UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Other Forums and Organisations => Jeremy Bamber forum => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on July 06, 2014, 02:05:17 AM
-
The stated reason for my ban is as follows for, "consistently tried to effect the purpose of the forum in a negative way - he should be posting on other forums that suit his views."
The purpose of the forum apparently is to spread unadulterated lies to pretend he is innocent and people who challenge his innocence are not allowed. I have to find a site that shares my views of his guilt to be allowed to post.
-
I saw that Mike banned you and Hartley. Hopefully this will be reconsidered.
-
Xcuse me. I have some doubts about the guilt of Jeremy Bamber. I don't expect to get banned from this Forum.
Hopefully.
But neither will I be joining The Blue Forum.
-
I saw that Mike banned you and Hartley. Hopefully this will be reconsidered.
I didn't know he banned Harters too but Harters challenged his claims as well so I guess that is why.
-
Xcuse me. I have some doubts about the guilt of Jeremy Bamber. I don't expect to get banned from this Forum.
Hopefully.
But neither will I be joining The Blue Forum.
That was the message I get when I click on the blue forum about having to find a site that shares my views. You are safe here.
-
That was the message I get when I click on the blue forum about having to find a site that shares my views. You are safe here.
I don't know much about The Blue Forum, except that they appear to be rather rude, so I don't think you have lost much.
On this Board everyone gets to say what ever they think, interminably sometimes. But that's what democracy is all about.
Love their message, by the way. There is nothing like depriving you of a right to reply that defines who they are.
-
poor grammar too, the word he should have used was affect.
-
poor grammar too, the word he should have used was affect.
I always have problems with those two words. But I never get it wrong because I think about what I am saying. Some people just don't care about ignorance. Any old grammatical garbage will do.
Not that I mind all that much. Some people just can't help it.
-
Hartley is a long-standing member who was always measured and polite in his views and posts. Think it was an opportunity to kill two annoying birds with one stone, and silence all opposition.
Why on earth should it be reconsidered, Mat? - scipio should be happy to be out of it. Scipio's done a good job correcting all the baloney that's being spouted over there, and had to put up with vile personal abuse from one or two. Only Caroline seemed to wobble, and the rest are a totally blind to the truth, other than dear Andrea, and abs (I think). I wouldn't be surprised if all his time-and brain-consuming posts disappear from view.
The Jeremy Bamber Forum is an irrelevance, having no influence at all on getting Bamber released, and with Tesko indulging in his own fantasy world 24/7/365. I like the bit about scipio not producing evidence, when he has been avoiding doing the same for years. Where's the photo of Sheila on the bed? Proof that she was in the kitchen when the TFU entered? Or the even more ludicrous claim about the police shooting Sheila? So he ends up dreaming more nonsense about a non-existent bunch of ex-cons who will somehow miraculously solve the case. Pathetic!
Nah... scipio and harters are lucky to be well out of it, and can now get on with spending their valuable time on other more useful things in their lives.
-
Hartley is a long-standing member who was always measured and polite in his views and posts. Think it was an opportunity to kill two annoying birds with one stone, and silence all opposition.
Why on earth should it be reconsidered, Mat? - scipio should be happy to be out of it. Scipio's done a good job correcting all the baloney that's being spouted over there, and had to put up with vile personal abuse from one or two. Only Caroline seemed to wobble, and the rest are a totally blind to the truth, other than dear Andrea, and abs (I think). I wouldn't be surprised if all his time-and brain-consuming posts disappear from view.
The Jeremy Bamber Forum is an irrelevance, having no influence at all on getting Bamber released, and with Tesko indulging in his own fantasy world 24/7/365. I like the bit about scipio not producing evidence, when he has been avoiding doing the same for years. Where's the photo of Sheila on the bed? Proof that she was in the kitchen when the TFU entered? Or the even more ludicrous claim about the police shooting Sheila? So he ends up dreaming more nonsense about a non-existent bunch of ex-cons who will somehow miraculously solve the case. Pathetic!
Nah... scipio and harters are lucky to be well out of it, and can now get on with spending their valuable time on other more useful things in their lives.
Blimey, Myster, I wish I could write like you.
