Author Topic: In Conversation .......  (Read 1433 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

In Conversation .......
« on: March 07, 2017, 01:31:20 PM »
I posted the following on the blue forum last night. Just wondered what members here thought?

Many people who believe Jeremy is innocent, just can't get their head around the notion that the police may have been in conversation with someone inside the 'farmhouse'.

That one line conjures up images of Sheila holding on to the rifle in a 'you'll never take me alive coppers' type scenario.

I have previously argued that Bonnett probably just wrote the wrong phrase when he used the words 'in conversation', until I noticed something that I hadn't rationalised before. Something gets repeated here so many times that we often take for granted what we believe is written and miss was is actually stated. I was under the assumption that Bonnett's log stated "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARMHOUSE, however, what Bonnett actually wrote was "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARM' not FARMHOUSE - just FARM. His next line is "Challenge to persons inside HOUSE met with no response". Bonnett distinguishes FARM from HOUSE and the distinction is important when compared with the various TFG statements. Just before the TFG approached the farm with the loud hailer, they WERE in conversation with someone, they were in conversation with Jeremy Bamber; Jeremy Bamber was someone FROM the farm; an inside man so to speak. I believe that the line "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARM " is a reference to the conversation between Jeremy and the TFG as referenced below - (see Collins's partial statement below the relevant section of Bonnett's log). It's important because JUST AFTER the conversation with Jeremy, the TFG made their challenge to 'persons inside the HOUSE' which as we know was 'met with no response'. So no mystery after all as far as I am concerned - Bonnett's comment was in respect to the conversation with Jeremy! Hence the distinction between 'Farm' and 'House'.

31
« Last Edit: March 17, 2017, 05:18:03 PM by John »

Offline Myster

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2017, 04:13:36 PM »
Or Bonnett could simply have misheard the word "barn" (as per your second extract) and substituted "farm" instead, so should have written - "Firearms team are in conversation with someone, from inside the barn".  In other words, Collins, Delgado and Bamber were all gathered together inside the barn and talking to each other.
‘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

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2017, 04:19:42 PM »
My thoughts are simple- it is ambiguous.

He could have intentionally distinguished farm and house to distinguish between Jeremy and the house challenge like you suggest.  You could be on the money.  But he could have been referring to the challenge with both. 

Consider the following- he is told they were speaking to those in the house- so he sloppily writes in conversation with those inside the farm. He is then given another message saying no one responded to the police communication so writes the second sentence. 

The truth can be either of these. The only way to know what was intended would have been to ask Bonnet which of these two was the case.  Either way it changes little since he freely admitted no one in the house responded.

Even if he had claimed he was told they were in communication with someone inside the house that would not be able to refute the accounts of the witnesses who say no one answered.  The people at the scene carry the day, they are the witnesses/participants.  That is the most important point of all.

This issue is purely used for propaganda by dishonest people.  The defense knew that on the stand Bonnett would say he was told no one in the house answered. So it was of no use to the defense at all that he wrote in conversation when they knew he didn't mean someone in the house was speaking back.

Only dishonest people suggest someone was speaking back to police and are dishonest because there is zero support for that.  The police at the scene say such did not occur, Bonnett was not told such occurred, and there is no medical evidence to support anyone being alive  while police were there so no one who could have spoken to them. 


I view this as invented hogwash just like the invented hogwash that Nevill called 999 and that Bonnett's report reflects such not a call from Jeremy.  The same way they ignore that the report clearly states West was the one who called Bonnett and clearly details what Jeremy told West, they ignore the words no one in the house responded.

The bottom line is that you could be right but in the grand scheme of things it would not make a difference either way.  No doubt some of the biased delusional sorts on blue will refuse to accept your suggestion as possible since they don't even accept that Bonnett said no one in the house responded. They will be wrong of course, it is quote plausible your suggestion is accurate.

 

“...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 John

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2017, 07:33:13 PM »
I posted the following on the blue forum last night. Just wondered what members here thought?

Many people who believe Jeremy is innocent, just can't get their head around the notion that the police may have been in conversation with someone inside the 'farmhouse'.

That one line conjures up images of Sheila holding on to the rifle in a 'you'll never take me alive coppers' type scenario.

