full support for me being falsely accused of something by him and him not acknowledging he was completely wrong and being completely fooled by a troll.
He obviously thinks that was ok
What it’s like to be in Jeremy’s shoes, I know exactly
So for the record are you saying Neil didn’t accuse me?
Are you saying Mat isn’t a troll?
Are you saying it wasn’t any of your friends who set up a false account to get me banned because of all the influential people I got involved in the case?
Are you saying I shouldn’t have had an apology?
Please spell it out to me ?
Going by your track record, Jackie, I doubt ANYONE has accused you of anything you either haven't done, OR you're not behind, so there would be absolutely neither need nor necessity for apology.
May we take from you being cognisant of being in Jeremy's shoes that you were adopted or have spent time in prison?
I would, from what I know of Neil, believe it to be highly -indeed HUGELY- unlikely that he'd accuse anyone without full and certain knowledge that he was right to so do.
I have never, personally, experienced Mat as being a Troll. I'd remind you that it's been about 3 years since Mat posted here. You are rather raking the barrel to find somewhere to allocate blame.
I know NOTHING about any false accounts but I'll freely admit to requesting a life time ban for you. I didn't need to resort to the underhand to so do. Neither, to my knowledge, did anyone I choose to call friend.
I AM saying, that of all the members here, until such time as you admit, openly, to the mischief you've caused and the lies you've told, the unwarranted insults you've handed out, the threats you've made, the dirt you've dug, you're the very LAST person on this forum deserving of apology.
It's very possible to believe that, because of another agenda, over the time he accepted your support, you may have done more harm than good to Jeremy's cause. It's possible that Neil may feel more charitable to you, than do I. The above is no more than a litany of "poor me". It's time you took some responsibility for your own actions.
Please take note that in this post I've said nothing rude to, or about you.
-
With regard to the comment above it’s entirely up to you who you respect but previously your judgement seems to have let you down very badly especially over Mat the troll. I have NEVER had a public apology from you regarding being accused of giving out your personal details on clearly a fake account which you eventually and only recently accepted in a pm. Why have you never apologised personally or openly on an open forum after letting forum members believe I had done something so nasty.
It’s obvious I am not highly regarded as a forum member by yourself yet I am regarded highly enough by people trying to keep Jeremy in prison to make up false accounts to try to get me banned.
Who else suffers that kind of behaviour?
I can’t even get my head around it and yet you let Jane and Caroline’s friend continue to post on the forum.
I guess we both have a different level of how we choose to respect people. You obviously don’t think Caroline and Jane are rude to innocent posters like Kaldin and Jan in the hope they will leave the forum. You obviously don’t think people gang up on me on the forum. Are you blind.
You respect these people
Nobody knows for sure if Jeremy is innocent or guilty and I am only interested in the facts.
Caroline can post a million times on the forum about the phone calls and it’s a complete waste of time as there is NO proof either way.
Mugfords statements can be ignored as there is not a person alive who can pull of lying and deception better than her
At least you have made it clear what type of posters you are looking to encourage on the forum
Let’s see how quickly this post gets removed
YOU are the rudest person on the forum - stop crying Jackie. You're problem is that you're far too emotional, you hate people you don't even know. That's very sad. I don 't think your post should be removed because it shows how quickly you can turn on someone - someone who has done his very best to support you in the past and at times when it must have been VERY difficult (if not almost impossible) for him to do so. All you have to do is post about the case and quit the hate - you'll be a lot happier and the forum will lose the atmosphere.
NGB certainly has my support and I agree with everything he said in his previous post. RJ is a decent human being and deserves respect - most likely, this is why you don't like him. Your loss!
-
YOU are the rudest person on the forum - stop crying Jackie. You're problem is that you're far too emotional, you hate people you don't even know. That's very sad. I don 't think your post should be removed because it shows how quickly you can turn on someone - someone who has done his very best to support you in the past and at times when it must have been VERY difficult (if not almost impossible) for him to do so. All you have to do is post about the case and quit the hate - you'll be a lot happier and the forum will lose the atmosphere.
