UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Other Forums and Organisations => Jeremy Bamber forum => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on December 27, 2015, 11:28:08 PM
-
Here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7240.0.html
David posted the following nonsense claim
"The circumstances and evidence to undermine the sound moderator seem overwhelming."
Did he followup with anything accurate or intelligent? Of course not.
He starts out saying "Boutflour is alleged to find the sound moderator on the 10th of August. This is handed into the lab on the 13th by DI Cook. Multiple copies of the submissions have been made and altered."
He implies that there is something wrong with multiple copies of the submission being drafted when in fact it was required to be submitted in triplicate so they had to hand write 3 copies of the Holab form. He claims it was altered though all that happened is on one of the 3 forms Cook made a clerical error. Cook labeled the moderator lab item 22 and wrote that on the first 2 copies. He screwed up and wrote lab item 23 on the third form. To COLP he admitted he screwed up the third copy and that there was only 1 moderator. If there were two moderators being submitted all three forms would contain both lab item 22 and lab item 23 not either or. All 3 copies were supposed to be identical he simply screwed up on one.
So far David's claims don't undermine a damn thing except in his imagination.
He next states that "It is then alleged in a document typed in November 1985 that on that day human blood was discovered inside the moderator. If so why did this initial discovery of human blood on the 13th not trigger an arrest for Jeremy? If the accounts written in retrospect are correct then they had the smoking gun evidence within a matter of days?"
First of all police weren't told about the findings until the 14th. Second all police were told was that there was red paint on the knurled portion and human blood on the outside and inside the moderator. The lab didn't know whose blood it was at that point. It was not until further testing was done that they determined it was Sheila's blood, that it got there by drawback and that experts who did such work explained the significance of such results to police. That happened in September. When was Jeremy arrested- in September after such evidence was available.
David suggests the only records are from November completely ignoring the contemporaneous lab examination records and instead lies trying to pretend that the only paperwork that exists is from November. He is as pathetic as mike. There not only is contemporaneous lab examination records but COLP stated there was documentary proof the police were notified of the results on August 14. This is corroborated by the police going to WHF on August 14 to take paint samples.
Next he writes:
"DI Cook in the COLP investigations then explains the lack of paperwork
As I intended carrying out the examination myself using their facilities then the items would never I leave my possession and therefore proof of continuity using those forms Was not required, as they were only intended for submission to the Huntingdon Laboratory. The continuity of these exhibits was solely my responsibility."
This is an honest and accurate explanation of why continuity forms when he brought the moderator to be fingerprinted were not required. There were plenty of other documents simply no continuity sheets showing the moderator taken to Sandridge. On page 26 (Bates Stamp 190) of his COLP interview Cook notes he entered the moderator on the evidence room reception sheets on August 13. Thus there were in fact records of it being in police custody in the evidence room August 13 after it returning for the lab. He didn't fill out continuity sheets to show he took it to Sandridge because he did all the work and had it in his possession. Continuity sheets are for when it leaves his possession. He did in fact fill out continuity sheets to convey it to the lab and also filled out HOLAB forms to the lab, the lab acknowledged receipt sending one of those Holab forms singed received back to HQ and alos they did fill out the examination record. Page 28 (Bates Stamp 192) specifically discusses the continuity sheets that exist showing it conveyed to the lab on August 13.
That no continuity sheets were filled out to take it to Sandridge but only documents showing it going to the lab is is not proof of anything wrong except in David's imagination. The same page mentions there was also a continuity sheet and Holab forms showing it was conveyed to the lab on August 30 by courier Wolton.
But next comes the real whopper:
"On the 29th of August 1985 DI Cook unscrews the silencer and takes out the baffle plates, he takes the photograph below."
This is a big fat lie. Cook didn't unscrew anything the photo was taken after the lab examined it. Mike hand wrote the date on the photocopy himself made up that it was taken apart by Cook and that cook photographed it after taking it apart himself. David is either as gullible as they come or knows this is complete nonsense but doesn't care.
Since mike made up the claims that renders this babble total nonsense:
"The significance of this is that DI Cook never reports finding any blood. The Crown claims that a considerable amount of blood and blood flakes is sprayed from baffle plates 1 to 6. If we are to believe the silencers authenticity we now must believe DI Cook just happened to miss seeing all this blood."
Cook didn't take it apart and never claimed he took it apart so why would Cook write that he saw blood after he took it apart? David suggests Cook stated he took it apart but failed to mention finding any blood though he never claimed such and the assertion he took it apart is complete fiction.
Next this:
"In the transcripts of the recorded COLP interview DS Davidson who was involved in handling the evidence forms claims he has never seen a silencer and was never aware any relatives found silencer"
Davidson ACTUALLY said he wasn't aware that they found the silencer until much later. He didn't say that he was hearing from COLP for the first time that the family found the moderator.
David then says Davidson was unaware that Cook handled the moderator:
"Also in transcripts of the recorded COLP interview with DS Davidson he claims to have no idea of DI Cook having a sound moderator"
He uses this to try to pretend that Davidson was caught in a lie:
"only to say at a much later stage of the interview that DI Cook did tell him about the sound moderator. Its seem DS Davidson has either been caught out or has used information told to him in the earlier stages of the interview to cover his mistakes."
The truth is that Davidson wasn't involved with handling the moderator so didn't have much knowledge about it. All he knew is that Cook was taking care of the moderator and learned well later the family had found it. Given his lack of involvement it is understandable why 6 years later he would not remember much about it. He never knew much to begin with and 6 years has passed. Al Davidson told COLP is that he didn't find out about the moderator until much later and didn't find out the family had found it until much later. He never suggested he never heard of a moderator till COLP told him.
Next he posts this: "Then in September a second sound moderator is found - according to this police log"
The log doesn't say a second moderator was found. Boutflour told them about the moderator he found in August that he had the Eatons turn in. They picked up the scope and bullets that day but not the shotgun shells so he complained about them not taking everything. He recounted how he had found everything including the moderator. That call resulted in them appreciating for the first time who found the moderator and the scope etc. As a result they subsequently reclassified the items to the DB prefix.
Next he posts this: "PC Whiddon's statement further corroborates a second sound moderator is found. "
Whiddon didn't say anything about 2 moderators he said there was a single moderator. He discussed how he renumbered various items in statements to make the references match up to the actual exhibits.
The moderator SBJ/1 was reclassified DB/1 and later DRB/1
AE/1 the scope was reclassified DB/2 and later DRB/2
AE/2 the bullets and abu ammo carrier was reclassified DB/3 and later DRB/3
David is so inept he is claiming AE/1 and AE/2 are moderators. The exact quote he posts form Whiddon features Whiddon saying that Ann Eaton referred to the scope in her statement as AE/1 but it's actual designation was DRB/1 so he changed her statement to reflect that.
Next David writes: "Superintendent Mckay in the COLP interview with DS Davidson. Also mentions a second silencer" Mckay asks Davidson if he was aware of a second moderator and Davidson said no. Mckay didn't say there was a second moderator he asked a question simply. He asked because at one point Davidson wrote on a form item 23 but other times it said item 22. COLP found the genesis of this. The form Cook screwed up is the one Davidson copied off of when he filled out a form in September. So he copied Cook's error referring to it as item 23. COLP found no evidence at all of more than one moderator collected in 1985.
So all of David's crap fell apart totally under scrutiny.
