Author Topic: Some Basic Questions  (Read 15133 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #90 on: March 24, 2018, 10:40:59 AM »
LuminousWanderer is lucky to not be posting on the Blue forum.

My posts & threads brutally highlighted Bamber's guilt & passionate supporters called me every name under the sun to try to deflect from this. David posting his abusive images. 

I did recently suggest abusive images shouldn't be allowed on the forum, as is the case on this forum. But these images are still allowed. I also suggested that 3 or more moderstors should be in agreement prior to making a big decision on a poster, rather than one moderator acting independently. But got no response.

One of the moderator supporters doesn't like me and is fiercely protective of former moderator collegues, women, elderly posters or posters with learning disabilities.  Which is basically everyone else. There is no point complaining to Mike as he is too wrapped up posting to himself. I have complained to another moderator but just get a standard response that a moderator collegue will always be supported.

These days I just let 'The Famous Five', Mike, David, Nigel, Nugs & Lookout solve the case amongst themselves.

Having recently read some earlier posts on this thread I can see that some unacceptable comments were levelled at your post content and you personally Adam which I overlooked and apologise for not taking action earlier: 

The comments

"This is nonsense"

and

..."and probably commentators of low intelligence, like you..."

I need to make it crystal clear comments of this nature and style of posting will not be tolerated. 

We are all intelligent adults here and it shouldn't be necessary, nor do I want to, micro-manage posts/posters.  Anyone who persists along the lines above will start to receive written warnings with the potential for a ban. 

If you disagree with a post it's sufficient to say you disagree setting out your reasons why.   Alternatively there's always the 'ignore' function. 

Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #91 on: March 24, 2018, 11:01:02 AM »
These days I just let 'The Famous Five', Mike, David, Nigel, Nugs & Lookout solve the case amongst themselves

After over 3 decades Jeremy Bamber is still solely focused on Jeremy Bamber and financial gain, you only need refer to his campaign team https://mobile.twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/977229561707597824?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (all 5 or 6 of them) and his repetitive blogs.
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline APRIL

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #92 on: March 24, 2018, 11:07:08 AM »
I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works.  To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.

I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty.  Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense.  The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me.
  I'm not pro-Bamber.  I'm not anti-Bamber.  I don't care.

And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right.  I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to.  This is just an idle interest..............



I think I've stripped away enough of the frills to get to what you mean.

I imagine MOST people are under the illusion that the legal system actually cares about guilt or innocence. You highlight how I believe it works in your comments re not caring about his guilt or innocence. I'm inclined to think that, owing to the time Jeremy has been in prison, Jeremy would share your opinions -which maybe why he believes that he'll eventually be released. NONE of us are thick enough to believe that an unsafe trial means a guilty person is innocent, anymore than does a technicality. I will, however, agree that it's an entirely separate question.

 Playing semantics is an interesting enough way of idling away time. Who knows? You may just find the T which hasn't been correctly crossed, or even the I which has a dot in the wrong place, but it won't mean that Jeremy is innocent.

You sum it up succinctly. You're neither pro nor anti Bamber. You don't care.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #93 on: March 24, 2018, 11:18:18 AM »
I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works.  To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.

I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty.  Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense.  The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me. 

I'm not pro-Bamber.  I'm not anti-Bamber.  I don't care.

And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right.  I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to.  This is just an idle interest, but in the event, it's a question I haven't even managed to touch on yet, as we're still discussing the basics of the case.

Maybe it would be better for the harmony of this Forum if you stopped reading my posts?

Is this a fact?

I thought you had decided to place Stephanie on ignore?

« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 11:25:00 AM by Holly Goodhead »
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Caroline

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #94 on: March 24, 2018, 01:43:08 PM »
I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty.  Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense.  The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me. 


If innocent, I think he'd be VERY interested in proving himself such and if guilty, he'd be VERY interested in trying to convince others. In what way do you think the conviction is unsafe? If you believe it is, then there must be evidence that points you in that direction?

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #95 on: March 24, 2018, 03:57:53 PM »
Is this a fact?p

Then show me the evidence that exonerates him.


Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #96 on: March 24, 2018, 04:23:06 PM »
Then show me the evidence that exonerates him.

You asserted:

"That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him".

I'm asking you if this is a fact?  I'm not the one making that assertion. 

Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #97 on: March 24, 2018, 04:32:20 PM »
And why would I be provoked into making comments like that?

The unacceptable comments started against me.

In which case you report the relevant post to a moderator. 
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline John

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #98 on: March 25, 2018, 02:47:24 AM »
I know that the case can invoke strong sentiments guys but please can we all remain calm and refrain from posting anything deemed inappropriate.  Thank you.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #99 on: March 25, 2018, 10:35:14 AM »
I have started to read up on the Bamber case and have formed some initial impressions. 

First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there.  I don't know if he is guilty or not.  If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread.  My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe. 

If that offends you, or if any other aspect of my post offends you, then I apologise, but that being the case, please ignore this thread rather than reply.

Certainly, based on what we know at present, we are not here dealing with a miscarriage of justice: there is no incontestable evidence for Bamber's innocence.  However I do think there is a question mark over the safety of the convictions.  I am not convinced that the convictions can be sustained.  That, of course, would not make Bamber an innocent man, but as already stated, that is not my concern.

Some questions that spring to mind are below.  These will seem basic to experienced commenters here - for which, apologies in advance - but please appreciate that there is so much information online about this case now and much of it is confusing and contradictory, and I am approaching this case from the position of a novice.  My wish is to cut through the mass of facts, theories and speculation, in order to isolate what, I believe, are the real issues. 

Nothing too specific - whether as to the absence or inclusion of an issue here - should be read into these questions.  I will expand on my thoughts later.

Questions:

Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both? 

Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims?  If so, which of the victims?

Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood?  If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?

Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call?  Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect?  If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?

Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly.  The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.

Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?

Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths?  If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions?  What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance?  What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?

Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths?  If so, what are the details?

Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm?  If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?

Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?

I may have more questions later, but that will do for now.  I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.

According to Jeremy Bamber, Sheila could have used the gun after having simply watched a cowboy movie - or words to that effect.



Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Samson

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #100 on: March 25, 2018, 10:42:18 AM »
I have started to read up on the Bamber case and have formed some initial impressions. 

First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there.  I don't know if he is guilty or not.  If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread.  My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe. 

If that offends you, or if any other aspect of my post offends you, then I apologise, but that being the case, please ignore this thread rather than reply.

Certainly, based on what we know at present, we are not here dealing with a miscarriage of justice: there is no incontestable evidence for Bamber's innocence.  However I do think there is a question mark over the safety of the convictions.  I am not convinced that the convictions can be sustained.  That, of course, would not make Bamber an innocent man, but as already stated, that is not my concern.

Some questions that spring to mind are below.  These will seem basic to experienced commenters here - for which, apologies in advance - but please appreciate that there is so much information online about this case now and much of it is confusing and contradictory, and I am approaching this case from the position of a novice.  My wish is to cut through the mass of facts, theories and speculation, in order to isolate what, I believe, are the real issues. 

Nothing too specific - whether as to the absence or inclusion of an issue here - should be read into these questions.  I will expand on my thoughts later.

Questions:

Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both? 

Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims?  If so, which of the victims?

Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood?  If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?

Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call?  Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect?  If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?

Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly.  The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.

Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?

Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths?  If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions?  What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance?  What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?

Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths?  If so, what are the details?

Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm?  If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?

Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?

I may have more questions later, but that will do for now.  I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.

I come here less frequently than I would like, Holly is doing "god"'s work.
I think it is vital to understand that in contentious cases it is an aborted mission to state only the accused knows if he (her) is guilty.
Jeremy Bamber is innocent because science has delivered a verdict.
Demeanour evidence, which is poorly understood, strongly favours the resolute proclaimer of innocence.

Damien Echolls watched many fellow inmates marched to the needle, and his book "Life after Death", states that not a single one proclaimed innocence. Indeed in modern times, it is possible only Cameron Todd Willingham has been executed, and is innocent. Richard Glossip came close but lives on. Please google those cases to understand this matter.

Here is a chaplain from San Quentin:

"Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, studied at California Institute of Technology
Answered Dec 18 2014
I was a prison chaplain at San Quentin. None of the inmates I talked with ever protested full innocence. There were two cases where, had they been white, good chance they'd have been convicted of a lesser offense, or maybe even found innocent, but these were cases where they had actually killed someone, in self-defense, arguably, but ... there were other circumstances that made it murder, such as a police station being across the street! (I.e., there were options other than killing the attacker.)