NGB certainly has my support and I agree with everything he said in his previous post. RJ is a decent human being and deserves respect - most likely, this is why you don't like him. Your loss!
That’s exactly why I expose people like you.
Ngb has your support for falsely accusing me of something I never did and would never do. I don’t know if his post was a wind up about respecting you but you are without a doubt with your post littered with explanation marks and your constant bullying of Lookout and your constant bullying by your gang. It’s not normal behaviour.
When you supported Jeremy you never did a thing to move the case forward but you are a good addition to the guilty side because you continually get shown up by people that outwit you
You carry on supporting people who falsely accuse people of things they haven’t done. Nothing changes
-
That’s exactly why I expose people like you.
Ngb has your support for falsely accusing me of something I never did and would never do. I don’t know if his post was a wind up about respecting you but you are without a doubt with your post littered with explanation marks and your constant bullying of Lookout and your constant bullying by your gang. It’s not normal behaviour.
When you supported Jeremy you never did a thing to move the case forward but you are a good addition to the guilty side because you continually get shown up by people that outwit you
You carry on supporting people who falsely accuse people of things they haven’t done. Nothing changes
I am not bothered what you say you did or didn't do. You're like the boy who cried wolf. You're a silly woman who needs to grow up - talking about gangs? You just can't see how stupid that is. I might get heated with Lookout now and again - but actually, I like her and I am sure she enjoys some of the more heated debates. I can use exclamation marks as much as I like - why should that bother you. And NO! NGB wasn't winding anyone up.. Your problem is, you assume too much - I have a VERY GOOD relationship with NGB!
I have absolutely no interest in your opinion of me - you're an embarrassment. You haven't moved the case forward either and your hideous attitude would put people off supporting Bamber anyway. Look at you now - off on a rant because support was show to another poster who you don't like. Spiteful and pathetic!
I would never support you Jackie - you spit too much venom!
-
That’s exactly why I expose people like you.
Ngb has your support for falsely accusing me of something I never did and would never do. I don’t know if his post was a wind up about respecting you but you are without a doubt with your post littered with explanation marks and your constant bullying of Lookout and your constant bullying by your gang. It’s not normal behaviour.
When you supported Jeremy you never did a thing to move the case forward but you are a good addition to the guilty side because you continually get shown up by people that outwit you
You carry on supporting people who falsely accuse people of things they haven’t done. Nothing changes
you are clearly related to jb,hence your hatred for forum members who think him guilty,you support jb now,how have you moved the case forward,.nothing that is posted on here will affect jb,s whole life sentence,why not debate the topics instead of slagging off forum members,its very childess of you.the gang thing is in your head only iam not in any gang
-
Hello sami thank you for your reply and your explanation that Real Justice was not referring to me as DIRT but another poster on the forum not a nice thing to say whoever the post was aimed at. I have noticed that the post has now been modified. Sami whilst I believe you cos I know what a nice guy you are and we get on so well but other posters on the forum may not so in fairness to Real Justice maybe you should get him to message NGB who this post was aimed at then NGB will confirm on the forum it was not me he was calling dirt. Matter will be then closed and I will offer my sincere apologies to RJ on the open forum How do you feel about that my friend x
-
Hello sami thank you for your reply and your explanation that Real Justice was not referring to me as DIRT but another poster on the forum not a nice thing to say whoever the post was aimed at. I have noticed that the post has now been modified. Sami whilst I believe you cos I know what a nice guy you are and we get on so well but other posters on the forum may not so in fairness to Real Justice maybe you should get him to message NGB who this post was aimed at then NGB will confirm on the forum it was not me he was calling dirt. Matter will be then closed and I will offer my sincere apologies to RJ on the open forum How do you feel about that my friend x
susan your lovely person and polite to all forum members,rj made that comment as a bit of a joke to someone who had been very rude to him you know yourself the name calling that goes on here,i can assure you it was not aimed at you, i can message him but not sure if he will do as you asked plus hes already removed it,jackie is just shit stirring dont fall for it.xx
-
Thanks Jane, I do try 🙈
I think Bamber was in and out of love with Julie, the times he was in love with her she probably painted pictures in her mind of their future together, she probably loved to hear his stories of what he was going to give her and their future together, this then became her window of opportunity, so long as she could distance herself from the eventuality, in her mind it made it easier for her.
