Author Topic: Since banned on the blue board for the time being will address claims here  (Read 2453 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

SteveUK-

"The "Jeremy trying to get Sheila load bullets into the gun incident" was reportedly related to Robert Boutflour by June with no corroboration whatsoever and was included in a hasty statement made by Boutflour after his initial ones along with the relatives and their suspicions had been overlooked in a frantic attempt to influence the trajectory of Police enquiries,which hitherto had resulted in no concrete evidence against Jeremy. Scipio of course relates this as fact,whilst being the first to condemn others who attempt to put incidents in some kind of context even if this does mean on occasion some emotion being expressed by an author."

My response:

I condemn when people use a source that is not a first person source such as a log or book etc instead of making sure the claim has a valid source. Since June is dead she can't confirm it but Pam could.  He claimed Pam was with June at the time June said that Jeremy tried to teach Sheila to load the gun.  There is no reason to think he and Pam lied by confirming it.  Just because Pam's full testimony and other statement she made were never posted by Mike doensn't mean they don't exist.  Had the defense elicited testimony from Pam denying that conversation occurred then Mike would have posted it.

The 2002 Appellate court briefly characterized Pam's testimony as follows:

"According to Pamela Boutflour (June Bamber's sister), Sheila Caffell was not a violent person and she had never known her to use a gun and in the opinion of the witness she would not know how to use one."

Testimony is evidence that establishes facts. Claims in books do not.  One bogus claim I recall off hand from Lomax was police washed Sheila's hands before taking any swabs.  That wasn't the testimony of the police or Vanezis though he made the claim up.  People who choose not to believe the family refuse to believe the family because they are biased in favor of Jeremy and thus choose to believe the family and police were all lying even though they can't produce a shred of evidence to prove they are lying.  I refute claims liek Lomax's lies with evidence in contrast.

By Jan

"I know - for example Mike says there were three hand swabs taken from Sheila- so if one was refused then how do we know which one was submitted and if it was not the original then any GSR could have diminished- Skippy ignored that Question.
 
Also when I showed him evidence that GSR was only present in 22% of rifle shots - ignored.


His other main argument is that EP are allowed to make lots of mistakes - but they always tell the truth and they are not corrupt , never . Not sure  buy that :)

Anyone can have an opinion - but don't dress it up as FACT ."

My response: You can't tell the truth to save your life.  I responded to your claims you are either too stupid to recognize I did or too dishoenst to admit it.

I explained to you that Mike was lying about there bing multiple swab kits done in case one kit was rejected.  The swabs were all in the same bag, they were part of a single kit. There were not multiple sets of swab kits from Sheila.  A swab kit was used on Sheila and a swab kit on Nevill. The police sent multiple items to the lab related to different cases all at the same time. Firearms from another case were submitted at the same time as Sheila's swabs and the lab refused to accept Sheila's swabs fearing the firearms could have contaminated the swabs.  The fear was irraitonal the swabs were contained in a sealed bag there was no reason to thing the swabs were contaminated.  The same swabs which were the only swabs taken from Sheila were submitted on another date and were accepted and tested.  The issue is simple and has been explained countless times.

I also responded to the dubious claim that only 22% of rifle shots result is GSR on the shooter in the following manner:  that 22% meant after 1 shot was fired and with the gun held straight out.  There were 5 shots fired including 2 where she allegedly hugged the weapon.  Even if only 22% of these shots resulted in GSR getting on her that still results in 5.5 shots.  In the meantime this figure doesn't relate to the soot being expelled from the vents and ejection port which would have left visible staining on her gown had she hugged the wepaon and shot herself. 

My position about the police is also being misrepresented.  My position is simple the errors the police supposedly committed are not errors that hurt Jeremy they helped Jeremy. Thus one can't argue their mistakes were on purpose to frame Jeremy since they helped him.  The burden of proving they were all lying and fabricated evidence rests with the people making the claim and you have not a shred of evidence to suggest police fabricated any evidence.  You choose to believe they lied and fabricated evidence just because you want to believe Jeremy is innocent.   

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline scipio_usmc

Jan

"I agree there is a difference between unlikely and impossible.

And for all the ruminating about the call we don't know what the exact situation was at the time of the call. Was there time to kill 4 people from the time of the call to when the police got to the house? The answer is yes .Was it possible that Sheila was still alive when the police got there - answer yes.

Would they have heard the gun shots if she had committed suicide when they were outside ? Unknown because apparently those tests were refused.

And for Scipio to state as a fact that NB knew Sheila and JB did not get on and would not have called him ? That is not a fact - it is pure speculation.

I am not saying the above makes JB innocent - but what I am saying is that mixing up speculation and assumption as facts is a dangerous game."

My posts are based on evidence while you specualte based on ntohign but how you wish things woudl be jsut liek Alias does.

Jeremy himself said he didn't get along with Sheila, Julie gave statements ddiscussing the fact as did others.

The notion that Jeremy got on great with Sheila and thus that Nevill would have phoned him to help calm her down is not credible and your speculation that he did such totally unsupported by anything.  All evidence that goes against what you want to believe is ignored like the evidence estbalishing Jeremy didn't get on well with Sheila and that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside.

In the legal arena absolute proof is not required.  Proof that something is more likely than not true is what is needed in the civil arena and also in the criminal arena for everything except the essential legal elements of a specific crime the essential elements need to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.  Beyond a reasonable doubt means the state establishes it is reasonably likely to have occurred and the defense is unable to establish it and is not reasonably likely to have occurred based on all the evidence available.

When someone testifies medically speaking it is highly unlikely that Nevill could have suffered any of the headshots upstairs and still would have been able to get downstairs that is sufficient to establish he didn't.  When you add in that he would not have been able to struggle, the location of the only oddball casing and the fact that he didn't suffer isolated shots to the head but rather 2 batches of shots to the head, that each batch featured 2 shots in rapid succession and thus if he had been shot upstairs it would have to have been 2 shots then tha tis even more evidence he was shot downstairs.  Ignoring reality and evidence doesn't make one right it makes one irraitonal and their claims absurd because in order for claims to be valid they have to be credible and supported by something.

 

 
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 08:54:23 PM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline guinness

talking to yourself ? is that not the first sign of ----------- &%+((£

Offline Myster

Oh my goodness, my guinness... you're opening up a jack-in-the-box there.  Stand by for a punch up the 'ooter!

‘Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their heads off.’ Anthony Arlidge QC, closing speech at the Bamber trial, 22 October 1986

Offline scipio_usmc

talking to yourself ? is that not the first sign of ----------- &%+((£

Those on blue watch this board like hawks. 
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline abs

Those on blue watch this board like hawks.

Do hawks hibernate? - I only saw this now, and to make it worse, I didn´t even read skippy´s post, I never do!  8)--))