Next david jumps to the crap that the CCRC rejected because it has no scientific basis in fact:
"Dr Fowler a US medical expert who has investigated three thousand gunshot homicides examines the evidence and concludes the silencer was not attached when Shelia's contact wounds to the neck were inflicted. (also confirmed by two peer reviewers) to this day Dr Fowler's conclusions remain unchallenged"
The claim that Fowler's claims remain unchallenged is complete nonsense. Fowler claimed that HE THINKS Vanezis observed a muzzle imprint around the nonfatal wound but failed to appreciate that is what it was. Vanezis disagrees so right there is a challenge to Fowler's claims. Experts found by the CCRC also challenged Fowler's claims. The photos do not show any muzzle imprints. Vanezis said he observed a bullet abrasion and dirt ring. Fowler said he thinks it was not a bullet abrasion but rather a muzzle imprint. He has no way to establish his opinion is accurate and Vanezis was wrong. So the courts correctly view his claims as unsubstantiated as does any rational person which safely leave David out.
Next david turns to the Sutherst BS:
"The CCRC hired Mr Laws who claimed Peter Sutherst evidence on the scratch marks are inconclusive enabling them to continue the assertion that the silencer was attached. Onto the subject of the scratch marks, Not only does Peter Sutherst conclude that there are no scratches present on the original crime scene. DS Davidson seems to remember there being red paint on barrel end of the weapon with no silencer :o He is then interupted and the subject is quickly changed."
Sutherst's claims were rejected because even by his own admission his tests were not scientifically valid. He admitted he lacked the ability to blow up photos sufficiently unless he had the negatives. Blowing up a copy of a photo and then further blowing up that copy of a copy and so on is not scientifically valid.
As for Davidson, he said he was eavesdropping when Cook was talking to Elliott about red paint on a weapon. Since at the time he didn't know there was a moderator he assumed they were talking about paint directly on a rifle barrel. He knew the murder weapon had no paint on it because he saw the rifle- he was the one who logged it in at WHF so he assumed it was some other rifle found downstairs. David ignores all this and pretends he said it was on the murder weapon directly.
Ever single claim by David has fallen apart under scrutiny they all are BS claims made by mike with were refuted a dozen times on blue by me alone who know how many times total by everyone who has posted on blue.
32
[Edited by Senior Editor]
-
Scipio in future can you please simply point out why you believe posters are wrong stating your reasons rather than accusations of lying, nonsense and crap etc. Especially when you haven't even given David, a poster on this forum, the opportunity to respond. If David responds in the same vein posts could potentially become quite unpleasant.
The tone of your post could be considered overly aggressive and is not what the forum is about. We also need to consider guests viewing and potential new and old posters that might feel uncomfortable posting in what they might consider to be an aggressive environment. 'Beating the drum' is fine but please try and find the right balance.
I have approved the post/thread and thrown caution to the wind as it's Christmas but in the New Year I will insist any overt aggression is curtailed. Your case knowledge is good and you obviously put a lot of work into your posts but please don't spoil it.
TY.
-
Nugs: "why did taff jones dismiss the silencer evedence
why was he so dismive of it. did he know somthing the ret of us dont."
Why are Jeremy supporters so unfair to Taff Jones and out to pretend he was against the ultimte case that was built?
After Taff Jones was no longer lead detective on the case is when the lab developed the moderator evidence and explained the significance to police. Is it fair to cite Taff Jone's opinion in August before such evidence surfaced?
There is nothing that establishes he doubted the presentation put together by the lab.
-
David: "According to DI Cooks COLP interview police did find a silencer on the 9th but put it back in the cupboard. "
He said no such thing. He said that he didn't look exhaustively through the closet at every single item in it and hadn't seen the moderator. He said that if he had come across the moderator he would have taken it just for the sake of it but hadn't come across it. Since he didn't look through every small box in there he hadn't found the thread protector either. That was found by Oakey in September when he went through the closet in September and took most of the remaining items that Boutflour had not taken and turned in to police.
David: "What do you make of the second silencer that seems to appear on the 11th the following month?"
There was no second moderator. The conversation referenced the moderator he found in August. This was the first time police understood he was the one who found the items. As a result all the items were subsequently relabeled DB and later DRB.
-
Genesis of the lie that Holmes 78/14 was taken by Cook on August 21 by Cook:
In Cook's COLP Interview (pages 32-33 [ bates stamps 196-197] he stated he took a photo of the rifle on August 21. This was dishonestly misrepresented as him admitting he took a photo of the moderator on this date:
For example here:
"26) MALCOLM FLETCHER was sent a number of photographs taken of the dismantled sound moderator by DI RON COOK, (see HOLMES 78/14). These images had been taken by DI RON COOK at Chelmsford HQ Scenes of Crime Department on 21st August 1985, (see Holmes 8/215 DI RON COOK’S 25th September 1991 Witness Statement PDF page 33)."
http://poppymeze.blogspot.com/2012/05/jeremy-bamber-how-police-and-scientists.html
After Cook's statement to COLP was publicly released this lie fell apart. So the new lie was invented that he took the photo on Aug 29 though there is no foundation for this at all. Someone (whether mike or a different Jeremy supporter is unknown) simply hand wrote the date 8/29/85 on the photocopy and lied pretending it was handwritten on the one in the COLP file though it is not.
The COLP Report makes clear that the first photo of the moderator was taken in November 1985. Supporters have an excuse for that as well. They sometimes say COLP lied they other times say COLP was lied to and it was concealed that photos were taken prior. How could 78/14 have been concealed form them when they had it in their possession and provided 78/14 to the defense? These liars don't use their heads at all.
What evidence is there that COLP lied? None there is no evidence to support 78/14 being taken prior to November it was simply made up from thin air without regard to the evidence. Initially by lying pretending that Cook admitted in his COLP statement he took it August 21, later by doctoring it by adding Aug 30 on it.
The duplicity is entirely on the Jeremy supporter side.
This is why none of this nonsense can be alleged to the CCRC let alone the Court of Appeals. It is used simply for propaganda in the public sphere.
-
The Dickinson report reinvestigation section and trial section discussed the testing of the moderator and refute many of the lies promoted by Mike. That is why Mike refuses to post these sections of the report. Someone will have to do a Freedom of Information request to get the entire report from the government.
Mike posted part of the report on the sleuthing for Justice website which [ censored word ] copied to the blue forum archive. Since mike omitted the sections that discussed dates things were tested at the lab and the findings this helped prevent people from having even stronger evidence to dispute his lies.
Sorry Holly but with respect to mike we are talking about intentional lies not simply someone making honest mistakes. There is no way to sugar coat it.
-
Now nugs is reciting Mikes lie that the family took the moderator apart. Never can any Jeremy supporters actually put together a rational, accurate presentation to negate the moderator. It is always built around lies and nonsense.
-
The Dickinson report reinvestigation section and trial section discussed the testing of the moderator and refute many of the lies made by Mike. That is why Mike refuses to post these sections of the report. Someone will have to do a Freedom of Information request to get the entire report from the government.