I have previously argued that Bonnett probably just wrote the wrong phrase when he used the words 'in conversation', until I noticed something that I hadn't rationalised before. Something gets repeated here so many times that we often take for granted what we believe is written and miss was is actually stated. I was under the assumption that Bonnett's log stated "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARMHOUSE, however, what Bonnett actually wrote was "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARM' not FARMHOUSE - just FARM. His next line is "Challenge to persons inside HOUSE met with no response". Bonnett distinguishes FARM from HOUSE and the distinction is important when compared with the various TFG statements. Just before the TFG approached the farm with the loud hailer, they WERE in conversation with someone, they were in conversation with Jeremy Bamber; Jeremy Bamber was someone FROM the farm; an inside man so to speak. I believe that the line "Firearms team are in conversation with someone from inside the FARM " is a reference to the conversation between Jeremy and the TFG as referenced below - (see Collins's partial statement below the relevant section of Bonnett's log). It's important because JUST AFTER the conversation with Jeremy, the TFG made their challenge to 'persons inside the HOUSE' which as we know was 'met with no response'. So no mystery after all as far as I am concerned - Bonnett's comment was in respect to the conversation with Jeremy! Hence the distinction between 'Farm' and 'House'.

Bonnett, the civilian operator in the police control room was most probably getting snippets of information from various sources and would have been listening to the radio transmissions emanating from the ICP set up at the farm.  With the best will in the world messages do get construed sometimes, my own thoughts on this have always been that the police probably followed their training and attempted to contact anyone alive in the farmhouse but their efforts were met with silence.  They were then forced to consider whether an armed person was hiding in the house thus their extreme caution when entering.

Had there been any conversation with someone within the farmhouse it would have been reported to Bonnett immediately and Jeremy would most certainly have known about it at the time.  It would also have been reported in the statements of those officers who first entered the farmhouse had it occurred.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 07:49:09 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Caroline

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2017, 10:57:49 PM »
Bonnett makes a distinction between 'farm' and 'house' - I don't believe it's ambiguous at all. Collin's makes it clear that he was in conversation with Jeremy JUST prior to challenging the house. I don't believe there is any doubt that Bonnett's comment is in reference to Jeremy

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4531
  • Total likes: 61
  • Lonely Female 70's NW England Seeks Solace in JBF!
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2017, 03:11:03 AM »
Bonnett makes a distinction between 'farm' and 'house' - I don't believe it's ambiguous at all. Collin's makes it clear that he was in conversation with Jeremy JUST prior to challenging the house. I don't believe there is any doubt that Bonnett's comment is in reference to Jeremy

Makes sense to me. 

There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that police attempts to communicate with anyone inside were responded to.

Why don't you email Eric Allison @ The Guardian and fill him in!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs

@ 3.30 in

Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline John

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2017, 06:33:26 PM »
Makes sense to me. 

There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that police attempts to communicate with anyone inside were responded to.

Why don't you email Eric Allison @ The Guardian and fill him in!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs

@ 3.30 in

I wouldn't bother, he has his own agenda.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Caroline

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2017, 08:23:06 PM »
Makes sense to me. 

There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that police attempts to communicate with anyone inside were responded to.

Why don't you email Eric Allison @ The Guardian and fill him in!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs

@ 3.30 in

No point, it's the official stance anyway, but the CT suggest that the reference in Bonnetts log can't mean Jeremy because

"he was referred to by his name or 'the son' and not as an unknown person. Nor was he 'inside the farm'. In all instances ‘inside the farm’ was repeatedly used by the police to mean ‘inside the farmhouse’."

However, this is rubbish, of course he was inside the farm, however, he wasn't 'inside the house'. I have looked through both logs and only see one reference to the word 'farm' the one where Bonnett mentioned that the firearms team were in conversation with someone from inside the farm - they were talking about Jeremy whatever the CT states. The notion that they only called him 'the son' etc. is ludicrous. Bonnett could only have referred to him as 'the son; if he was told that. Different messages were passed from different people and clearly they all couldn't have referred to Jeremy as the same thing, some may not have even known who he was.

This is written on the OS and is misleading for obvious reasons. It is supposed to be a quote from Bonnett's log but as you can see, it states 'farmhouse'.


Police were in conversation with someone inside the farmhouse at around 5.25am[11]

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/defence-case

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4531
  • Total likes: 61
  • Lonely Female 70's NW England Seeks Solace in JBF!
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2017, 08:45:42 PM »
No point, it's the official stance anyway, but the CT suggest that the reference in Bonnetts log can't mean Jeremy because

"he was referred to by his name or 'the son' and not as an unknown person. Nor was he 'inside the farm'. In all instances ‘inside the farm’ was repeatedly used by the police to mean ‘inside the farmhouse’."