Anyhoo. GASP!!!! No offence, Scipio, but I've been expecting you to be banned since day one. But.....HARTLEY??? He's just about the only decent member over there, since someone I'm very fond of went all Stepford.
Is that what you want, Mike? A forum full of silly old women, chuntering on about Julie Mugford and talking bollocks? Well, that's what you've got. Well done, you. You silly little man.
-
PM from Roch.
Mike, you know that I love you more than life itself, and I've already given you one of my kidneys.....but, don't you think you've scored a bit of an own goal here, banning Scipio and Hartley? Just saying, don't hate me. XOXOXOXOX
PM from Mike.
f..k OFF. I AM ALWAYS RIGHT. I have spoken to Agent Z and Cyclops, and they have advised me to cleanse the forum of infidels. Send me some money, I've run out of monster munch.
Two days later.....Scipio and Hartley are reinstated. 8((()*/
-
Hartley is a long-standing member who was always measured and polite in his views and posts. Think it was an opportunity to kill two annoying birds with one stone, and silence all opposition.
Why on earth should it be reconsidered, Mat? - scipio should be happy to be out of it. Scipio's done a good job correcting all the baloney that's being spouted over there, and had to put up with vile personal abuse from one or two. Only Caroline seemed to wobble, and the rest are a totally blind to the truth, other than dear Andrea, and abs (I think). I wouldn't be surprised if all his time-and brain-consuming posts disappear from view.
The Jeremy Bamber Forum is an irrelevance, having no influence at all on getting Bamber released, and with Tesko indulging in his own fantasy world 24/7/365. I like the bit about scipio not producing evidence, when he has been avoiding doing the same for years. Where's the photo of Sheila on the bed? Proof that she was in the kitchen when the TFU entered? Or the even more ludicrous claim about the police shooting Sheila? So he ends up dreaming more nonsense about a non-existent bunch of ex-cons who will somehow miraculously solve the case. Pathetic!
Nah... scipio and harters are lucky to be well out of it, and can now get on with spending their valuable time on other more useful things in their lives.
I received some PMs on blue from people apologizing for what might be viewed as personal attacks such as recently from Susan so not all of them are bad.
I disagreed with most of them on the issues but don't have a problem with different views and my main gripe related to bias.
I don't know what proof Mike asked for I can't read the forum at all, my IP is blocked with the message quoted above being the only thing that appears and it says the ban if forever. I won't be able to read it again till I am at work on Monday.
In any event the banning of Harters and I together can only signal one thing, Mike intends to continue posting his rubbish about multiple moderators and doesn't want anyone to refute his claims. Apart from Harters and I no one really responded save lookout and Graham who love to indulge Mike.
-
I received some PMs on blue from people apologizing for what might be viewed as personal attacks such as recently from Susan so not all of them are bad.
I disagreed with most of them on the issues but don't have a problem with different views and my main gripe related to bias.
I don't know what proof Mike asked for I can't read the forum at all, my IP is blocked with the message quoted above being the only thing that appears and it says the ban if forever. I won't be able to read it again till I am at work on Monday.
In any event the banning of Harters and I together can only signal one thing, Mike intends to continue posting his rubbish about multiple moderators and doesn't want anyone to reture his claims. Apart from Harters and I no one really responded save lookout and Graham who love to indulge Mike.
I reckon you'll be back on there by tea time, Scipio. I do believe the little guy is about to have a change of heart(ley).
Ho ho ho!!!
-
I received some PMs on blue from people apologizing for what might be viewed as personal attacks such as recently from Susan so not all of them are bad.
I disagreed with most of them on the issues but don't have a problem with different views and my main gripe related to bias.
I don't know what proof Mike asked for I can't read the forum at all, my IP is blocked with the message quoted above being the only thing that appears and it says the ban if forever. I won't be able to read it again till I am at work on Monday.
In any event the banning of Harters and I together can only signal one thing, Mike intends to continue posting his rubbish about multiple moderators and doesn't want anyone to reture his claims. Apart from Harters and I no one really responded save lookout and Graham who love to indulge Mike.
