Author Topic: In Conversation .......  (Read 1187 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 323
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2017, 02:59:50 AM »
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.   

Venezis could not establish a time of death. You have no evidence to nail a time of death before 3am.

Furthermore, how do you explain the lack of post mortem hypostasis in the photos of Sheila taken after 9.30am?

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/pmi-140425060727-phpapp01/95/post-mortem-interval-7-638.jpg?cb=1398406233



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. .


From Julies Testimony she seems to be implying that the record of the call would be established via the redial feature on the phone at WHF. That's the only way it could be recorded.

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.

Dr Fowler and Philip Boyce examined the autopsy photographs. Saying they just read Vanezis autopsy papers and misinterpreted his words is rubbish you made up.

If this evidence is so "pathetic" why did the CCRC fail to find a counter expert to challenge it? If this evidence is so "pathetic" why do you have make things up to refute it?

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. 

Once again, you peddle un-scientific falsehoods.

It is well known that gunshot wounding can produce fine droplets of blood spattered in a forward direction. Under certain circumstances blood droplets can also be propelled backwards in a direction against the line of fire. Although the phenomenon of back spatter of blood is most commonly seen in contact gunshot wounds of the head
Stephens, B. and Allen, T., "Back Spatter of Blood from Gunshot Wounds—Observations and Experimental Simulation," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1983, pp. 437-439,

The absence of any blood or tissue from Nicholas Caffell in the moderator. Is because the silencer was in the cupboard all night long.


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

1) With a rifle, how can it not be a contact wound? you cannot hold such weapon at a distance then shoot yourself.

2) Anyone can read a text book and learn about it. I have, you have. what's to preclude them from such knowledge?

3) They had Sheila's blood in their possession. They took her underwear stained with menstrual blood back with them when they found the silencer.

https://s28.postimg.org/rddeqf6z1/ae6677.jpg

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.

I have shown you the extract from Dimao's book enough times. Another case of you ignoring forensic science.
From this post alone there are six forensic experts you stonewall due to your own stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong. Why did a deeper hole for yourself?

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1448
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2017, 05:25:38 AM »
Venezis could not establish a time of death. You have no evidence to nail a time of death before 3am.

There is indeed evidence which proves she was killed before police arrived:

1) she was shot with a moderator that was subsequently put away

2) after she died and her blood pooled the Bible was placed in it

3) It any shots had been fired while police were present then the police would have heard them through the open window.

Furthermore, how do you explain the lack of post mortem hypostasis in the photos of Sheila taken after 9.30am?

1) The photos you are referring to are not high quality and worse don't show much of the body. There is no way to say whether any is present or not.

2) Furthermore post mortem hypostasis doesn't always develop.  It is well documented that it doesn't develop in all people.  The MOST COMMON reason for it not developing is when a victim hemorrhages.  She didn't merely suffer from significant external bleeding there was much more extensive internal bleeding.

Bottom line you once again made up your own bogus rules - in this instance that she would have to have developed post mortem hypostasis unless she died shortly before police took the photos.  You also make up that you can tell for sure she has none based on photos where most of her body is covered and the quality is not great.   Others already previously dismantled this BS including Caroline.  Rehashing the same disproved nonsense just renders you a copy of Mike.

From Julies Testimony she seems to be implying that the record of the call would be established via the redial feature on the phone at WHF. That's the only way it could be recorded.

Proving the last call was to Goldhanger would fail to prove the time it was made.  It could have been made at 11:30 before going to bed.

Dr Fowler and Philip Boyce examined the autopsy photographs. Saying they just read Vanezis autopsy papers and misinterpreted his words is rubbish you made up.

No, what I said was they asserted the wound had a muzzle imprint on the basis of Vanezis's words. That they looked at the photos is meaningless because the photos demonstrated no marks they could identify as muzzle imprints.  They relied upon Vanezis description of the wound to assert there was a muzzle imprint saying the description sounded like an imprint to them. That description though clearly is a bullet abrasion and dirt ring. 

If this evidence is so "pathetic" why did the CCRC fail to find a counter expert to challenge it? If this evidence is so "pathetic" why do you have make things up to refute it?

They already had an experts who refuted it- those who testified at the trial. Vanezis said it was a bullet abrasion.   Their speculation that he was wrong and tha tit was a muzzle imprint based on the sound of it means nothing at all.  There is no need to rebut unsupported speculation that can't be the basis for overturning a verdict.