I think with the silencer evidence transpiring and the finding of blood inside the silencer, the investigation would have taken a different route, even if Julie hadn’t come forward she would have been taken in for further questioning and with the best will in the world I don’t think she would have stood the pressure.
NGB, I’ve had a look at coercive control I’m quite convinced that Julie’s legal team could have claimed something from the long list of examples of This behaviour?
One being, forcing you to take part in criminal activity. RE the caravan park robbery
-
That’s exactly why I expose people like you.
Ngb has your support for falsely accusing me of something I never did and would never do. I don’t know if his post was a wind up about respecting you but you are without a doubt with your post littered with explanation marks and your constant bullying of Lookout and your constant bullying by your gang. It’s not normal behaviour.
When you supported Jeremy you never did a thing to move the case forward but you are a good addition to the guilty side because you continually get shown up by people that outwit you
I suggest when you're in a hole you stop digging. You're making yourself look more stupid than is necessary.
You carry on supporting people who falsely accuse people of things they haven’t done. Nothing changes
-
Hi Sami
think Justice will message NGB he holds him in very high esteem and he will be understanding of referring to a poster as Dirt he should really have reported the post if it was very rude. Thank you sami for your kindness you are a very kind lovely person and we have always got on so well xx
-
Im not a Julie supporter Jan, she didn’t conduct herself the way I would expect my daughter to behave, Julie does lie yes, most women would like their men to be kind, empathic, understanding, and respectful. But and ( please don’t take offence anyone) some are attracted and defend the rogue type, till the shit hits the pan.
Leaving the murders aside, in what way was Jeremy a "rogue type"? He didn't make her sell cannabis, and he didn't know about the cheque book fraud.
-
Leaving the murders aside, in what way was Jeremy a "rogue type"? He didn't make her sell cannabis, and he didn't know about the cheque book fraud.
He nicked two Cartier watches from a New Zealand jewellers in 1982.
-
He nicked two Cartier watches from a New Zealand jewellers in 1982.
Was that his omission or what Bret said? He was not charged was he?
-
Was that his omission or what Bret said? He was not charged was he?
He wasn't charged, no.
-
Was that his omission or what Bret said? He was not charged was he?
He wouldn't be charged here - he nicked them in NZ.
-
How did he get through customs ?
-
How did he get through customs ?
Perfectly simple. He wore one and concealed the other.
-
He wouldn't be charged here - he nicked them in NZ.
Was he charged in New Zealand then ?
-
Was he charged in New Zealand then ?
i think steve has answered that earlier ,when you asked him a few posts ago :)
-
Perfectly simple. He wore one and concealed the other.
They would have pinged going through the sensor.
-
i think steve has answered that earlier ,when you asked him a few posts ago :)
I know 🙂
Just stating the obvious .
-
How did he get through customs ?
In his suitcase.
-
In his suitcase.
He'd have been charged import duty----probably more than the watches. They'd have been seen through the x-ray machine.
-
He'd have been charged import duty----probably more than the watches. They'd have been seen through the x-ray machine.
How would they know where he got the watches?
-
How would they know where he got the watches?
He'd have been pulled to one side at the airport. He'd have to produce the receipt or they'd be confiscated.
You can buy fake ( made in China ) copies that they don't bother with because I bought a fake Rolex in Oz, looks very authentic and I showed it while going through customs, with the receipt $146AUD.
-
No watchmaker will touch these fakes if they go wrong.
-
He'd have been pulled to one side at the airport. He'd have to produce the receipt or they'd be confiscated.
You can buy fake ( made in China ) copies that they don't bother with because I bought a fake Rolex in Oz, looks very authentic and I showed it while going through customs, with the receipt $146AUD.