Try clearing your cookies. Meanwhile chill and watch Wimbledon ?>)()<
Back later
-
"I don't know what proof Mike asked for I can't read the forum at all, my IP is blocked with the message quoted above being the only thing that appears and it says the ban if forever. I won't be able to read it again till I am at work on Monday."
Now that was funny. I larfed
-
Scipio I assume you know most of us here who debate the Baamber case are also lifetime bannees from that joke of a forum.
-
I was looking forward to hearing Keiraline's 70:30 guilty view. She appears to reject the bizarre (for want of a better word) theories from the likes of Lookout and Mike. She also flagged up something about NB's wallet and its contents. I was unable to follow this as I wasn't able to read the WS's she was referring to. Save that I haven't seen her counter any posts from the innocent camp or support any from the guilty camp >@@(*&) Me thinks its Keiraline playing games coz she don't wanna be seen as a Bamberette 8)><(
I wait with bated breath for the post of all posts. Come on Keiraline lets be having ya girl...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5219.msg224669.html#msg224669
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5524.msg240922.html#msg240922
-
When Keiraline joined TJBF she seemed pretty convinced in his innocence >@@(*&)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103751.html#msg103751
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103772.html#msg103772
-
They are a mixture of misfits. NugNugs was recently caught sending homophobic messages to another member. Caroline the tyrant was identified as Keira. She then failed to convince us all otherwise then vanished after being rumbled. I suppose that other control freak Maggie will be enjoying full control in her absence until another fruitcake is selected to replace Keiraline.
Maggie has one objective on TJBF and that is to protect adoption/adoptive mothers and I think I understand why 8(0(* Here are a couple of examples:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4692.msg200242.html#msg200242
In her eagerness to reject out of hand the thread she hasn't even bothered to understand the definition of "neglect". In the context of the thread the definition is based on unresponsiveness ("serve and return" science of neglect/Harvard university). It is extremely unlikely that a woman suffering from severe depression so much that she requires in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment is likely to be emotionally available to the child in their care and capable of meeting its needs. My recent thread on the main board explains all of this. Maggie refuses to accept this along with the fact that the root cause of June's severe depression was based on her decision to adopt SC. Prior to this there's no evidence of June suffering any depression, mental illness.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4692.msg200242.html#msg200242
This is what Dr F said in his WS:
"I can say that June after suffering a long period of childlessness was examined and eventually an ovarian cyst was removed. She made a decision to adopt and having done this suffered severe depressions. This was around 1959. She required e.c.t as an in patient and made a full recovery."
Maggie also objected to a thread I created:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3669.msg144847.html#msg144847
She says "We dont know what their relationship was like...only other peoples opinions. Imo" And yet Dr F, CC, FE and SC's friends are on record stating the following:
Dr F's wit stats
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6191
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6193
"She said she felt as if she was caught up in a "coven of evil". These feelings appeared to be involved with her relationship with her adoptive mother and her standards of good and evil".
"She did see that Mrs Bamber was a threat to her, and did not want to visit the BAMBERS at their farm in Essex. Sheila felt that Mrs Bamber had been over-protective towards her and found it difficult to express warm feelings towards her".
"In hindsight I believe that Sheila would have relapsed into a state of psychosis, probably having a firmly held belief or delusion involving concepts of good and evil, and certainly paranoid, possibly involving her mother."
"Both June and Sheila suffered dillusional states of religion and Sheila's illness was influenced by her mother although I do not think the illnesses were caused by the same problem."
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=6197
"I also treated Sheila's adopted mother, Mrs June BAMBER at St Andrew's Hospital, Northants. I can say that June after suffering a long period of childlessness was examined and eventually an ovarian cyst was removed. She made a decision to adopt and having done this suffered severe depressions. This was around 1959. She required ECT as an in-patient and made a full recover.
Farhad Emani (Freddie) wit stats:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=214
"She also had a deep dislike of her stepmother who apparently kept quoting religion at her. This would upset Sheila and annoy her".