I tried that a while back. Made a FOI for COLP report they wouldn't give it to me. I also made a FOI to the CCRC for the 109 page 2012 decision they would give me that either. :(
I don't think Mike should even have got his hands on the COLP data in the first place. In 2011 there was a discussion at the Home Affairs Select Committee about problems with making complaints against police
The City of London Police (COLP) launched an investigation on behalf of the PCA in 1991, after Jeremy Bamber, without the aid of a lawyer, made thirteen serious allegations of criminality against Essex Police officers. Charges were brought by COLP against five Essex Police Officers and it is only recently that some of the documents from the enquiry were mistakenly disclosed. Many of these papers show that police misconduct was simply explained as 'administrative error.' Other documents 'leaked' show that Essex Police refused to disclose a number of original statements to the defence, as it was felt that non-disclosure would 'obviate the risk of Bamber making further complaints.' Jeremy Bamber now has a number of helpful documents illustrating that the chain of evidence relating directly to the provenance of the sound moderator that was material to the prosecution's case was in fact tampered with, evidence includes witness statements made to COLP by members of the Forensic Science Service detailing that their statements had been altered without their knowledge.
COLP in conjunction with the PCA and the DPP found that there was no case to answer as to the allegations made by Jeremy Bamber and all charges were dropped. Thus the then Home Secretary was misled and ruled that the case could not be returned to the Appeal Court. Just as in Eddie Gilfoyle's case the final report disclosed to Jeremy Bamber pre his 2002 appeal had whole pages and paragraphs blanked out, much like the 'Gooch' report. However, in 2004 a second report was 'leaked' which is a different version with many of the missing paragraphs appearing, providing valuable evidence for Jeremy Bamber's appeal currently lodged with the CCRC.
It seems Mike is who 'leaked' the information. I would love to have a full copy but cant see anyone getting there hands on it so we can see it. :(
-
I tried that a while back. Made a FOI for COLP report they wouldn't give it to me. I also made a FOI to the CCRC for the 109 page 2012 decision they would give me that either. :(
I don't think Mike should even have got his hands on the COLP data in the first place. In 2011 there was a discussion at the Home Affairs Select Committee about problems with making complaints against police
The City of London Police (COLP) launched an investigation on behalf of the PCA in 1991, after Jeremy Bamber, without the aid of a lawyer, made thirteen serious allegations of criminality against Essex Police officers. Charges were brought by COLP against five Essex Police Officers and it is only recently that some of the documents from the enquiry were mistakenly disclosed. Many of these papers show that police misconduct was simply explained as 'administrative error.' Other documents 'leaked' show that Essex Police refused to disclose a number of original statements to the defence, as it was felt that non-disclosure would 'obviate the risk of Bamber making further complaints.' Jeremy Bamber now has a number of helpful documents illustrating that the chain of evidence relating directly to the provenance of the sound moderator that was material to the prosecution's case was in fact tampered with, evidence includes witness statements made to COLP by members of the Forensic Science Service detailing that their statements had been altered without their knowledge.
COLP in conjunction with the PCA and the DPP found that there was no case to answer as to the allegations made by Jeremy Bamber and all charges were dropped. Thus the then Home Secretary was misled and ruled that the case could not be returned to the Appeal Court. Just as in Eddie Gilfoyle's case the final report disclosed to Jeremy Bamber pre his 2002 appeal had whole pages and paragraphs blanked out, much like the 'Gooch' report. However, in 2004 a second report was 'leaked' which is a different version with many of the missing paragraphs appearing, providing valuable evidence for Jeremy Bamber's appeal currently lodged with the CCRC.
It seems Mike is who 'leaked' the information. I would love to have a full copy but cant see anyone getting there hands on it so we can see it. :(
It is a Jeremy supporter who posted the above. This Jeremy supporter is being extremely dishonest. Since Jeremy made the allegations COLP had to respond and he had a right to see the COLP allegations. He also had a right to see the Dickenson Report. The Dickinson Report was not obtained recently it was obtained long ago. They produced the COLP Report to Jeremy but didn't produce all the documents that comprised their COLP investigation. After legal wrangling they were forced to release those as well. There wasn't any accidental release. They released limited things and Jeremy's team went to court multiple times to force the release of as much as they could get which was virtually everything.
Because of privacy laws some of these documents can be withheld from others without express approval from Jeremy. You have to consult an expert in privacy law/ Freedom of Information Act issues to see whether he feels that one would prevail or lose without having Jeremy's consent.
All the excess materials that Jeremy's team had already gone through were going to be trashed because the person storing them no longer wanted to keep them for whatever reason. Mike swooped in and took all these papers. So when he says he has papers never looked through he is full of crap they are documents already seen which either were scanned to the computer or simply not viewed as needed.
That Mike won't release the trial section and reinvestigation section detailing the lab work tells you right there he is hiding them because they refute the lies he keeps telling.
The COLP Report also refutes his lies so no way is he ever posting that. The COLP investigators determined the first photo taken of the moderator was taken in November 1985 when police took the rifle and moderator to WHF to photograph it in the closet to demonstrate it fits in there with the moderator attached. The COLP report noted from the distance it was taken you can see the shape but not much detail. They took more detailed photos of it with a ruler subsequent to this. This and other details like this are likely in the Dickinson Report as well as COLP Report and that is why Mike doesn't post them.
Why do you adopt so many of Mike's claims that have no evidentiary support? There is not a single document anywhere in the case files to even suggest Cook took apart the moderator before it was taken apart at the lab. He makes no mention of doing so in any of his statements or his COLP interrogation. There are no records of any kind that reflect him doing so. Among the documents COLP provided to Jeremy was a photo COLP concluded that Cook took after the lab recovered the blood from the rifle. Mike or another supporter made up the claim that Cook did so on August 29, 1985 and hand wrote this date on the photocopy then disseminated the doctored copy along with the claim. This allegation ultimately has no source it was simply invented from thin air by saying COLP was wrong about the date it was taken though those alleging it have no evidence to prove COLP was wrong.
It would be like me taking a photo published on this site, ignoring all evidence related to when it was taken and saying that evidence is all false it was taken on a date I simply pick out of my head because if done on that day it supports some crap I want to make up. That's what was done.
Supporters other than Mike did something a little different. On August 21, 1985 Cook took photos of the fingerprints he managed to raise. He didn't find any on the moderator so didn't take any. Since these photos were closeups of the prints even if he had it would not help because all you could tell was they were on metal you would not see the entire moderator. Thus it would fail to document the exact characteristics in fine detail. In any event Cook stated he took photos of these prints on the rifle. Some dishonest supporters misrepresent that he admitted he took photos of the moderator on this date though he was talking about the rifle. They then lie and say this is the date he took the photos that COLP provided a photocopy of. So this is why you will see people like poppy claiming it was taken Aug 21. Why Mike made up Aug 29 is anyone's guess. He obviously didn't think about pretending it was taken the same day as the rifle until it was too late because he had already said August 29.
Since these claims are made up they can't ethically be presented to the CCRC/COA and even if Jeremy did so without the benefit of any aid by counsel they would go no where because solid evidence is needed for the COA to act. Unsubstantiated allegations do not accomplish anything. Lies such as this is used solely for propaganda purposes.
-
The COLP Report also refutes his lies so no way is he ever posting that. The COLP investigators determined the first photo taken of the moderator was taken in November 1985 when police took the rifle and moderator to WHF to photograph it in the closet to demonstrate it fits in there with the moderator attached. The COLP report noted from the distance it was taken you can see the shape but not much detail. They took more detailed photos of it with a ruler subsequent to this. This and other details like this are likely in the Dickinson Report as well as COLP Report and that is why Mike doesn't post them.