Why don't you post the full rejection by the CCRC so we can look in detail and the explanation for the rejection and then you can look like an even bigger fool.



Once again, you peddle un-scientific falsehoods.


You are the one doing such and as usual project your flaws onto others rather than face reality.

It is well known that gunshot wounding can produce fine droplets of blood spattered in a forward direction. Under certain circumstances blood droplets can also be propelled backwards in a direction against the line of fire. Although the phenomenon of back spatter of blood is most commonly seen in contact gunshot wounds of the head
Stephens, B. and Allen, T., "Back Spatter of Blood from Gunshot Wounds—Observations and Experimental Simulation," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1983, pp. 437-439,

The absence of any blood or tissue from Nicholas Caffell in the moderator. Is because the silencer was in the cupboard all night long.


That description fails in any way to support your argument that Nicholas' blood would have to be in the moderator.  All it says is that it is most commonly seen with gunshots to the head. In no way does it suggest that all or most shots to the head result in back spatter.

In the meantime it is wrong, it is commonly seen in several locations.  Moreover it doesn't speak to what area of the head or discuss the caliber.  We are talking about a 22LR bullet and they rarely result in drawback with shots to the head.

In the meantime the wound was not necessarily a contact shot it could have been a near contact.

Post a source that says 22LR shots to the head always result in drawback which is what you are arguing.  You won't find any source that states such because it is fictional.


1) With a rifle, how can it not be a contact wound? you cannot hold such weapon at a distance then shoot yourself.

Yes you can, you simply can't hold it too far away given arms are only so long.


2) Anyone can read a text book and learn about it. I have, you have. what's to preclude them from such knowledge?

You are reading books on the internet and grossly distorting everything they say. Despite much more extensive resources than existed at the time there still is limited material about drawback.  You never would have heard of drawback let alone be researching it if not for the fact that experts discussed its relevance in this trial.  You did simply read a book and encounter a discussion about drawback.  You looked up the issue because someone else told you about it.  Most of the police didn't even know about it only the lab did.

Just saying well maybe they read a book about it is worthless speculation you need to prove they did read a book about it or present other evidence that proves that they knew about it but can't.


3) They had Sheila's blood in their possession. They took her underwear stained with menstrual blood back with them when they found the silencer.

Who is they?  AE threw her panties in the garbage and took the garbage bag back with her but ultimately threw it away.

In the meantime suggesting that dry blood on her panties was able to be liquefied so they could plant it in the moderator is stupid even for you.


I have shown you the extract from Dimao's book enough times. Another case of you ignoring forensic science.
From this post alone there are six forensic experts you stonewall due to your own stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong. Why did a deeper hole for yourself?

Nothing in his book supports any of your contentions.  No where does he suggest that shots to the head always result in back spatter or drawback let alone suggest that all shots to the head with 22LRs do so.  There is no proof for sure that anyone except Sheila suffered a contact wound.  In the meantime if your claim had been true then it would require Nicolas' blood to be in the rifle but it wasn't nor was Sheila's. The family had no ability to doctor the rifle since it was never in their possession.

If they actually knew all about drawback and knew she suffered a contact wound that would have to result in drawback then they would know her blood would be in the rifle and that planting blood int he moderator would be futile because it would be proven planted by her blood being in the rifle.

You ignore what science actually states and make up your own rules to try to pretend that Jeremy is innocent. in your post you made up that all shots to the head result in drawback and rely on a quote that merely states the most common location to result in backspatter is the head. That doesn't assert the only location nor does it assert all shots to the head result in drawback.  You ignore what is written and make up your own rules .  you did the same thing with post mortem hypostasis. Back when you first made the argument you quoted from a source that stated outright that it doe snot always occur in all people and specifically listed hemorrhaging as a factor against it.  Despite such you made up that it would have to occur in all people and made up that we can tell in the photos that Sheila doesn't exhibit any. 
 
« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 11:12:19 AM by Angelo222 »
“...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

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 323
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2017, 08:18:50 PM »

1) she was shot with a moderator that was subsequently put away

2) after she died and her blood pooled the Bible was placed in it

3) It any shots had been fired while police were present then the police would have heard them through the open window.