"She would not discuss all her problems, although whenever she visited her father, she would return even more depressed because of her stepmother. Apparently the stepmother would preach to her about her boyfriends and how it was wrong that she should make love with them and Sheila should remember GOD. She gradually detoriated until about three weeks before her first breakdown, Nicholas fell out of a taxi when she was returning from her parents. She blamed herself for this because she was not concentrating on what the children were doing only on Mother's religious rantings".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=216
"Whilst I was there she telephoned Tara, a close friend. She was apologising to Tara for a Religious book that her step mother had dropped off at Tara's house a couple of days previously".
"She kept talking about the Devil and God, and stated that God was sitting opposite her and unlike what her stepmother said he in fact loved her".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=218
"Had it just been her Stepmother who had been killed I could accept it as she disliked her intensely but to think she has killed her father and children is difficult to comprehend".
CC's Letter Intended For NB
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1482.0;attach=7232
"I will not allow her to f..k up the minds of my children in the way I suspect she has your daughters. I am sorry to be so blunt but that is restrained compared to how I really feel".
Excerpt From Claire Powell's book
"Sheila made it clear to her friends that her precarious state of her personal equilibrium stemmed largely from her peculiar relationship with June. She was morbidly sensitive to any hint of disapproval from her mother. It was a theme she reverted to constantly. 'She talked about her mother and her background' said Sonja. 'She told me that she and her mother didn't get on. Sheila told me many times that she could not talk to her mother at all, that there was no form of communication between them. She said her mother was never happy with her or with what she did"
Imo those ultimately responsible for the WHF murders are those that approved June as suitable to adopt. There is no question that June was a decent woman but that does not necessarly mean she made a good adoptive mother. Surely anyone, whether you believe JB guilty or innocent, must think:
- adoptive mother develops serious depression as a result of her decision to adopt
- adopted daughter develops serious mental illness and is plagued by issues throughout her life
- adopted son is serving a life sentence for murdering his adoptive parents, adopted sister and her twin sons
- no genetics
>@@(*&)
Here Maggie tell us that "babies [for adoption] were two a penny".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2531.msg77966.html#msg77966
Adam hi. You have asked several times recently why I was banned. Look no further than the above 8(0(*
-
The stated reason for my ban is as follows for, "consistently tried to effect the purpose of the forum in a negative way - he should be posting on other forums that suit his views."
The purpose of the forum apparently is to spread unadulterated lies to pretend he is innocent and people who challenge his innocence are not allowed. I have to find a site that shares my views of his guilt to be allowed to post.
I thought it would only be a matter of time. I haven't read many of the posts on Blue over the last few days so I didn't see the lead up to the ban. Are you able to say what exactly you were banned for?
As an aside I noticed that neither you or Mike use emoticons in your posts >@@(*&)
-
I thought it would only be a matter of time. I haven't read many of the posts on Blue over the last few days so I didn't see the lead up to the ban. Are you able to say what exactly you were banned for?
As an aside I noticed that neither you or Mike use emoticons in your posts >@@(*&)
No Mike uses cartoons of living squash instead...
Things started out with him asserting a group called CYCLOPS (an alleged cold case police group though this is a closed case not cold case so makes no sense) was going to test the rifle to prove it had Sheila's blood in it because a pullthrough would have missed blood trapped in the rifling. The reality though is that a pull through can thoroughly clean out a barrel and there is no evidence at all of a cold case squad being assigned to review the Bamber case. When he lost this argument he jumped to the moderator. In the past he alleged there were 3 different moderators. This time he reduced it to 2 moderators.
One moderator was of course the one provided by the family to police on 8/12/85 which did in fact occur. The second moderator was one he initially claimed was provided by Ann Eaton in September. After a while that changed to claiming it was collected from WHF on the day of the murders by Stanley Jones but never offered a shred of proof to establish one was collected period that date let alone by Jones.
He initially alleged 1 moderator had the paint evidence while the other had the blood evidence and they were merged together.
He subsequently abandoned that claim and alleged neither moderator had any evidence when initially in police custody.
He initally claimed 1 moderator was in police custody while another was in the lab though he offered no evidence at all to prove such.
Subsequently he alleged the moderator found at WHF on 8/7/85 was given to the family at the end of August after nothing was found on it or in it and was in the custody of the family while the other was in the lab being tested.