Why do you adopt so many of Mike's claims that have no evidentiary support? There is not a single document anywhere in the case files to even suggest Cook took apart the moderator before it was taken apart at the lab. He makes no mention of doing so in any of his statements or his COLP interrogation. There are no records of any kind that reflect him doing so. Among the documents COLP provided to Jeremy was a photo COLP concluded that Cook took after the lab recovered the blood from the rifle.
You presume that COLP and Essex police are being truthful and honest. You also don't consider the financial motives of Jeremy's relatives. If we assume COLP, Essex police and Jeremy's relatives are 100% honest then yes the evidence we have is rather overwhelming.
However I Believe that COLP and Essex police are being dishonest and that COLP report (1991) consisted primarily of whitewashing to preserve the police integrity. I also consider the possibility the relatives have used deceit and manipulation to contaminate the police investigation to ensure a conviction.
That is why allot of what I 'claim' is theory based on discrepancies and inconsistencies of those involved. Due to the very nature of what I speculate is true there will be no confirmation, corroboration or documentation from The Police or prosecution witnesses to present any proof to the standard that you would accept (case files) The state (COA,CCRC) has a vested interest in maintaining the maintaining the status quo for reasons both financially and for its reputation.
What you seem to perceive as me lying is actually me putting forward theory or speculation but unlike mike I don't take it to an irrational extreme.
In a nutshell I don't accept the police or the prosecution witnesses as authority on what is fact or fiction. I hope you can now appreciate how I perceive the entire subject. If our philosophy of perception is so contrasting we will never agree on anything. Hence why I am reluctant to debate much with you.
-
You presume that COLP and Essex police are being truthful and honest. You also don't consider the financial motives of Jeremy's relatives. If we assume COLP, Essex police and Jeremy's relatives are 100% honest then yes the evidence we have is rather overwhelming.
However I Believe that COLP and Essex police are being dishonest and that COLP report (1991) consisted primarily of whitewashing to preserve the police integrity. I also consider the possibility the relatives have used deceit and manipulation to contaminate the police investigation to ensure a conviction.
That is why allot of what I 'claim' is theory based on discrepancies and inconsistencies of those involved. Due to the very nature of what I speculate is true there will be no confirmation, corroboration or documentation from The Police or prosecution witnesses to present any proof to the standard that you would accept (case files) The state (COA,CCRC) has a vested interest in maintaining the maintaining the status quo for reasons both financially and for its reputation.
What you seem to perceive as me lying is actually me putting forward theory or speculation but unlike mike I don't take it to an irrational extreme.
In a nutshell I don't accept the police or the prosecution witnesses as authority on what is fact or fiction. I hope you can now appreciate how I perceive the entire subject. If our philosophy of perception is so contrasting we will never agree on anything. Hence why I am reluctant to debate much with you.
You have nothing as all to suggest police are dishonest you just choose to believe it because you want to. In the meantime we have absolute proof that mike is lying and you choose to adopt those lies to pretend the moderator evidence is unreliable. The truth is you have zilch as far as evidence to challenge it.
You then say other people go by sheer opinion while you follow evidence how laughable. You project your own behavior onto others.
-
You have nothing as all to suggest police are dishonest you just choose to believe it because you want to.
Really?
http://info.fmotl.com/PoliceListV24.pdf (http://info.fmotl.com/PoliceListV24.pdf)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/the-shocking-truth-about-police-corruption-in-britain/ (http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/the-shocking-truth-about-police-corruption-in-britain/)
If you grew up in my country you might appreciate my position on the police a lot more. That list above is relatively recent. In the 1980s it was horrendous
You then say other people go by sheer opinion while you follow evidence how laughable. You project your own behavior onto others.
I don't believe I do, and hardly get people complaining about my conduct.
-
"That is why allot of what I 'claim' is theory based on discrepancies and inconsistencies of those involved. Due to the very nature of what I speculate is true there will be no confirmation, corroboration or documentation from The Police or prosecution witnesses to present any proof to the standard that you would accept (case files) The state (COA,CCRC) has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for reasons both financially and for its reputation."
-
"That is why allot of what I 'claim' is theory based on discrepancies and inconsistencies of those involved. Due to the very nature of what I speculate is true there will be no confirmation, corroboration or documentation from The Police or prosecution witnesses to present any proof to the standard that you would accept (case files) The state (COA,CCRC) has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for reasons both financially and for its reputation."
(http://s11.postimg.org/6pu2jp8tv/davidcalvin.jpg)
Fact: There was no eyewitness account by the police of the murder weapon anywhere except on Sheila's body.
Fact: Jeapes was on the kitchen side of the house looking at the boxroom window not the bedroom
Fact: Jeapes is not sure she saw a rifle even let alone the murder weapon. She said she saw something that appeared to be the barrel of a rifle. Anything skinny sticking up could appear to be the barrel of a rifle from her vantage point even the reflection of a tree limb.
Fact: There are no photos of the murder weapon in the location where Jeapes saw what could have appeared to be a rifle.
so all your claims turned out to be wrong yet instead of admitting you were wrong you chose to do exactly what you accused others of doing- living in denial and you kept insisting she saw the murder weapon in the bedroom window anyway.
This is approximately how far away police were:
(https://jeremybambercampaign.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/y-label-07-neg-10-200x132.jpg)
This photo was taken less than 90 yards from the house so the photographer is closer than the police were.
(http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/230559/image_update_2aec36d92f9efc82_1373362052_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
You still can barely see in the windows even though closer.
In the meantime even if one was hovering in front of the window this is all they would see:
(http://s30.postimg.org/b8l28r5rl/whfmasterbedroomwindow.jpg)
But no one was hovering outside the window they were on the ground and they were 30 yards away. Even if the gun had been in such location no police from the outside could have seen and recognized it. Jeapes was on the kitchen side of the house so most certainly could not have seen it if it had been there. But none of the police stations in the front of the house report seeing it and all of the police who entered from the raid team, to the bigwigs to the crime scene officers say the gun was on Sheila not against the window until the crime scene personnel placed it there.
Choosing to ignore all the evidence and pretend it was there because of your extreme bias against police amounts to the denial you project onto others.
-
(http://s11.postimg.org/6pu2jp8tv/davidcalvin.jpg)
Fact: There was no eyewitness account by the police of the murder weapon anywhere except on Sheila's body.
Fact: Jeapes was on the kitchen side of the house looking at the boxroom window not the bedroom
Fact: Jeapes is not sure she saw a rifle even let alone the murder weapon. She said she saw something that appeared to be the barrel of a rifle. Anything skinny sticking up could appear to be the barrel of a rifle from her vantage point even the reflection of a tree limb.
Fact: There are no photos of the murder weapon in the location where Jeapes saw what could have appeared to be a rifle.
so all your claims turned out to be wrong yet instead of admitting you were wrong you chose to do exactly what you accused others of doing- living in denial and you kept insisting she saw the murder weapon in the bedroom window anyway.
This is approximately how far away police were:
(https://jeremybambercampaign.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/y-label-07-neg-10-200x132.jpg)
This photo was taken less than 90 yards from the house so the photographer is closer than the police were.
(http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/230559/image_update_2aec36d92f9efc82_1373362052_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg)
You still can barely see in the windows even though closer.