1) Ballistic evidence says otherwise

2) The bible was originally found around 18 inches away from her body. This is the account of those first at the scene.
Dr Macdonnell argued for point 2) in 1992. However Dr Maconnell recanted his conclusions in 2009 when he received evidence of the police restaging the crime scene.
https://s8.postimg.org/be9jpmjp1/1419546970187.jpg


3) PC Hall heard a loud noise. It was apparently Rozga in a location he never was.


1) The photos you are referring to are not high quality and worse don't show much of the body. There is no way to say whether any is present or not.

2) Furthermore post mortem hypostasis doesn't always develop.  It is well documented that it doesn't develop in all people.  The MOST COMMON reason for it not developing is when a victim hemorrhages.  She didn't merely suffer from significant external bleeding there was much more extensive internal bleeding.


1) The photos are fine. 

2) Indeed it does not always develop but in this case it did. Vanezis autopsy report of Sheila page 2 - quote. "Hypostasis was consistent with the position in which she was found and the scene"

Hypostasis was observed by Vanezis during autopsy after 3pm that afternoon as expected. Your argument is that it don't always develop thus doesn't need to be present. But it is present.  Therefore, your argument is logically invalid.

It cannot be observed in photos from 9.30am but is apparent after 3pm the same day. Supports a time of death after 6am.


No, what I said was they asserted the wound had a muzzle imprint on the basis of Vanezis's words. That they looked at the photos is meaningless because the photos demonstrated no marks they could identify as muzzle imprints.  They relied upon Vanezis description of the wound to assert there was a muzzle imprint saying the description sounded like an imprint to them. That description though clearly is a bullet abrasion and dirt ring. 

Maybe you have trouble hearing? if so i have typed up the conversation word for word.

Mark Thomas: Now you've looked at the photograph's
Philip Boyce: I have.
Mark Thomas: These are of Sheila's Injuries.
Philip Boyce: I have.
Mark Thomas: Which would you say is the most likely to have occurred?
Philip Boyce: Based on my examination of the wounds in the photographs.And the tests that i have just done. I'm of the opinion that the contact wounds to Sheila's chin. Was contact without the silencer fitted.



They already had an experts who refuted it- those who testified at the trial. Vanezis said it was a bullet abrasion.   Their speculation that he was wrong and tha tit was a muzzle imprint based on the sound of it means nothing at all.  There is no need to rebut unsupported speculation that can't be the basis for overturning a verdict.

There is no mention of that in Bamber vs CCRC 2012. They failed to counter the evidence and fell back on scratch marks evidence.

 That is why they resorted to the kitchen/paint evidence as justification for a non referral. And the COA has already made judgement on the paint evidence

2002 Appeal
The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself

Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.


Bamber vs CCRC 2012

That there was red paint on the curled end and a mark on the mantelpiece, which, given the other evidence, showed that the silencer must have been on.

The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence

That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil.


That description fails in any way to support your argument that Nicholas' blood would have to be in the moderator.  All it says is that it is most commonly seen with gunshots to the head. In no way does it suggest that all or most shots to the head result in back spatter.

In the meantime it is wrong, it is commonly seen in several locations.  Moreover it doesn't speak to what area of the head or discuss the caliber.  We are talking about a 22LR bullet and they rarely result in drawback with shots to the head.

In the meantime the wound was not necessarily a contact shot it could have been a near contact.

Post a source that says 22LR shots to the head always result in drawback which is what you are arguing.  You won't find any source that states such because it is fictional.


It's not just the the absence of blood it's also the absence of brain tissue and bone.

Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy.
Burnett, B., "Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,

Backspatter is most frequent in contact wounds to the head because the cranium leaves nowhere for the gas to go plus you have a temporary cavity causing the skull to fracture forcing even more biological tissue of the entrance wound. This is a huge contrast to the neck. Biological evidence of Sheila in moderator but sans Nicholas further indicates no silencer was used.

In the meantime suggesting that dry blood on her panties was able to be liquified so they could plant it in the moderator is stupid even for you.

The panties and blood was found soaked in water.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 11:11:42 AM by Angelo222 »

Offline adam

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 606
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2017, 12:46:14 AM »
Mike must be Bamber's most dedicated supporter.

Wilkes's book mentions a fellow prisoner supporting Bamber. I assume this was Mike. As Wilkes's book was published in the mid 90's,  Mike's been supporting Bamber well over 20 years & hasn't wobbled. 