Upon be challenged as to why the police would give the family a moderator that had been collected from WHF thus would have to be returned to Jeremy and if true they had done so then his claim 1 was in police custody while the other was at the lab could not be true, he changed his claims again.
He changed to claiming that the one collected from the family was returned to them at the end of August but it was doctored by the family then returned to police on 9/11/85 and then sent to the lab on 9/13/85.
He initially alleged the moderator collected from WHF on the day of the murders by Stanley Jones was taken into evidence as SJ/1 while the one from the family was SBJ/1 but later changed swapped the designations claiming the one found by police was SBJ/1 and the one from the family SJ/1.
After he wa sunable to support his shifting claims with any evidence he changed course again and started alleging that items taken from Colchester were in fact taken from WHF by Hammersley and had been classified DRH/1-4 but were later changed to DRH 50-53 and police then used DRH/1-4 for casings they pretended were found in the master bedroom. The document he used to try to prove this happened was a document correcting errors in Hammersley's typed statement where the typist messed up and marked DRH 1-4 for items taken from Colchester. How could items taken from Colchester have been found at WHF on the day of the murders? His claims were a complete sham.
Then he changed course again and claimed that the firearms team members told COLP someone else prepared their statements and they refused to sign the statements because they were complete lies. He listed a number of officers who he insisted did not sign statements and told COLP the statements were all lies so that is why they didn't sign. Harters pointed out various statements that were signed by these people. Mike provided select snippets that he challenged us to provide signed copies of and said that if we could not then this proves his claims to be true. Harters responded that just because the documents are not available online doesn't mean there are not signed copies of these documents in the official files. He noted that NGB had stated there were signed versions of all the police statements.
I noted we don't have access to the official file and documents on line are not exhaustive so in no way can prove what he claims. I asserted that in order for him to prove his claims he needs to produce documents from COLP where the officers state they refused to sign statements containing lies that were prepared by others. He was unable to because he lied and made the whole thing up.
The whole thread (it was a single thread where all these claims were made and I left out some unimportant other misrpresentations he made in it) was one lie after the next with him either producing no evidence at all or producing evidence that failed to prove what he claimed such as the document correcting typos in Hammersley's statement which he misrepresented as the exhibits being swapped.
Harters also nailed him for lying by posting various documents from 1986 and misrepresenting they were from 1985.
He got rid of us so he could post his lies unchallenged. Indeed Graham was receptive to his claims about the unsigned police statements and he wants no one to correct the record.
The residents of blue seem to largely ignore Mike though some like Look, Graham and a few others are supportive. The only real challenge he faced was from Harters and myself and that is why we both got the boot.
-
As pointed out at the time CYCLOPS, according to that old burglar crank Tesco, is actually " a high ranking group of ex-criminals". Prompting the usual derision from this forum and the obvious question, who the f**k ranks criminals?
-
As pointed out at the time CYCLOPS, according to that old burglar crank Tesco, is actually " a high ranking group of ex-criminals". Prompting the usual derision from this forum and the obvious question, who the f**k ranks criminals?
In the instant debate he claimed they were a cold case squad who had significant contact with the COLP investigators.
-
I used a proxy to view the blue board.
Right after banning us he started a thread about the moderators again posting the following lies "the silencer found by relatives was not sent to the lab' at Huntingdon until the 20th September, and it was not examed until the 26th September 1985...: and claiming thus that the moderator examined by the lab prior to this had to be another and posting other mumbo jumbo about how all the police lied.
What evidence did he provide as support? None because it is total BS. Who would have challenged this rubbish? The people he banned. No real mystery at all here as to what was going on.
In the meantime he posted:
The following: "I am considering banning these liars from the forum, because what they have said is not true, and nothing they have said or done can prove that what I am saying is not true..."
Then a mere 26 minutes later he banned us without us even being able to see what he wrote.
I would have responded that I had already proven him a liar on multiple issues such as the shell casings and his claims about the moderators. I also would have pointed out that he is the one who asserted the various officers told COLP their statements were false so they refused to sign them and that he is the one who needs to produce evidence of such there is no need for us to prove a negative.
Mike obviously has nothing in his life and wants attention so makes up things but doesn't want anyone to actually challenge him.