In the meantime even if one was hovering in front of the window this is all they would see:
(http://s30.postimg.org/b8l28r5rl/whfmasterbedroomwindow.jpg)
But no one was hovering outside the window they were on the ground and they were 30 yards away. Even if the gun had been in such location no police from the outside could have seen and recognized it. Jeapes was on the kitchen side of the house so most certainly could not have seen it if it had been there. But none of the police stations in the front of the house report seeing it and all of the police who entered from the raid team, to the bigwigs to the crime scene officers say the gun was on Sheila not against the window until the crime scene personnel placed it there.
Choosing to ignore all the evidence and pretend it was there because of your extreme bias against police amounts to the denial you project onto others.
First of all I was not suggesting that the "Murder Weapon" is what Jeapes spotted in the window. I was putting forward a theory that two rifles were used. One being left by the window while the other remain on Shelia.
There is an eyewitness account by the police of a damaged rifle being found in the kitchen with red paint on the barrel (see transcipts of Davidson COLP interview)
On august 7th Jeremy told police there was an Anshutz semi auto and a another .22 rifle (possibly bolt action) inside the house. AP kept his Bruno .22 bolt action on the farm. But denies it was there during the murders however his accounts are very contradictory.
I consider two rifle theory a possibility I am not saying its a fact. If you think I thought the rifle Jeapes spotted was the same one on Shelia and in the window? come on man I know you think I have half a brain but I am not that stupid.
-
First of all I was not suggesting that the "Murder Weapon" is what Jeapes spotted in the window. I was putting forward a theory that two rifles were used. One being left by the window while the other remain on Shelia
1) The only other rifle at the house was a pellet gun. None of the victims suffered any pellet wounds so even if the pellet gun had been sitting in the boxroom window it was unrelated to the murders.
2) All 25 casings were tied to the Anschutz to the exclusion of other weapons. The defense expert was free to examine them and failed to contest the assessment.
3) All the wounds were made by 22LR bullets, a large fragment was recovered from every bullet except 1 that killed Nicholas. Most of them were conclusively tied to the Anschutz, the ones too damaged still were tied by the casing as well as the fact there were no other 22LR rifles at the scene. The defense experts were free to examine the bullets and did not contest they were all fired by the Anschutz.
The medical evidence and ballistic evidence determines whether more than one weapon was used not the fact other weapons were at the scene. If the medical and ballistic evidence showed the air rifle or shotguns at the scene were also used then that would be one thing but they do not.
There is an eyewitness account by the police of a damaged rifle being found in the kitchen with red paint on the barrel (see transcipts of Davidson COLP interview)
I already pointed out you are wrong about this. He didn't say anything about witnessing a gun downstairs with paint on the barrel. He though that they found red paint on the shotgun found downstairs that they seized. They sized one of the shotguns not just the Anschutz. The shotgun and rifle were both fingerprinted. He overheard them say red paint was on a weapon and didn't know they meant on the moderator. He assumed they meant directly on a weapon and since he personally handled the Anschutz and knew it has no paint on it he assumed they meant on the shotgun collected downstairs.
Where does it say he personally witnessed red paint on a barrel of a weapon found downstairs?
(http://s13.postimg.org/rx01kq1mf/davidsonweaponredpaint.jpg)
He is giving them his erroneous recollection of things, his erroneous recollection was they told him red paint was found on the barrel of the weapon they collected downstairs. He then erroneously told the that he was there when the paint samples were taken by saying Cook turned them over to him at the scene where he logged them in. COLP then provided him with his pocketbook showing he was off duty at the time and not with them and the other documents he filled out subsequently were shown. He wound up admitting he screwed up he was handed the samples at a later time and at this later time filled out the paperwork. It was 6 years late rhis memory was foggy he handled a lot of cases in between.
On august 7th Jeremy told police there was an Anshutz semi auto and a another .22 rifle (possibly bolt action) inside the house. AP kept his Bruno .22 bolt action on the farm. But denies it was there during the murders however his accounts are very contradictory.
I consider two rifle theory a possibility I am not saying its a fact. If you think I thought the rifle Jeapes spotted was the same one on Shelia and in the window? come on man I know you think I have half a brain but I am not that stupid.
Jeremy either lied to police or he was unaware that Anthony took his rifle with him. Anthony's rifle was not taken by the police because it wasn't at the scene. Nor did the family find his rifle because it wasn't there, he took it with him. Whether Jeapes actually saw something or not matters not because all 25 shots were from the Anschutz. The only weapons there in any event aside from the Anschutz was the air rifle and several shotguns. no one has ever explained where the air rifle was but it makes little difference since no one was shot with a pellet.
-
I already pointed out you are wrong about this. He didn't say anything about witnessing a gun downstairs with paint on the barrel. He though that they found red paint on the shotgun found downstairs that they seized. They sized one of the shotguns not just the Anschutz. The shotgun and rifle were both fingerprinted. He overheard them say red paint was on a weapon and didn't know they meant on the moderator. He assumed they meant directly on a weapon and since he personally handled the Anschutz and knew it has no paint on it he assumed they meant on the shotgun collected downstairs.
Where does it say he personally witnessed red paint on a barrel of a weapon found downstairs?
(http://s13.postimg.org/rx01kq1mf/davidsonweaponredpaint.jpg)
He is giving them his erroneous recollection of things, his erroneous recollection was they told him red paint was found on the barrel of the weapon they collected downstairs. He then erroneously told the that he was there when the paint samples were taken by saying Cook turned them over to him at the scene where he logged them in. COLP then provided him with his pocketbook showing he was off duty at the time and not with them and the other documents he filled out subsequently were shown. He wound up admitting he screwed up he was handed the samples at a later time and at this later time filled out the paperwork. It was 6 years late rhis memory was foggy he handled a lot of cases in between.
Of course its entirely possible it can be an innocent mistake and you could be right. But there are far to many mistakes in this case it gets me concerned.
The so called erroneous recollection continues further
(http://s9.postimg.org/w0gqvi4cv/paintelliot.jpg)
Is this a mistake like the mistake of AAC Simpson saying they found a silencer on august 7th?
Is this a mistake like the mistake of seeing a woman in the downstairs kitchen?
Is this a mistake like the mistake of getting the times wrong on the emergency call logs?
Is this a mistake like the mistake of writing daughter gone berserk instead of writing sister?
Is this a mistake like the mistake of destroying the exhibits in 1996?
There are more I could list. Yes they could all well be innocent errors but I find it rather difficult to accept 100%
-
Of course its entirely possible it can be an innocent mistake and you could be right. But there are far to many mistakes in this case it gets me concerned.
The so called erroneous recollection continues further
(http://s9.postimg.org/w0gqvi4cv/paintelliot.jpg)
Is this a mistake like the mistake of AAC Simpson saying they found a silencer on august 7th?
Is this a mistake like the mistake of seeing a woman in the downstairs kitchen?
Is this a mistake like the mistake of getting the times wrong on the emergency call logs?
Is this a mistake like the mistake of writing daughter gone berserk instead of writing sister?
Is this a mistake like the mistake of destroying the exhibits in 1996?
There are more I could list. Yes they could all well be innocent errors but I find it rather difficult to accept 100%
You and others on blue post countless wrong claims. That you post such claims doesn't prove the claims are true. Simpson would have to go read the records to make sure he was speaking accurately but didn't make sure. He wasn't a witness so his error is wholly meaningless. So are the other things you cite. You have nothing by way of evidence that actually supports anything at all untoward occurred. There is not a single case without typos and other innocent errors such prove nothing at all.
