UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: G-Unit on May 31, 2020, 12:42:47 PM
-
Mr Pike was the man who collected the Envoy Cordless telephone and it's associated adaptor from WHF on 5th August '85. He described his visit in a statement given on 19/9/85, with further statements on 8/10/85 and 9/1/86.
According to Pike he visited by appointment in the morning between 10-10:30 am. He was met at the back door by Sheila Caffell and her boys. She called her mother and as the phone wasn't ready her father was called from the barn.
Mr Pike and Nevill disconnected the phone and the adaptor between them and Mr Pike placed it in it's original packaging and left.
Jean Boutell was asked on 2/10/86 if she recalled Mr Pike's visit on 5th August '85. She said she did, and it took place at around 2:00pm. She says the whole family were in the kitchen and Jeremy Bamber came out and answered the door to Mr Pike.
Mr Pike 'went to the kitchen door' and was met by Mr Bamber who had a telephone in his hand. They spoke on the back doorstep but then walked off together towards Mr Pike's car. She says it was the cordless phone.
So was Jean Boutell remembering everything wrongly, or were there two visits by Mr Pike that day?
-
Mr Pike was the man who collected the Envoy Cordless telephone and it's associated adaptor from WHF on 5th August '85. He described his visit in a statement given on 19/9/85, with further statements on 8/10/85 and 9/1/86.
According to Pike he visited by appointment in the morning between 10-10:30 am. He was met at the back door by Sheila Caffell and her boys. She called her mother and as the phone wasn't ready her father was called from the barn.
Mr Pike and Nevill disconnected the phone and the adaptor between them and Mr Pike placed it in it's original packaging and left.
Jean Boutell was asked on 2/10/86 if she recalled Mr Pike's visit on 5th August '85. She said she did, and it took place at around 2:00pm. She says the whole family were in the kitchen and Jeremy Bamber came out and answered the door to Mr Pike.
Mr Pike 'went to the kitchen door' and was met by Mr Bamber who had a telephone in his hand. They spoke on the back doorstep but then walked off together towards Mr Pike's car. She says it was the cordless phone.
So was Jean Boutell remembering everything wrongly, or were there two visits by Mr Pike that day?
Where did you read the original statements?
-
Mr Pike was the man who collected the Envoy Cordless telephone and it's associated adaptor from WHF on 5th August '85. He described his visit in a statement given on 19/9/85, with further statements on 8/10/85 and 9/1/86.
According to Pike he visited by appointment in the morning between 10-10:30 am. He was met at the back door by Sheila Caffell and her boys. She called her mother and as the phone wasn't ready her father was called from the barn.
Mr Pike and Nevill disconnected the phone and the adaptor between them and Mr Pike placed it in it's original packaging and left.
Jean Boutell was asked on 2/10/86 if she recalled Mr Pike's visit on 5th August '85. She said she did, and it took place at around 2:00pm. She says the whole family were in the kitchen and Jeremy Bamber came out and answered the door to Mr Pike.
Mr Pike 'went to the kitchen door' and was met by Mr Bamber who had a telephone in his hand. They spoke on the back doorstep but then walked off together towards Mr Pike's car. She says it was the cordless phone.
So was Jean Boutell remembering everything wrongly, or were there two visits by Mr Pike that day?
There was talk of a gas man calling but I think CAL said she could find no evidence of this? I gave my copy to a friend pre Lockdown so don't have access to it.
If there's any truth to the gas man did Jean B muddle this visit with Mr P?
-
There was talk of a gas man calling but I think CAL said she could find no evidence of this? I gave my copy to a friend pre Lockdown so don't have access to it.
If there's any truth to the gas man did Jean B muddle this visit with Mr P?
I don't know, but they have placed the visits at least four hours apart and with different people present.
I've pm'd you.
-
There was talk of a gas man calling but I think CAL said she could find no evidence of this? I gave my copy to a friend pre Lockdown so don't have access to it.
If there's any truth to the gas man did Jean B muddle this visit with Mr P?
The tale is that it was electricity man - it's a myth.
-
The tale is that it was electricity man - it's a myth.
Statements like that won't be acceptable soon. We'll need cites and expressions of opinion when it is opinion only.
From now on it is facts. Supported facts or explained myths,
-
Statements like that won't be acceptable soon. We'll need cites and expressions of opinion when it is opinion only.
From now on it is facts. Supported facts or explained myths,
The myth started out as someone's opinion. Are you saying you require an opinion on someone's opinion? Will you then confer your own opinion on it? Perhaps one of your fellow mods might care to give their own opinion on those opinions previously given?
-
The myth started out as someone's opinion. Are you saying you require an opinion on someone's opinion? Will you then confer your own opinion on it? Perhaps one of your fellow mods might care to give their own opinion on those opinions previously given?
One way or the other, you will need to fall in line.
-
One way or the other, you will need to fall in line.
Are you saying that we're required to agree that it's our opinion that someone else's opinion is correct or incorrect?
-
Are you saying that we're required to agree that it's our opinion that someone else's opinion is correct or incorrect?
You'll get the hang of it soon enough.
-
Are you saying that we're required to agree that it's our opinion that someone else's opinion is correct or incorrect?
It's OK for posters to write "In my opinion Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath". If they write "It's a fact that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath" a cite is required.
-
It's OK for posters to write "In my opinion Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath". If they write "It's a fact that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath" a cite is required.
Cites have been posted to back that claim up, the cite isn't good enough for you - that's just tough.
-
It's OK for posters to write "In my opinion Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath". If they write "It's a fact that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath" a cite is required.