However, this is rubbish, of course he was inside the farm, however, he wasn't 'inside the house'. I have looked through both logs and only see one reference to the word 'farm' the one where Bonnett mentioned that the firearms team were in conversation with someone from inside the farm - they were talking about Jeremy whatever the CT states. The notion that they only called him 'the son' etc. is ludicrous. Bonnett could only have referred to him as 'the son; if he was told that. Different messages were passed from different people and clearly they all couldn't have referred to Jeremy as the same thing, some may not have even known who he was.

This is written on the OS and is misleading for obvious reasons. It is supposed to be a quote from Bonnett's log but as you can see, it states 'farmhouse'.


Police were in conversation with someone inside the farmhouse at around 5.25am[11]

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/defence-case

The CT....BAH!

JB...BAH!

You can listen to JB here claiming the police saw someone moving around inside the house and were talking to someone inside @ 11.40.  He believes the police know that he didn't murder his family  %£&)**#

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video

Why didn't he put all this in his WS of 7th Aug ie police saw someone moving about and talking with someone inside the house?  I honestly believe JB is thick.     

Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4531
  • Total likes: 61
  • Lonely Female 70's NW England Seeks Solace in JBF!
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2017, 10:17:57 PM »
The CT....BAH!

JB...BAH!

You can listen to JB here claiming the police saw someone moving around inside the house and were talking to someone inside @ 11.40.  He believes the police know that he didn't murder his family  %£&)**#

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video

Why didn't he put all this in his WS of 7th Aug ie police saw someone moving about and talking with someone inside the house?  I honestly believe JB is thick.     

Here's JB's WS of 7th Aug:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566

He talks about the dogs sounding in a distressed state and the police advising everyone to move back.  Nothing about any sounds or sights from within WHF.  I don't need all of this to believe JB is innocent.  It's immaterial. 

Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Caroline

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2017, 12:00:04 AM »
The CT....BAH!

JB...BAH!

You can listen to JB here claiming the police saw someone moving around inside the house and were talking to someone inside @ 11.40.  He believes the police know that he didn't murder his family  %£&)**#

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video

Why didn't he put all this in his WS of 7th Aug ie police saw someone moving about and talking with someone inside the house?  I honestly believe JB is thick.     

Why didn't he indeed? I don't think he's thick, I think he's guilty and grasping at anything and anyone.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2017, 06:46:58 PM »
The CT....BAH!

JB...BAH!

You can listen to JB here claiming the police saw someone moving around inside the house and were talking to someone inside @ 11.40.  He believes the police know that he didn't murder his family  %£&)**#

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-video

Why didn't he put all this in his WS of 7th Aug ie police saw someone moving about and talking with someone inside the house?  I honestly believe JB is thick.     

He is trying to get people to believe he is innocent.  Lying morons he has surrounded himself with bring up the argument and use it to say they believe he is innocent.  Since it "fools" his cabal he feels it can be used to fool the public at large. This is especially the case if the public at large is unaware of the evidence that proves this claim to be bunk.  This was actually one of the selling points to get me to look at the case.

I was told:

1) That police saw Sheila moving
2) spoke with Sheila
3) shot and killed Sheila
4) there was phone records proving a call from WHF to Jeremy took place
5) police concealed a call from Nevill to police by pretending there was a single call to police
6) The family planted or police blood in the moderator
7) police used the moderator to scratch the mantle to frame Avery
8) police decided right away to blame Jeremy and doctor things and the family helped to get the inheritance

Of course after scrutinizing the case all these claims fell apart but not all people will inspect things they will just accept allegations.  Moreover, some decide what they want to believe and then will never be moved no matter how much evidence is brought to bear to prove them wrong.  Just look at the people on blue making the same disproved claims over and over.
“...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 David1819

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2017, 08:37:38 PM »
I was told:

1) That police saw Sheila moving
2) spoke with Sheila
3) shot and killed Sheila
4) there was phone records proving a call from WHF to Jeremy took place
5) police concealed a call from Nevill to police by pretending there was a single call to police
6) The family planted or police blood in the moderator
7) police used the moderator to scratch the mantle to frame Avery
8) police decided right away to blame Jeremy and doctor things and the family helped to get the inheritance

Of course after scrutinizing the case all these claims fell apart but not all people will inspect things they will just accept allegations.  Moreover, some decide what they want to believe and then will never be moved no matter how much evidence is brought to bear to prove them wrong.  Just look at the people on blue making the same disproved claims over and over.

Number 1) and 4) are debatable. According to Julie Mugford. Jeremy told her that Mathew Mcdonald made a phone call from WHF to Jeremy's cottage via his answer machine. So a record of such call would be made. Since you believe what this woman says there you go. I on the hand don't. But since her testimony can only have come from either the police or the relatives. I postulate that they must have had evidence of such a call and thus got her to parrot an alternative explanation for it.