Peopel keeping logs misunderstand information fed to the all the time even 911 operators sometimes don't understand the caller correctly that doesn't mean squat they are not eyewitnesses to anything. No rational person believe there was an additional body in the kitchen all rational people recognize all the other 4 victims were lying roughly where they died. To try pretending maybe another body was in the kitchen just takes away your credibility and says you made up your mind about this case guided solely by bias and choose to opportunistically grab any BS you can to try to justify your position as opposed to selecting legitimate things to form your opinion around and thus be able to actually present a rational well supported position.
Reciting a laundry list of what have been proven as errors amounts to nothing. A single thing that is not an error but evidence of a conspiracy is worth ore than a million meaningless errors. But no defenders have come up with such and thus many will simply go to the worthless laundry list of errors which COLP determined were meaningless, most of Jeremy's lawyers recognized were meaningless, the CCRC and Court of Appeals recognize are meaningless. only some ignorant members of the public are fooled into believing such errors have any significance but such people have no sway over anything that happens so it's quite useless to Jeremy.
-
David:
"The photographs of Shelia that Jeremy sent to McDonnell in 1992 it was assumed those pictures to be of Sheila as she was found (unaltered), Hence McDonnel came to the conclusion that Shelia was murdered based on the blood patterns on the carpet and the circumstances around the bible. However we now have police interview/notes saying that the crime scene photos of Shelia are different to how they first found her. This evidence came to light not long ago and McDonnell did not know this at the time in 1992 and if he did his conclusions would have been different."
Is there police notes that say the body was different than when police saw her? Nope what the notes ACTUALLY indicated is that out of all the police who saw her body, a couple initially thought maybe something was different but ultimately decided that nothing was different and that the photos were indeed accurate. Seems that David's cartoon about living in denial applies to him not those he aims it at.
-
David:
"The photographs of Shelia that Jeremy sent to McDonnell in 1992 it was assumed those pictures to be of Sheila as she was found (unaltered), Hence McDonnel came to the conclusion that Shelia was murdered based on the blood patterns on the carpet and the circumstances around the bible. However we now have police interview/notes saying that the crime scene photos of Shelia are different to how they first found her. This evidence came to light not long ago and McDonnell did not know this at the time in 1992 and if he did his conclusions would have been different."
Is there police notes that say the body was different than when police saw her? Nope what the notes ACTUALLY indicated is that out of all the police who saw her body, a couple initially thought maybe something was different but ultimately decided that nothing was different and that the photos were indeed accurate. Seems that David's cartoon about living in denial applies to him not those he aims it at.
I thought Herb MacDonell (HM) based his findings on the rifle without the silencer but I recall Myster said some misunderstanding occurred and HM based his findings on a different rifle!?
According to Michael Gradwell, former Detective Superintendent, the photos show SC hand was in fact moved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPRd912xv9M&feature=youtu.be&t=6m50s
We know SC's hand was moved as various police officers confirm this was done to enable DC Bird to photograph some blood under her wrist.
Now I'm going to put my tin hat on for this but what about Crispy? Did he/she interfere with the SoC? I've never owned a dog so don't know much about them but what are they instinctively likely do in such a SoC? I don't believe he/she was foresnically analysed for GSR or blood?
-
According to Michael Gradwell, former Detective Superintendent, the photos show SC hand was in fact moved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPRd912xv9M&feature=youtu.be&t=6m50s
We know SC's hand was moved as various police officers confirm this was done to enable DC Bird to photograph some blood under her wrist.
Yes this evident in both the police notes of the interview and the conclusions DS Benard makes in his correspondence to DS Ainsley. (See attached)
Scipio now does his classic travesty of using evidence if and when it suits him, comes up with his own opinions of what the evidence is supposed to mean expecting others to take it as fact.
Did Scipio prove the police notes and letters are wrong? No as usual just gives his opinion hoping it will be accepted as a fact. Does Scipio speak for the Officers who saw Sheila's body with there own eyes? No! Does Scipio speak for the Officers who took part in the meeting were the notes were produced? No!
Should people listen to Scipio's opinions and assumptions? No
-
Yes this evident in both the police notes of the interview and the conclusions DS Benard makes in his correspondence to DS Ainsley. (See attached)
Scipio now does his classic travesty of using evidence if and when it suits him, comes up with his own opinions of what the evidence is supposed to mean expecting others to take it as fact.
Did Scipio prove the police notes and letters are wrong? No as usual just gives his opinion hoping it will be accepted as a fact. Does Scipio speak for the Officers who saw Sheila's body with there own eyes? No! Does Scipio speak for the Officers who took part in the meeting were the notes were produced? No!
Should people listen to Scipio's opinions and assumptions? No
The ones making pathetic assumptions is you not me.
We already know that police moved her hand to take additional photos with her hand moved. Anyone not blind knows they did that. They submitted photos before moving her and after at trial and discussed it. How does that establish that they moved her before the initial photo was taken? It doesn't! You are much less intelligent than you think you are- the classic legend in his own mind.
As for the COLP note posted all it says it to Query which means to ask Collins, Delgado, DS Jones, Miller and Cook. 6 years later Adams thought the head was closer than he remembered, could not recall anything about the gun, wondered if the angle of her head was different and he thought the Bible had been by her waste because someone had told him at the time they felt she was reading it then put it down in which case would have put it by her waist.
Did the other officers tell COLP the photos were not how she was when they saw her? No.
Your smoking gun falls apart totally as it always does because you spout lies and distort evidence to try to pretend it proves something it doesn't.
-
I thought Herb MacDonell (HM) based his findings on the rifle without the silencer but I recall Myster said some misunderstanding occurred and HM based his findings on a different rifle!?
According to Michael Gradwell, former Detective Superintendent, the photos show SC hand was in fact moved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPRd912xv9M&feature=youtu.be&t=6m50s
We know SC's hand was moved as various police officers confirm this was done to enable DC Bird to photograph some blood under her wrist.
Now I'm going to put my tin hat on for this but what about Crispy? Did he/she interfere with the SoC? I've never owned a dog so don't know much about them but what are they instinctively likely do in such a SoC? I don't believe he/she was foresnically analysed for GSR or blood?
MacDonell made a number of findings. 1 finding was based on erroneous information that being he was told the murder weapon was found found in a different room than her body.
The other findings were based on reading the blood staining. Mike's lies about the body being significantly moved and relocated are totally bogus. David latched onto these with his sole evidence being the Adams telling COLP 6 years later she looks different than he remembered but he could not say for sure given the passage of time so they should query others. He didn't even recall the gun being on her so his recollection isn't worth crap.
As you can see he saw the photos that illustrated police moved her arm to show the staining on her dress so David was wrong as usual in suggesting he didn't know:
(http://s16.postimg.org/pgiuc8ow5/macdonnellsheila.jpg)
(http://s30.postimg.org/osrbagx6p/macdonnellsheila2.jpg)
PS others totally disagreed that she was lying down when shot and pointed to the blood on her gown as evidence she wasn't lying down when shot. He gave varied excuses of rushing and not being given much time and changed his opinion in that regard.
-
Gentleman
Can we keep it civil please. TY
-
MacDonell made a number of findings. 1 finding was based on erroneous information that being he was told the murder weapon was found found in a different room than her body.