Coincidentally, just this morning, I was with the person who'd been secretary to the first psychiatrist who assessed him as a psychopath. Far be it from me to say, of so highly qualified a person, that such was only his opinion.
-
Coincidentally, just this morning, I was with the person who'd been secretary to the first psychiatrist who assessed him as a psychopath. Far be it from me to say, of so highly qualified a person, that such was only his opinion.
In which case you know the psychiatrist's name but I very much doubt you'll share it. Therefore no matter how convinced you are I have no reason to be convinced because all I have is the word of someone I don't know.
-
In which case you know the psychiatrist's name but I very much doubt you'll share it. Therefore no matter how convinced you are I have no reason to be convinced because all I have is the word of someone I don't know.
I'll tell you what I'm prepared to do, I'll try to find out if he's still alive. If he isn't, and he has no dependents, I'll give you his name. However, my suspicions are strong that you'll find some grounds to reject his findings.
-
Cites have been posted to back that claim up, the cite isn't good enough for you - that's just tough.
I would have thought you would have been a little more circumspect Caro after your involvement with discredited writer Paul Harrison?
A good author, like CAL, will name their sources.
Talk of an eminent psychiatrist by Wilkes is not worth the paper it's written on if we can't cross reference him/her on the General Medical Register.
https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-licensing/the-medical-register
-
I would have thought you would have been a little more circumspect Caro after your involvement with discredited writer Paul Harrison?
A good author, like CAL, will name their sources.
Talk of an eminent psychiatrist by Wilkes is not worth the paper it's written on if we can't cross reference him/her on the General Medical Register.
https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-licensing/the-medical-register
What was my 'involvement' with Paul Harrison? He asked if he could use something I posted on the blue forum - I said yes.
CAL didn't name the source for the psychiatrist, she got it from Wilkes and there is nothing wrong with Wilkes's comment - had it been incorrect, Bamber's legal team would have said so. It might not suit your innocent stance (although you considered he might be a psychopath yourself), but there you go.
Now how about answering my question?
-
What was my 'involvement' with Paul Harrison? He asked if he could use something I posted on the blue forum - I said yes.
CAL didn't name the source for the psychiatrist, she got it from Wilkes and there is nothing wrong with Wilkes's comment - had it been incorrect, Bamber's legal team would have said so. It might not suit your innocent stance (although you considered he might be a psychopath yourself), but there you go.
Now how about answering my question?
I have to admit to wasting money purchasing Harrison's book which I've since thrown out but from memory he referred to you as a talented researcher?
Yes CAL did quote Wilkes as her source allowing readers to track back and see the provenance is questionable.
Why would Bamber's legal team pursue? Which team? On what basis would they pursue? Who would provide funding for such?
Of course I don't think JB is a psychopath. The comment re the card was tongue in cheek!
How about you identifying the eminent psychiatrist referred to by Wilkes on the GMC register?
-
I have to admit to wasting money purchasing Harrison's book which I've since thrown out but from memory he referred to you as a talented researcher?
Yes CAL did quote Wilkes as her source allowing readers to track back and see the provenance is questionable.
Why would Bamber's legal team pursue? Which team? On what basis would they pursue? Who would provide funding for such?
Of course I don't think JB is a psychopath. The comment re the card was tongue in cheek!
How about you identifying the eminent psychiatrist referred to by Wilkes on the GMC register?
He did indeed refer to me as that, he was talking about my research on the forum. What else are you implying? I think your tone is down to the fact that you have been unable to answer my question and you've gotten your knickers in a twist but let me remind you that YOU set the challenge and now you're hiding from it. It has implications for your A team and if you don't think there is research out there that found human biological evidence inside a silencer then you didn't research properly!
You don't read things properly Holly, please point to where I used the word 'pursue'? Wilkes was talking about his trial team and anyone could have denied the psychiatrist existed and by the way, so could Bamber. I'm not talking about pursuing a legal case - just simply opening ones gob and declaring that it didn't happen. The devil is in the detail, details you often miss.
-
He did indeed refer to me as that, he was talking about my research on the forum. What else are you implying? I think your tone is down to the fact that you have been unable to answer my question and you've gotten your knickers in a twist but let me remind you that YOU set the challenge and now you're hiding from it. It has implications for your A team and if you don't think there is research out there that found human biological evidence inside a silencer then you didn't research properly!
You don't read things properly Holly, please point to where I used the word 'pursue'? Wilkes was talking about his trial team and anyone of denied the psychiatrist existed and by the way, so could Bamber. I'm not talking about pursuing a legals case - just simply opening ones gob and declaring that it didn't happen. The devil is in the detail, details you often miss.
Thong actually.
-
Thong actually.
No wonder you’re so irascible if you spend all your waking hours having your butt flossed by one of them.
-
No wonder you’re so irascible if you spend all your waking hours having your butt flossed by one of them.
@)(++(*
-
I have to admit to wasting money purchasing Harrison's book which I've since thrown out but from memory he referred to you as a talented researcher?
Yes CAL did quote Wilkes as her source allowing readers to track back and see the provenance is questionable.
Why would Bamber's legal team pursue? Which team? On what basis would they pursue? Who would provide funding for such?
Of course I don't think JB is a psychopath. The comment re the card was tongue in cheek!
How about you identifying the eminent psychiatrist referred to by Wilkes on the GMC register?
Had there been ONE thing in CAL’s book that was wrong, especially where she quoted psychiatrists saying Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath, he would have sued CAL for libel immediately! Don’t be ridiculous, Holly.