He created the Blue forum and for a long time was the only one posting and creating threads on it. Eventually other people joined and it became a pro Bamber site for a period. It's now got more guilters than supporters after a lot of people changed stance,  however Mike still posts a lot & creates Youtube videos supporting Bamber. His posts do often include never seen before sources.

His determination should be admired.

The only other remaining supporter of a similar lenght I can think of is Lookout. Unlike Mike, she doesn't leave the Blue forum & supporting Bamber on just a 1986 'gut feeling' never posts anything worthwhile. 

Grahame is another long term supporter although no longer posts. Jane J was a supporter since 1986 but changed stance recently.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 06:52:21 AM by adam »

Offline David1819

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 323
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2017, 03:34:55 PM »
Mike must be Bamber's most dedicated supporter.

Wilkes's book mentions a fellow prisoner supporting Bamber. I assume this was Mike. As Wilkes's book was published in the mid 90's,  Mike's been supporting Bamber well over 20 years & hasn't wobbled. 

He created the Blue forum and for a long time was the only one posting and creating threads on it. Eventually other people joined and it became a pro Bamber site for a period. It's now got more guilters than supporters after a lot of people changed stance,  however Mike still posts a lot & creates Youtube videos supporting Bamber. His posts do often include never seen before sources.

His determination should be admired.

The only other remaining supporter of a similar lenght I can think of is Lookout. Unlike Mike, she doesn't leave the Blue forum & supporting Bamber on just a 1986 'gut feeling' never posts anything worthwhile. 

Grahame is another long term supporter although no longer posts. Jane J was a supporter since 1986 but changed stance recently.

Caroline was a supporter for a year two. But had a change of heart after Jeremy forgot to answer a question she put to him. But later her did answer it for her. Having now seen part of this correspondence. I am not at all convinced this is the real reason. I suspect its probably something to do with Paul Harrison.

As for Jane J. Clearly, her love for Caroline outweighed her hatred of Julie's court outfit.

Offline Caroline

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 533
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2017, 07:43:19 PM »
Caroline was a supporter for a year two. But had a change of heart after Jeremy forgot to answer a question she put to him. But later her did answer it for her. Having now seen part of this correspondence. I am not at all convinced this is the real reason. I suspect its probably something to do with Paul Harrison.

As for Jane J. Clearly, her love for Caroline outweighed her hatred of Julie's court outfit.

A little goading David? Seems it's all you're good for these days. Your above comment just shows what an utterly useless detective you are and your obsession with myself, Jane and PH just makes you a complete weirdo!
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 07:46:17 PM by Caroline »

Offline adam

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 606
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2017, 09:31:16 AM »
Caroline was a supporter for a year two. But had a change of heart after Jeremy forgot to answer a question she put to him. But later her did answer it for her. Having now seen part of this correspondence. I am not at all convinced this is the real reason. I suspect its probably something to do with Paul Harrison.

As for Jane J. Clearly, her love for Caroline outweighed her hatred of Julie's court outfit.

David !

It's no secret Jane J supported Bamber for 30 years because she didn't like Julie's court outfit. However other reasons people have given for supporting Bamber - 'gut feelings', 'two shots' are no better.

It's also no secret Jane J changed stance a couple of hours after Caroline did, & has always refused to discuss why.

At least Caroline has given a reason for a stance change & provided sources. Although the wallet was a surprising reason for a 360 degree turn considering all the incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence that was already available. 

« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 12:53:41 PM by adam »

Offline Angelo222

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4862
  • Post editor
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2017, 11:14:23 AM »
Mike must be Bamber's most dedicated supporter.

Wilkes's book mentions a fellow prisoner supporting Bamber. I assume this was Mike. As Wilkes's book was published in the mid 90's,  Mike's been supporting Bamber well over 20 years & hasn't wobbled. 

He created the Blue forum and for a long time was the only one posting and creating threads on it. Eventually other people joined and it became a pro Bamber site for a period. It's now got more guilters than supporters after a lot of people changed stance,  however Mike still posts a lot & creates Youtube videos supporting Bamber. His posts do often include never seen before sources.

His determination should be admired.

The only other remaining supporter of a similar length I can think of is Lookout. Unlike Mike, she doesn't leave the Blue forum & supporting Bamber on just a 1986 'gut feeling' never posts anything worthwhile. 