The other findings were based on reading the blood staining. Mike's lies about the body being significantly moved and relocated are totally bogus. David latched onto these with his sole evidence being the Adams telling COLP 6 years later she looks different than he remembered but he could not say for sure given the passage of time so they should query others. He didn't even recall the gun being on her so his recollection isn't worth crap.
As you can see he saw the photos that illustrated police moved her arm to show the staining on her dress so David was wrong as usual in suggesting he didn't know:
(http://s16.postimg.org/pgiuc8ow5/macdonnellsheila.jpg)
(http://s30.postimg.org/osrbagx6p/macdonnellsheila2.jpg)
PS others totally disagreed that she was lying down when shot and pointed to the blood on her gown as evidence she wasn't lying down when shot. He gave varied excuses of rushing and not being given much time and changed his opinion in that regard.
Thanks Scipio. It sounds very simplistic? As though he knocked it up during a 10 min tea-break? Not what I would expect from a world class forensic scientist? I think it's pretty old so maybe it represents the standards at the time? His conclusions seem to be based on the fact SC couldn't have reached the trigger with the silencer attached?
-
Thanks Scipio. It sounds very simplistic? As though he knocked it up during a 10 min tea-break? Not what I would expect from a world class forensic scientist? I think it's pretty old so maybe it represents the standards at the time? His conclusions seem to be based on the fact SC couldn't have reached the trigger with the silencer attached?
1992... http://watchingyouwatchingyme-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/bamber-report-from-prof-herbert-leon.html (http://watchingyouwatchingyme-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/bamber-report-from-prof-herbert-leon.html)
-
The police officers that observed SC in situ, along with Dr Craig, had literally hundreds of years experience between them. If there was anything staring them in the face I struggle to see how they overlooked this? I think they kept an open mind to some degree hence after identifying all 5 victims at SoC they continued to search WHF with caution until all rooms including the attic and cellar (I think) had been searched.
The prosecution case against JB at trial didn't involve SC's body/the bible being moved post death. And at JB's 2002 appeal hearing the appeal court judges rejected Dr Ismail's testimony to this effect.
-
1992... http://watchingyouwatchingyme-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/bamber-report-from-prof-herbert-leon.html (http://watchingyouwatchingyme-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/bamber-report-from-prof-herbert-leon.html)
But would JB seek out a world class expert knowing he was guilty?
Wilkes' book states the report was prepared on a limited budget and was a sort of preliminary indicative report with further funding required for the full monty. Were JB's solicitors involved or was it case of JB sending HM info/photos and perhaps some of it getting lost in translation so to speak?
If JB's case gets to CoA again, or even a retrial, the good news is that he will be eligible for funding and expert testimony in all this sort of thing will be brought to the fore.
-
Thanks Scipio. It sounds very simplistic? As though he knocked it up during a 10 min tea-break? Not what I would expect from a world class forensic scientist? I think it's pretty old so maybe it represents the standards at the time? His conclusions seem to be based on the fact SC couldn't have reached the trigger with the silencer attached?
That was exactly the excuse he used- not having much time to spend. Note how he said she was shot lying down because the blood moved sideways from her mouth. If she was shot lying down then the blood would not have been able to leak down her arm/breast. So he felt foolish and later admitted she was seated when shot. He said her felt her body was disturbed after death and this caused the change in blood flow so he ended up supporting her being killed and then her body moved. He gave up on the erroneous claim the gun was found in another room when he was informed that was not the case. This make sit all the more stupid for people that support Jeremy to claim the murder weapon was not on her body or even near it that would establish she was killed.
One of his reasons for her being killed was she would not be able to pull the trigger with the moderator attached. The nonfatal wound was at nearly a 90 degree angle that sure as hell would not be possible. Whether she could or not though is not very significant since it wasn't attached when her body was found and dead people can't go put it away. Moderator used equals murders no matter how you slice it. That is why the defense has to prove it wasn't used in order to get him a new trial. There is no conceivable way for the defense to try to establish that though. That is why instead they do red herrings but it is extraordinarily rare that could ever work on an Appeals Court.
-
On blue David loves to attack me since I am not there to defend myself. He posts garbage like this:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7282.225.html
It seems to apply to him though because after it is prove he has posted rubbish- like the rubbish claim that evidence proves police moved her body before taking the initial photos he runs and hides on blue because he has lost the debate here.
Everytime he posts a video or cartoon mocking me or anyone else it is simply him projecting his flaws onto us they always apply to him.
The argument that because they moved her hand and took photos this means they moved her before taking the first set of photos is the most illogical argument I ever heard. Worse he claims MacDonnell was unaware of that movements even though he makes clear he saw both sets of photos.
The argument that Adams saying to query the others about whether the body was moved doesn't prove it was moved, he admitted his memory was foggy. None of those that Adams suggester COLP query told COLP the photos did not reflect how they saw Sheila. David adopts Mike's absurd claims then when proven wrong runs to blue and posts childish attacks like a big baby.
-
On blue David loves to attack me since I am not there to defend myself. He posts garbage like this:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7282.225.html
I believe I posted plenty of GIFs in replies to you long before you were banned. Besides I was simply saying I get the impression your angry annoyed whenever I read your posts
It seems to apply to him though because after it is prove he has posted rubbish- like the rubbish claim that evidence proves police moved her body before taking the initial photos he runs and hides on blue because he has lost the debate here.
Who said anyone lost? I see this as casual chat not a competitive debate
Everytime he posts a video or cartoon mocking me or anyone else it is simply him projecting his flaws onto us they always apply to him.
What is wrong with replying with a gif image? http://replygif.net/ (http://replygif.net/) nothing to stop you using them.
Sure I have flaws but that is not the reason I mock you, I mock you because I don't like the way you talk to me.
As for projecting you might want to read this
http://www.theessentialyoublog.com/projecting-your-flaws/ (http://www.theessentialyoublog.com/projecting-your-flaws/)
The argument that because they moved her hand and took photos this means they moved her before taking the first set of photos is the most illogical argument I ever heard. Worse he claims MacDonnell was unaware of that movements even though he makes clear he saw both sets of photos.
The argument that Adams saying to query the others about whether the body was moved doesn't prove it was moved, he admitted his memory was foggy. None of those that Adams suggester COLP query told COLP the photos did not reflect how they saw Sheila. David adopts Mike's absurd claims then when proven wrong runs to blue and posts childish attacks like a big baby.
If you chose to believe the police notes mean nothing and I chose to believe otherwise then there is not much point discussing the subject if our views differ combined with the fact I don't like talking to you hence no reply from me does not mean 'I lost' or 'you won'
Also I don't adopt Mikes theory that police shot Sheila.
Hope this clears everything up :)
(http://replygif.net/i/1082.gif)
-
David/Scipio
Can you please draw a line under the above. I should not have approved the thread as the title and post #1 is too aggressive as I pointed out in post #2 and it just snowballs as I said it would. Friendly banter is fine but verbal aggression/hostility/goading is not.
Personally none it bothers me including Scipio's rudeness to myself but as a forum we need to consider all members, potential members, guests and the forums image. We have invited the CT to join the forum but if they read the above I can understand their reluctance.
You both make excellent posts and without opposing views we would have nothing to debate!
TY.
-
David/Scipio
Can you please draw a line under the above. I should not have approved the thread as the title and post #1 is too aggressive as I pointed out in post #2 and it just snowballs as I said it would. Friendly banter is fine but verbal aggression/hostility/goading is not.