How would they know where he bought the watches? If they were in his suitcase, he could have had them for years. It's fact that he brought them back so not sure what the issue is?
-
How would they know where he bought the watches? If they were in his suitcase, he could have had them for years. It's fact that he brought them back so not sure what the issue is?
He certainly wouldn’t have had a receipt for them, maybe when he nicked them it was two for the price of one! The offer would have been nick one get one free!
-
He certainly wouldn’t have had a receipt for them, maybe when he nicked them it was two for the price of one! The offer would have been nick one get one free!
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What relevance is Jeremy Bambers activies in new Zealand got to go with anything. Its pure charchter blackening.... It bares no relevance to his murder trial and conviction
-
He certainly wouldn’t have had a receipt for them, maybe when he nicked them it was two for the price of one! The offer would have been nick one get one free!
:)) :)) :))i like the sound of that offer rj
-
:)) :)) :))i like the sound of that offer rj
I think deep down Lookout would have smiled at that one, she comes from a part of the UK steeped in laughter and jokes. Great sense of humour in that area.
-
What relevance is Jeremy Bambers activies in new Zealand got to go with anything. Its pure charchter blackening.... It bares no relevance to his murder trial and conviction
They have to blacken his character as it’s part of the “ bigger picture”
-
They have to blacken his character as it’s part of the “ bigger picture”
Jan, the man is inside for murdering 5 people - how black can a character get?
Who are 'they' and what bigger picture?
-
What relevance is Jeremy Bambers activies in new Zealand got to go with anything. Its pure charchter blackening.... It bares no relevance to his murder trial and conviction
Some of them actually know better and they are just being difficult. Changing your mind means having to admit you were wrong and that's a really tough thing for some.
-
Some of them actually know better and they are just being difficult. Changing your mind means having to admit you were wrong and that's a really tough thing for some.
Crap. Unless there is something you wish to admit?
-
Some of them actually know better and they are just being difficult. Changing your mind means having to admit you were wrong and that's a really tough thing for some.
Changing your mind is easy David, the idea that simply changing your mind is some sort of sin or mistake—that it’s an undesirable behavior or characteristic that immediately qualifies you as unreliable, careless, and indeterminate.
When it comes to describing people who have the guts to change course, I’d actually use different adjectives altogether. What ones, exactly? Well, words like self-aware, brave, and constantly evolving seem to fit the bill.
I though this was your aim for the New Year to change your mind, we could ask you why you changed your mind about your rifle knowledge and the weapons you fired, I would say most who have joined the forum came we a belief that Bamber was innocent only for a high percentage to leave with a different view, hows that being difficult?
-
Changing your mind is easy David, the idea that simply changing your mind is some sort of sin or mistake—that it’s an undesirable behavior or characteristic that immediately qualifies you as unreliable, careless, and indeterminate.
When it comes to describing people who have the guts to change course, I’d actually use different adjectives altogether. What ones, exactly? Well, words like self-aware, brave, and constantly evolving seem to fit the bill.
I though this was your aim for the New Year to change your mind, we could ask you why you changed your mind about your rifle knowledge and the weapons you fired, I would say most who have joined the forum came we a belief that Bamber was innocent only for a high percentage to leave with a different view, hows that being difficult?
Those who take sport in pointing fingers and ridiculing others are usually attempting to deflect attention away from something they've done which they'd prefer wasn't examined too closely.
-
Hi David
changing your mind on your stance regarding JB I don't think it is difficult or a person brave it just means they have enough backbone to stand up and be counted. :) and being truthful is a great quality to have some have it some don't :)
-
I think deep down Lookout would have smiled at that one, she comes from a part of the UK steeped in laughter and jokes. Great sense of humour in that area.
At least they'd have been the real thing here, RJ, not a couple of authentic-looking fakes hahahaha.
-
At least they'd have been the real thing here, RJ, not a couple of authentic-looking fakes hahahaha.