The banning shows him to be a complete crock because it means he is incapable of debating others and that his points can't withstand scrutiny so he is making sure they are not scrutinized.
Guilters are welcome so long as they are incompetent or don't challenge Mike.
To be honest I thought he would ban me sooner but he kept trying to outwhit me by changing his claims. He got more frustrated as time went on then Harters jumped in, caught him dead ot rights, told him shame on him and he could not take it after that he went bonkers.
An annoying thing is that you have to be logged on in order to see attachments, read transcripts etc you can't view such as a spectator.
-
I never understood why you felt the need to respond to Teskos drivel. Nobody on there believes a word he's saying, I don't think even he does!
-
Thanks for the explanation Skipio. I know who I would trust Mike v Hartley. Mike has absolutely zero credibility. He lies, deceives, misleads and incites:
- photo of SC on the bed with 1 bullet wound - not forthcoming
- authentic BT phone records showing call made WHF - Goldhanger - not forthcoming
- NB fathered the twins
- June was directly involved with the murders
- SC had a liaison with a visitor to Tolleshunt after she arrived at WHF 04/08/85
There's not a grain of truth in the last 3 claims
In addition to the above he claims:
- Madeline McCann talks with him "Uncle Mikey" ...and that he's going to identify her body
- That he goes up to Saddleworth Moor with his dog Misty to look for Keith Bennett's body which he is going to identify
- That the police had no responsibility for the Hillsborough tragedy
- That he can draw conclusions from the WHF case by images in the clouds
Scipio the man has absolutely zero credibility and as others on here have pointed out JB himself does not support the forum and distances himself from it/Mike.
Mike you're a disgrace. And Hartley I love you x
-
I never understood why you felt the need to respond to Teskos drivel. Nobody on there believes a word he's saying, I don't think even he does!
Absolutely Sika. Why on earth would anyone want to debate with that weirdo who accuses the police of murdering Sheila then taking porn photos of her dead body! He isn't even worth being offended by and deserves nothing but ridicule and contempt!
-
Thanks for the explanation Skipio. I know who I would trust Mike v Hartley. Mike has absolutely zero credibility. He lies, deceives, misleads and incites:
- photo of SC on the bed with 1 bullet wound - not forthcoming
- authentic BT phone records showing call made WHF - Goldhanger - not forthcoming
- NB fathered the twins
- June was directly involved with the murders
- SC had a liaison with a visitor to Tolleshunt after she arrived at WHF 04/08/85
There's not a grain of truth in the last 3 claims
In addition to the above he claims:
- Madeline McCann talks with him "Uncle Mikey" ...and that he's going to identify her body
- That he goes up to Saddleworth Moor with his dog Misty to look for Keith Bennett's body which he is going to identify
- That the police had no responsibility for the Hillsborough tragedy
- That he can draw conclusions from the WHF case by images in the clouds
Scipio the man has absolutely zero credibility and as others on here have pointed out JB himself does not support the forum and distances himself from it/Mike.
Mike you're a disgrace. And Hartley I love you x
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Today he is running around in full force with all sorts of bogus claims like the claim that there has to be bone and tissue in back spatter which is of course untrue and resurrecting his claim that PV20 was a complete bullete that was swapped with a real bullet by the lab even though there are photos of the exhibit of PV/20 that was presented in court on his own site showing that PV/20 was an expanded fragmented bullet, not a whole bullet so his claim it was replaced with a whole bullet is impossible. Also he is continuing with his lies about multiple moderators.
Mike deleted my last 3 responses in the thread at issue to make it look like I fled the debate and stopped challenging him which of course did not happen. He also deleted the posts where he announced we were banned and the protests from people who opposed such.
-
I never understood why you felt the need to respond to Teskos drivel. Nobody on there believes a word he's saying, I don't think even he does!
Lookout and Grahame among others use some of his claims so they obviously buy some of them. Lookout buys all of them in fact. Grahame buys some for instance his claims about PV/20 being replaced by a complete bullet. But Grahame also was receptive to his claims about police telling COLP they refused to sign their statements because the statements were all lies. Grahame professes to be objective and not a Jeremy supporter but it is just lip service and he betrays his agenda with many of his posts including a post where he asserted a friend who met Jeremy says Jeremy would never do such a thing so he will never believe Jeremy did it. When push comes to shove he retreats and tries to sound more unsure.
