The life-saving, death-wish trip to Ukraine has been cancelled, so Bamber's pleaded with his bestie to sell off Verity and swell the campaign team's ever-dwindling coffers...
https://davidhender.life/2022/04/30/a-plea-from-jeremy-bamber/
Here's my interpretation of Bambers letters:https://davidhender.life/2022/04/30/a-plea-from-jeremy-bamber/"The CCRC are not easy to beat"He's admitting to trying to beat the legal system, rather than trying to prove he's innocent.
This campaign has never been about proving innocence, because Jeremy Bamber is the murderer.
It's always been about conning people, manipulating the system, and ultimately - in Bamber's own words - beating the system.
"Six months I've waited hanging on"More self pity. A letter from Jeremy Bamber without any self pity would not be a letter from Jeremy Bamber.
The CCRC review not just the current application, but they also take into account every single other application that has been made previously. So it's going to take a long time to review this case, given that his first application goes back to the 80's.
"I could really do with you taking your truck to Birmingham covered in signs. I know you can't do that, you never will you know"He's challenging David, and implying that David is too much of a coward to make a public demonstration like this. Nice bit of manipulation to elicit feelings of guilt out of David.
"Sell it - Lend my campaign a few quid to up the pressure on the CCRC"If David is too much of a coward to do a public demonstration as requested, then relieve the guilt by selling the truck and handing over the money.
Brilliant manipulation. Call David out as a coward, without using the word coward, whilst instilling a sense of guilt, and kindly offer a way out of feeling guilty.
And here's my interpretation of the other letterhttps://davidhender.life/2022/05/11/a-4-parter-from-jeremy-bamber/"David - Thankyou, it is now in my own account"David's just handed over several thousand pounds (presumably), and all Bamber says is 'thankyou, it is now in my account'.
"We have two photos of the kitchen door, in one it is closed with chairs in front of it. In the other it is wide open"Assuming this is true, it's irrelevant.
Those photos didn't just appear out of thin air, they were taken by a police officer whose job it was was to record the scene as close as possible to how the firearms officers found it, as well as document any changes or movements to objects made by officers as they went about their normal work.
"All the police said they entered the house via the kitchen door. They all promised that no one restaged the kitchen, shutting the door and pushing chairs against the door. But the photos show they did"This is wrong. The firearms officers are trained to disturb the scene as little as possible, but they are allowed to move any objects they see fit for their own safety, or to gain access to areas.
The crime scene photographs that Bamber is talking about, were taken a couple of hours after the firearms officers entered the house, and they documented not just the original scene, but also the movement of objects by various officers, which would have formed the normal part of the police investigation.
"So the police ALL lied about restaging the scene"No they didn't lie, and they didn't restage the scene. The photos were taken by the police themselves to document their own investigation, which involved moving objects that needed to be moved in order to carry out their investigation.
"So it is exciting cos we can show where dad was when these 40 or 50 cops entered the house"10 firearms officers entered the building initially, and their verbal account of what they saw upon entry, matches perfectly what the initial set of photographs visually describe. There is no getting around that fact.
Subsequent photos taken later in the day, or several days or weeks later may show objects that have moved or removed, but those objects would have been moved in accordance with police procedures, and their legitimate movement comprehensively documented via the very same photographs that Bamber is now quoting.
Bamber's accusation may have some weight if the photos were taken by an undercover reporter, but they weren't. They were taken by the police themselves in order to visually document everything that they were doing.