Number 6) Proven:  muzzle-imprint abrasion and zone of searing and soot deposition around the contact wound's to Sheila's chin are all consistent with being made by the threaded end of the barrel absent of any silencer. This is supported by four ballistic experts. The typical kneejerk guilter rebuttal is that the CCRC reject this evidence. Indeed they did. In absence of a counter-expert.

Furthermore, Nicholas Caffell having suffered two contact wounds. They failed to discover any blood or tissue evidence of this within the silencer. Another incongruity that supports the evidence I mentioned above.

Evidence that was not discovered by the police but in a rather suspiciously convenient manner, does not cohere with big picture.


7) police used the moderator to scratch the mantle to frame Steven Avery??? Fascinating. please tell me more!

Offline adam

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2017, 09:40:20 PM »
Why Bamber made up a proxy & what he said the proxy did has been well documented.

If Julie got everything from the police or relatives, why would either bring up MM for her ?

There was no blood inside the rifle end. Only inside the silencer.


Offline scipio_usmc

Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2017, 11:30:26 PM »
Number 1 and 4) are debatable

It is not even remotely debatable. Police thought they might have seen some movement but later recognized it was just them moving their heads that gave the impression of such.  Sheila was dead before they got there, there was no one inside to move.   

and 4) are debatable. According to Julie Mugford. Jeremy told her that Mathew Mcdonald made a phone call from WHF to Jeremy's cottage via his answer machine. So a record of such call would be made. Since you believe what this woman says there you go. I on the hand don't. But since her testimony can only have come from either the police or the relatives. I postulate that they must have had evidence of such a call and thus got her to parrot an alternative explanation for it.

1) Believing that Jeremy fed her such lie doesn't in any way make Jeremy's lie true. MM had nothing to do with the murders.

2) Even if someone had called from WHF to Goldhanger there still would not have been any phone record proving it.

3) If someone had called Jeremy's answering machine pretending to be Nevill and the tape were turned over to police it would not prove the time of the call, could be used to prove the call wasn't Nevill's voice and worst of all would demolish Jeremy's claim he actually spoke to Nevill as opposed to his answering machine picking up. .


Number 6) Proven:  muzzle-imprint abrasion and zone of searing and soot deposition around the contact wound's to Sheila's chin are all consistent with being made by the threaded end of the barrel absent of any silencer. This is supported by four ballistic experts. The typical kneejerk guilter rebuttal is that the CCRC reject this evidence. Indeed they did. In absence of a counter-expert.

Complete nonsense. There is no muzzle imprint except in the minds of fools. The argument that there is a muzzle imprint is pathetic it consists of saying that Vanezis description sounds like a muzzle imprint not a bullet abrasion like he assessed.


Furthermore, Nicholas Caffell having suffered two contact wounds. They failed to discover any blood or tissue evidence of this within the silencer. Another incongruity that supports the evidence I mentioned above.


Nonsense.

1) He suffered contact or near contact shots

2) You are making up that blood would have to get inside the moderator from any and all contact wounds no matter where located which is patently untrue.  22 shots to the head rarely result in backspatter. The reason why Sheila's wound was sure to create drawback was because of its location. She suffered a previous wound that caused her neck to fill with blood thus shooting her in the neck was sure to result in backspatter if a non-contact wound or drawback if a contact wound. 

3) if your babble were true then instead of just Sheila's blood having to be in the rifle barrel then their blood would have to have been in it but no blood was inside it.

Evidence that was not discovered by the police but in a rather suspiciously convenient manner, does not cohere with big picture.

It coheres perfectly except in the mind of biased people bent on hiding from reality who would like to pretend the family knew 3 things they didn't have any clue about:

1) the family would have to know that her fatal wound was a contact wound
2) the family would have to know all about drawback and how to mimic it
3) the family would have to have a source of her blood to plant or would have to somehow know that Boutflour's blood had the same attributes.

Naturally here is no evidence of any of these let alone all of them. In addition to planting such evidence the family would have to arrange for someone to remove Sheila's blood from the rifle barrel because it would have been present had the moderator not been used. It would be useless to plant such evidence unless removing it from the barrel because that would prove that either the blood in the barrel or moderator was planted.



7) police used the moderator to scratch the mantle to frame Steven Avery??? Fascinating. please tell me more!

There is nothing to tell. There is just a barebones allegation that police used it to scratch the mantle and get paint on it. This doesn't come from the basis of evidence it is made up out of necessity to try to explain away the evidence.
“...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