-
Lookout and Grahame among others use some of his claims so they obviously buy some of them. Lookout buys all of them in fact. Grahame buys some for instance his claims about PV/20 being replaced by a complete bullet. But Grahame also was receptive to his claims about police telling COLP they refused to sign their statements because the statements were all lies. Grahame professes to be objective and not a Jeremy supporter but it is just lip service and he betrays his agenda with many of his posts including a post where he asserted a friend who met Jeremy says Jeremy would never do such a thing so he will never believe Jeremy did it. When push comes to shove he retreats and tries to sound more unsure.
Gladys has always been a MASSIVE Bamber supporter, and he sounds very lame when he tries to deny it.
He used to post on here a lot, mostly about his rectum, but I think it's all been archived. 8(8-))
-
Today he is running around in full force with all sorts of bogus claims like the claim that there has to be bone and tissue in back spatter which is of course untrue and resurrecting his claim that PV20 was a complete bullete that was swapped with a real bullet by the lab even though there are photos of the exhibit of PV/20 that was presented in court on his own site showing that PV/20 was an expanded fragmented bullet, not a whole bullet so his claim it was replaced with a whole bullet is impossible. Also he is continuing with his lies about multiple moderators.
What has always puzzled me is the x-ray of the bullet in Sheila Caffell's neck. If PV20 was the bullet shown in Court, why does it look fragmented into several widely-spaced pieces in the radiograph rather than almost whole. The charm on her necklace shows up as solid and in one piece so why not the bullet?
A standard Eley subsonic hollow-point weighs 40 grains and PV20 weighed roughly 60% of that.
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/subsonic-hollow/ (http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/subsonic-hollow/)
Any thoughts on this, scipio?
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/521x622q90/248/b6001.png)
-
Lookout and Grahame among others use some of his claims so they obviously buy some of them. Lookout buys all of them in fact. Grahame buys some for instance his claims about PV/20 being replaced by a complete bullet. But Grahame also was receptive to his claims about police telling COLP they refused to sign their statements because the statements were all lies. Grahame professes to be objective and not a Jeremy supporter but it is just lip service and he betrays his agenda with many of his posts including a post where he asserted a friend who met Jeremy says Jeremy would never do such a thing so he will never believe Jeremy did it. When push comes to shove he retreats and tries to sound more unsure.
Grahame 'Gladys' always knows somebody who knows the truth or has an informant in the police etc.etc. He also knows an SAS mercenary called GAV and bought a second hand piano from Elton John! He is almost as big a Walter Mitty as Mike Tesko .... or perhaps Billy Liar would be more appropriate!
Lookout is famous for her post "I feel heartbroken that Jeremy hasn't got any family to support him"! Perhaps the most ironic post in history!
-
What has always puzzled me is the x-ray of the bullet in Sheila Caffell's neck. If PV20 was the bullet shown in Court, why does it look fragmented into several widely-spaced pieces in the radiograph rather than almost whole. The charm on her necklace shows up as solid and in one piece so why not the bullet?
A standard Eley subsonic hollow-point weighs 40 grains and PV20 weighed roughly 60% of that.
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/subsonic-hollow/ (http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/subsonic-hollow/)
Any thoughts on this, scipio?
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/521x622q90/248/b6001.png)
There is an assumption that all that appear to be foreign are parts of the bullet. That is not necessarily the case. For all we know parts are from her broken vertebrae or something they used on her body. The way to figure out what they are is to look in and out of the body at the areas where you see anomolies. By observation you try to determine what they are. Some bones have more density than others and some bone fragments end up being blotches. In some instances it is from an error other times from something left on a body and sometimes natural. You need someone to read an xray but also look at the body and be aware of the condition to find out. There are lots of different variables that come into play.
Another issue is that you can't see how fat something is. What if one object is 10mm fat but something else is only 2mm fat though they look almost the same side in diameter across when looking at one angle? Obviously the mass of the fatter object will be much greater.
