"Evil killer Jeremy Bamber posts bizarre apology..."

[anglolawyer]

No I don't see what the relevance is between you freaking out in a supermarket car park with a gun and WHF.

The phone calls are not strong evidence.  They prove absolutely nothing.  They are entirely subjective with people saying I would have done this that and the other therefore because JB didn't do what I would have done he's guilty.

Look at the judges summing up and the jury's deliberations.  Did the jury ask for clarification about the telephone calls?  No they asked about the silencer as on the surface this appears strong evidence.

The fact they asked about the silencer rather suggests they didn't need any help with the telephone calls.

OK, forget my question about subjectivity.   You've answered it.   I understand it now.   The judge (I read today) was scathing in his summing up about Bamber calling Witham.   Of course, he was right.   Not calling 999 and not doing so at once cannot be explained.

[APRIL]

The fact they asked about the silencer rather suggests they didn't need any help with the telephone calls.

OK, forget my question about subjectivity.   You've answered it.   I understand it now.   The judge (I read today) was scathing in his summing up about Bamber calling Witham.   Of course, he was right.   Not calling 999 and not doing so at once cannot be explained.

But he didn't fail "once". He failed TWICE. Perhaps "once" COULD be overlooked if, after looking up the number for Witham and getting no response, he'd called 999, but he THEN spent time looking up the number for Chelmsford.

[anglolawyer]

But he didn't fail "once". He failed TWICE. Perhaps "once" COULD be overlooked if, after looking up the number for Witham and getting no response, he'd called 999, but he THEN spent time looking up the number for Chelmsford.

Oh, don't be so subjective, April.   You and I might think it reasonable to expect someone to call 999 in these circumstances, but that is just a matter of subjective opinion.   Bamber obviously turned it over in his mind and decided it was 'not important'.   Later on, he thought about it more and it seemed to him it was important after all, so he called the police.   It's really not that far out.   

I wonder whether the wholly innocent Bamber ever blames himself for the deaths.   I did not notice that coming up in his blog.   He doesn't ask whether, had he reacted faster, they might have been saved.   I wonder why not.

[APRIL]

Oh, don't be so subjective, April.   You and I might think it reasonable to expect someone to call 999 in these circumstances, but that is just a matter of subjective opinion.   Bamber obviously turned it over in his mind and decided it was 'not important'.   Later on, he thought about it more and it seemed to him it was important after all, so he called the police.   It's really not that far out.   

I wonder whether the wholly innocent Bamber ever blames himself for the deaths.   I did not notice that coming up in his blog.   He doesn't ask whether, had he reacted faster, they might have been saved.   I wonder why not.

My profuse apologies for my "subjectivity" Anglolawyer. I believe the closest -in public- he's ever come to blaming himself was in response to a question. He answered with words similar to "I didn't know what was going to happen, did I?" If I my be allowed another moment of "subjectivity," I've said those words in every way possible but I can't make them sound anything but defensive and blaming.

[anglolawyer]

My profuse apologies for my "subjectivity" Anglolawyer. I believe the closest -in public- he's ever come to blaming himself was in response to a question. He answered with words similar to "I didn't know what was going to happen, did I?" If I my be allowed another moment of "subjectivity," I've said those words in every way possible but I can't make them sound anything but defensive and blaming.

Yes, well, see you don't do it again.

On one of the other boards where I'm discussing this case I am supposed to accept that 'behavioural' evidence is worthless as as evidence based on memory.   Now we have to discard 'subjective' evidence too.   How do they ever convict anybody?

Those three all have in common the element of interpretation.   But so what?   Yes, folks, you have to do your own thinking.   We don't do that part for you.