😂😂😂🙈
-
They have to blacken his character as it’s part of the “ bigger picture”
Bad character reference was essential in his trial Jan, it helped provide the motif, the greed and hatred, but I always thought that all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible, or have I got it wrong? I know it has to be relevant.
-
Changing your mind is easy David, the idea that simply changing your mind is some sort of sin or mistake—that it’s an undesirable behavior or characteristic that immediately qualifies you as unreliable, careless, and indeterminate.
When it comes to describing people who have the guts to change course, I’d actually use different adjectives altogether. What ones, exactly? Well, words like self-aware, brave, and constantly evolving seem to fit the bill.
I though this was your aim for the New Year to change your mind, we could ask you why you changed your mind about your rifle knowledge and the weapons you fired, I would say most who have joined the forum came we a belief that Bamber was innocent only for a high percentage to leave with a different view, hows that being difficult?
A silly comment given that quite a few of us on the guilty side used to believe Jeremy was innocent and admitted to changing our mind on the forum. Of course this was before David was a member here. If something happened for me to change my mind again - I'd have no problem with that. Nothing has as yet and I don't see it happening - but even pigs can fly with the right equipment. ;D
-
A silly comment given that quite a few of us on the guilty side used to believe Jeremy was innocent and admitted to changing our mind on the forum. Of course this was before David was a member here. If something happened for me to change my mind again - I'd have no problem with that. Nothing has as yet and I don't see it happening - but even pigs can fly with the right equipment. ;D
Some people see changing their minds as being weak and would find it shaming and humiliating to admit to it. Their easiest 'get out of jail free' card, and guaranteed method of deflecting flack away from themselves, is to find someone to taunt and harangue, who's been open and unashamed about changing stance.
-
A silly comment given that quite a few of us on the guilty side used to believe Jeremy was innocent and admitted to changing our mind on the forum. Of course this was before David was a member here. If something happened for me to change my mind again - I'd have no problem with that. Nothing has as yet and I don't see it happening - but even pigs can fly with the right equipment. ;D
:)) :)) :))
-
Bad character reference was essential in his trial Jan, it helped provide the motif, the greed and hatred, but I always thought that all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible, or have I got it wrong? I know it has to be relevant.
I don't think they have to agree because of course the prosecution is going to use some statements and then the defence will use counter arguments or witnesses
. However the defence do rely on all of the evidence being released to them and then they should decide what to use . I think they have said subsequently this was not the case .
Also they are free to make a comment that the evidence is irrelevant or hearsay not verified by another witness.
its a bit like my SIL says her daughter has threatened to kill her several times - have I heard it myself ? No . However she does have a lodger in the house who has heard the threats - hey presto more admissible as evidence .
-
I don't think they have to agree because of course the prosecution is going to use some statements and then the defence will use counter arguments or witnesses
. However the defence do rely on all of the evidence being released to them and then they should decide what to use . I think they have said subsequently this was not the case .
Also they are free to make a comment that the evidence is irrelevant or hearsay not verified by another witness.
its a bit like my SIL says her daughter has threatened to kill her several times - have I heard it myself ? No . However she does have a lodger in the house who has heard the threats - hey presto more admissible as evidence .
Its only if the Judge has agreed to it in the first place I think Jan. but I do think if bad character is used for one, the judge tends to allow a counter attack, Ive learned this from a friend 👍. Bad character can cover a wide range, this involves allowing previous convictions to be brought up, again it has to be agreed or the judge can dismiss it. Judges are careful with bad character, because along the line it could open up the chance of an appeal?
-
Its only if the Judge has agreed to it in the first place I think Jan. but I do think if bad character is used for one, the judge tends to allow a counter attack, Ive learned this from a friend 👍. Bad character can cover a wide range, this involves allowing previous convictions to be brought up, again it has to be agreed or the judge can dismiss it. Judges are careful with bad character, because along the line it could open up the chance of an appeal?
you may be right - as I said I am a bit rusty .
I am not saying witnesses necessarily made up things ( well I do think one did ) but they might well of embellished them in the light of thinking they were convicting a child killer .