Personally none it bothers me including Scipio's rudeness to myself but as a forum we need to consider all members, potential members, guests and the forums image. We have invited the CT to join the forum but if they read the above I can understand their reluctance.
You both make excellent posts and without opposing views we would have nothing to debate!
TY.
This thread appears to have been edited Holls with the naughty bits taken out so no worries. 8((()*/
-
I believe I posted plenty of GIFs in replies to you long before you were banned. Besides I was simply saying I get the impression your angry annoyed whenever I read your posts
Who said anyone lost? I see this as casual chat not a competitive debate
What is wrong with replying with a gif image? http://replygif.net/ (http://replygif.net/) nothing to stop you using them.
Sure I have flaws but that is not the reason I mock you, I mock you because I don't like the way you talk to me.
As for projecting you might want to read this
http://www.theessentialyoublog.com/projecting-your-flaws/ (http://www.theessentialyoublog.com/projecting-your-flaws/)
If you chose to believe the police notes mean nothing and I chose to believe otherwise then there is not much point discussing the subject if our views differ combined with the fact I don't like talking to you hence no reply from me does not mean 'I lost' or 'you won'
Also I don't adopt Mikes theory that police shot Sheila.
Hope this clears everything up :)
(http://replygif.net/i/1082.gif)
You posted notes taken when Adams was questioned by COLP. Those notes say to query other officers about Sheila's body to see if they think the photos were accurate or not. Those officers said the photos reflect how she was. The crime scene officer and photographer say they took photos BEFORE moving her body.
That means you have evidence of nothing except in your mind. You project and project and project and distort. At the end of the day you know much less than you think and your arguments hold no merit at all except in your mind.
-
That means you have evidence of nothing except in your mind. You project and project and project and distort. At the end of the day you know much less than you think and your arguments hold no merit at all except in your mind.
At the end of the day your opinion is your opinion. Besides if it was all in my mind I would not have people giving me some credit for what I post.
-
At the end of the day your opinion is your opinion. Besides if it was all in my mind I would not have people giving me some credit for what I post.
My opinion is based on facts while you make up fake facts. You said that there is proof that police moved her body before taking the photos- your proof turned out to be simply Adams telling COLP to query others as to whether it was moved. You also ERROENOUSLY claimed MacDonnell was unaware police moved her hand to take photos though he clearly explained in his report police did so. That means you didn't even read his report. But your argument that moving her hand to take the photo proves they moved her before taking the initial photos holds no merit anyway. Your claims are always illogical. You constantly demonstrate you don't know the basic facts of the case. You didn't even know that there were 30 bullets on the counter next to the phone. You were unaware the tray had a bullet in it and that they were taken as a separate exhibit though we discussed such a million times. You are little more than a legend in your own mind and assert absurd opinions formed around erroneous claims including multiple rifles being used though there was a single rifle at WHF. And let's not forget your insistence that Davidson told COLP he personally witnessed a rifle that had red paint on the barrel though he said no such thing he simply assumed there was paint on the barrel of some other rifle because he heard paint was on a weapon and assumed that meant a rifle he was unaware it was the moderator. He didn't see or collect any other rifles because there were none. But hey I'm weird I like actual facts and correctly view the evidenc einstea dof distorting it to pretend it says anything I fell like as you and Mike do...
-
My opinion is based on facts while you make up fake facts. You said that there is proof that police moved her body before taking the photos- your proof turned out to be simply Adams telling COLP to query others as to whether it was moved. You also ERROENOUSLY claimed MacDonnell was unaware police moved her hand to take photos though he clearly explained in his report police did so. That means you didn't even read his report. But your argument that moving her hand to take the photo proves they moved her before taking the initial photos holds no merit anyway. Your claims are always illogical. You constantly demonstrate you don't know the basic facts of the case. You didn't even know that there were 30 bullets on the counter next to the phone. You were unaware the tray had a bullet in it and that they were taken as a separate exhibit though we discussed such a million times. You are little more than a legend in your own mind and assert absurd opinions formed around erroneous claims including multiple rifles being used though there was a single rifle at WHF. And let's not forget your insistence that Davidson told COLP he personally witnessed a rifle that had red paint on the barrel though he said no such thing he simply assumed there was paint on the barrel of some other rifle because he heard paint was on a weapon and assumed that meant a rifle he was unaware it was the moderator. He didn't see or collect any other rifles because there were none. But hey I'm weird I like actual facts and correctly view the evidenc einstea dof distorting it to pretend it says anything I fell like as you and Mike do...
Just to remind you. You are in a rat race and you are the only participant. @)(++(*
-
Just to remind you. You are in a rat race and you are the only participant. @)(++(*
You can't refute what I posted because it is true so instead you try to pretend you just don't want to respond. No one is being fooled though your ignorance and inability to admit when you are wrong is on full display for all to see.
-
You can't refute what I posted because it is true so instead you try to pretend you just don't want to respond. No one is being fooled though your ignorance and inability to admit when you are wrong is on full display for all to see.
Yeah I've had that said to me by 9/11 truthers, creationists, Scientology people and other such people I have engaged with. I stop responding because I don't see the point anymore. But if it makes you feel better to believe otherwise that's fine by me.
-
Yeah I've had that said to me by 9/11 truthers, creationists, Scientology people and other such people I have engaged with. I stop responding because I don't see the point anymore. But if it makes you feel better to believe otherwise that's fine by me.
I posted facts and evidence you posted nonsense that you couldn't back up. Anytime people prove you wrong you act like a child then project and claim they are the ones doing so. You are little more than a legend in your own mind. Did MacDonnell know that police took photos after moving Sheila's hand? Yes your claim he didn't was ludicrous. Does that prove the initial photo was taken after she was moved? No it proves that photos were taken before and after the police moved her hand. Did Collins et al tell COLP Sheila's body was in a different position when they saw her? No Collins and the Crime scene officers said the photos reflect how her body was. Adams told COLP to query these people because his recollection was poor and these people said it wasn't moved. Your claim Adams notes prove her body was moved by police is sheer nonsense. Just like the 911 conspiracy theorists you ignore evidence proving you wrong and distort to try to pretend things are as you wish them to be instead of how they are.
-
FAO Mike - it's "OH! What a tangled web we weave. When FIRST we practise to deceive." Marmion, Sir Walter Scott. As you "hate liars" so much (hollow laugh) I presume that you equally despise plagiarism.
Happy to help! 8((()*/
-
Bamber, Huntley, Bridger, Philpott, all eating "sprouts a la Wakefield" and waiting for Sutcliffe to make up a hand of bridge. Thank goodness that Troods wll save the day with her flabby sponge!
-
Bamber, Huntley, Bridger, Philpott, all eating "sprouts a la Wakefield" and waiting for Sutcliffe to make up a hand of bridge. Thank goodness that Troods wll save the day with her flabby sponge!
Dare I ask what a flabby sponge is.
-
Dare I ask what a flabby sponge is.
I assumed spongecake but was afraid to ask
-
Dare I ask what a flabby sponge is.
Half baked, perhaps?
-
Dare I ask what a flabby sponge is.
It's a cake! Troods loves baking!
Mick Philpott reckons that he was set up by the police, convicted on circumstantial evidence and is totally innocent (no prizes for guessing who he's been talking to!) He wants someone to take on his case - maybe Troods could help him out? With her floppy baps?