I knew inmates whose parole had been violated, returning them to prison, who possibly had not done anything wrong. But none who ever denied the original crime. Now, that doesn't mean that there were none. In prison, I would guess it is not popular to protest innocence, because you will be in the minority and attempting to separate yourself from the rest. It might not be safe. I talked to a lot of inmates, walking the cell blocks, which is where I heard one of the "overcharged" stories (murder vs manslaughter). That kind of story is a little different, it would still convey a message of "don't mess with me."

My guess is that actually being innocent and being in prison with a conviction is a terrible position. A defacto requirement for parole may be a display of remorse. So what do you do?"

...

Please all be kind to Holly, I know you are. She is unassailably correct, and Jeremy Bamber may find his fortunes reside with people like Holly who have the brains and time to champion their cause.

Offline Samson

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #101 on: March 25, 2018, 11:01:44 AM »
Nevill - No contact shots.

June - No contact shots.

Daniel - No contact shots.

Nicholas - Contact shot into head. Location very unlikely to cause blood back splatter.

Sheila - Contact shot into neck. Location very likely to result in blood back splatter. Due to high blood flow and arteries.
When Robin Bain shot himself blood ended in silencer. Touch your temple then your throat to feel the physical/scientific difference Adam. It is the difference between hitting a tennis ball against a brick wall and a hedge.

Offline Samson

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #102 on: March 25, 2018, 11:09:46 AM »
Most murder cases are in essence very simple and the White House Farm murders are no different.  As pointed out above, the only two people who could have carried out the murders were Jeremy or Sheila.  In claiming that his father telephoned him, Jeremy Bamber inadvertently ruled out any third party. This is also backed up by the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside putting Sheila in the frame.  However, Jeremy Bamber knew how to get into the farmhouse even after all the doors had been bolted and locked from within, this thus puts him in the frame also.

Bearing the above in mind, we know that the killer had a physical altercation with Nevill Bamber over the kitchen table where several objects were broke and a glass ceiling light fixture was shattered. A petite Sheila Caffell could not have won such a fight with her adoptive father who was much taller and stronger than she was.  In any event, a forensic examination of Sheila's remains did not reveal any signs of a struggle or blood from her father on her or her nightdress.  In addition, barefooted Sheila had no glass shards on her feet which she would have had if she been involved in a fight in the kitchen.

These points are indisputable and cannot be explained away. As a consequence and taking everything into consideration, as Sheila could not have been the killer then it had to have been her brother Jeremy Bamber by default or someone contracted by him.  Either way, he is still guilty.
A petite Sheila Caffell had delivered 4 shots to her father, two in the mouth from the landing, and two as he retreated, to the arm and shoulder, totally disabling him. She was well able to reload as he collalpsed in the coal bucket and shoot 4 times in the head where she chose.

Offline Samson

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #103 on: March 25, 2018, 11:29:18 AM »
Dear Holly, I am reading the thread, and arrived at the point where you say you removed several posts. This is most unfortunate. I would like to help Jeremy Bamber, but do not believe this is possible the way this forum is moderated. I realise you are in an invidious position where you disagree with the forum owner, but am perplexed, and would like to see how the removed posts were constructed. Maybe you could pm or email me.
I see Jeremy's position as bleak while these forums bicker, it is essential to have a naked discourse as we had on IA to make progress.

Offline Samson

Re: Some Basic Questions
« Reply #104 on: March 25, 2018, 11:34:02 AM »
Samson - I welcome your posts because you balance the perspective, but in my opinion you are (or appear to be - sorry if I'm misjudging) falling into the same trap as the majority of other posters on here. 

You've appointed yourself judge and jury.  I'm not interested.  I know it's human nature and I don't blame you because the crime was absolutely horrific, so I don't mean this offensively and I do appreciate the information you have provided. 

But my purpose here isn't to be pro-Bamber or anti-Bamber.  I'm really not taking sides.

Thanks.
Luminous, There are no sides to be taken, because opinions and facts occupy different orbits.
There is a thread on Injustice anywhere, completely unmoderated where the case was examined closely. Noone had a dog in the fight, and it was shown incontrovertibly that Neville ascended into gunfire.
The crown case was that Neville was shot in bed, so the crown case was false. That is modal logic and science operating.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 12:09:10 PM by Samson »