Grahame is another long term supporter although no longer posts. Jane J was a supporter since 1986 but changed stance recently.

A fruitcake comes to mind.  Have you not seen his rantings and his cloud wandering?

The word is obsessed, not dedicated.  Even Bamber told him to do one!!     @)(++(*
« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 01:41:09 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4374
  • How cute am I?!
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2017, 12:56:04 PM »
Mike must be Bamber's most dedicated supporter.

Wilkes's book mentions a fellow prisoner supporting Bamber. I assume this was Mike. As Wilkes's book was published in the mid 90's,  Mike's been supporting Bamber well over 20 years & hasn't wobbled. 

He created the Blue forum and for a long time was the only one posting and creating threads on it. Eventually other people joined and it became a pro Bamber site for a period. It's now got more guilters than supporters after a lot of people changed stance,  however Mike still posts a lot & creates Youtube videos supporting Bamber. His posts do often include never seen before sources.

His determination should be admired.

The only other remaining supporter of a similar lenght I can think of is Lookout. Unlike Mike, she doesn't leave the Blue forum & supporting Bamber on just a 1986 'gut feeling' never posts anything worthwhile. 

Grahame is another long term supporter although no longer posts. Jane J was a supporter since 1986 but changed stance recently.

This thread seems to be moving away from the title/OP to general discussions about supporters, or past supporters, so I'll move relevant posts to a new thread. 

What's the definition of "most dedicated"?  Does "most dedicated" = most effective?

How do we know who supports JB, what sort of contribution they have made over what time period?  I don't think it necessarily follows that all supporters contribute to forums.  Maybe some have been around pre conviction? 
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: 4374
  • How cute am I?!
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2017, 01:07:02 PM »
A fruitcake comes to mind.  Have you not seen his rantings and his cloud wandering?

The word is obsessed, not dedicated.  Even Bamber told him to do one!!     @)(++(*

I agree.  I sometimes wish I was more tolerant!  Most on Blue, regardless of camp, seem to tolerate him in a way I don't think I could now.  Apart from the fact he created the forum and uploaded the docs I can't think of anything else positive to say.  8(8-)) 
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

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 533
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2017, 01:24:09 PM »
David !

It's no secret Jane J supported Bamber for 30 years because she didn't like Julie's court outfit. However other reasons people have given for supporting Bamber - 'gut feelings', 'two shots' are no better.

It's also no secret Jane J changed stance a couple of hours after Caroline did, & has always refused to discuss why.

At least Caroline has given a reason for a stance change & provided sources. Although the wallet was a surprising reason for a 360 degree turn considering all the incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence that was already available.

Don't let David drag you down to his level.

Offline Caroline

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 533
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2017, 01:25:46 PM »
I agree.  I sometimes wish I was more tolerant!  Most on Blue, regardless of camp, seem to tolerate him in a way I don't think I could now.  Apart from the fact he created the forum and uploaded the docs I can't think of anything else positive to say.  8(8-))

Jane and I don't!

Offline Angelo222

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4862
  • Post editor
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2017, 01:36:08 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'.

22

To get back on topic for a moment, the 'was in conversation with someone in the farmhouse' is just another false claim and forlorn hope by those who are desperate to believe that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.  Had it occurred it would have been a crucial development and documented as such in great detail.  If I recall from the police statements, warnings to anyone inside went unanswered and the only noise recorded on the open phone line was that of June Bamber's dog Crispy barking.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 03:30:05 PM by John »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4374
  • How cute am I?!
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2017, 02:02:22 PM »
Jane and I don't!

You seem to give him an easier time than the one from the NW!   
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 puglove

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3092
  • Over 32 THOUSAND posts of lazy, ignorant bigotry.
Re: In Conversation .......
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2017, 02:13:39 PM »
I agree.  I sometimes wish I was more tolerant!  Most on Blue, regardless of camp, seem to tolerate him in a way I don't think I could now.  Apart from the fact he created the forum and uploaded the docs I can't think of anything else positive to say.  8(8-))

He's complaining about being burgled!!      @)(++(*


I think my irony klaxon just exploded.       8(8-))
Bamber's hot new team. Mr. Kipling, Miss Piggy, and a fat bloke. It's all looking very hopeful.