Nevill's xray showed what seemed to be fragments in his abdomen but none could not be located either because they were not actually there and the anomalies were something else or Vanezis did not dig enough.
You need to consult with the people who took the xray and insepected th ebody to assess exactly what was seen.
Could one blotch account for 60% of a bullet and the remaining ones account for the rest? Postentially yes because the mass is not simply demonstrated by the diameter of one side. Showing Vanezis the exhibit and having him deny that is what he pulled out of Sheila is how you establish there was some sort of switch.
In the meantime the whole notion they had to switch bullets because police had shot her or because the extended relatives had shot her is ridiculous. There is no rational motivation for any swapping let alone did they try proving it the way they need to.
My understanding is he was alive (might still be today) and could have been asked about the exhibit but the defense failed to do so (most likely because they knew he would say it is the bullet he pulled out). That is a real argument you bring to a court if you want to prevail:
1) here is a xray we did no see because it was not disclosed.
2) Had it been disclosed we would have confronted Vanezis at trial with the exhibit and asked if the exhibit is the bullet he removed from Sheila
3) Here is a statement from Vanezis saying he doesn't recognize the exhibit as having been removed by him and would have testified to such at tiral if asked.
That is what you bring to an appeal court to convince them that you have a basis to suggest there was a swapped bullet and try to get them to overlook that you failed to challenge it at trial.
-
I forgot to mention one thing about the claims in relation to PV/20. The main argument presented to the CCRC did not relate to the xrays. The main argument was that Fletcher called PV/20 a whole bullet but that Vanezis called it a fragment. This was not something uncovered on appeal it was known all along by the defense. The defense simply made an issue out of this on appeal long after trying to suggest the discrepancy is significant. Since this is not based on new evidence it is not something that can be raised on appeal. Nor is it avalid point anyway since the PV/20 submitted at trial was not a whole bullet. Fletcher was disinguishing between bullets that he had multiple portions of in making unscientific remarks of what was or was not a whole bullet. Technically none were whole bullets they were all fragments.
-
PM from Roch.
Mike, you know that I love you more than life itself, and I've already given you one of my kidneys.....but, don't you think you've scored a bit of an own goal here, banning Scipio and Hartley? Just saying, don't hate me. XOXOXOXOX
PM from Mike.
f..k OFF. I AM ALWAYS RIGHT. I have spoken to Agent Z and Cyclops, and they have advised me to cleanse the forum of infidels. Send me some money, I've run out of monster munch.
Two days later.....Scipio and Hartley are reinstated. 8((()*/
Just call me Mystic Meg!!
Oh Mike. You silly, silly little man. @)(++(*
-
Just call me Mystic Meg!!
Oh Mike. You silly, silly little man. @)(++(*
It's good to know that the fiercely intelligent and magnanimous Hartley and the mind-blowingly brilliant Scipio are back where they belong, blowing little Mike's bullshit out of the water. Nearly pissed on your chips there, didn't you, Mike?
*contented sigh*
-
Just call me Mystic Meg!!
Oh Mike. You silly, silly little man. @)(++(*
@)(++(*
Just read
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4723.msg170911#msg170911
@)(++(*
-
Cooee
Clappy Lookout 8)-)))
Thanks for the vote of confidence 8((()*/ Yes I am in a minority but it keeps me on my toes and out of my comfort zone and I'm quite happy posting here. Plus we have drop dead gorgeous guys here. Who do you have? Mike and Gladys. No thanks. We all know that Blue posters read Red and vice-versa with posts copied over, so to all intents and purposes it creates a sort of Purple forum which is fun 8)-))) There's not much interest in the JB case at the moment. Most posters on Red post on the McCann board. When the new books are out and/or a new application is submitted to the CCRC it will generate new interest and posters.
-
@)(++(*
Just read
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4723.msg170911#msg170911
@)(++(*
The timing was a little off but I am actually surprised that we were reinstated as predicted, we shall see how long it lasts. Hartley has much better prosepects of not being banned a second time than I do.
-
The timing was a little off but I am actually surprised that we were reinstated as predicted, we shall see how long it lasts. Hartley has much better prosepects of not being banned a second time than I do.
I think you'd have to do something pretty awful to get banned again, they LURVE you over there!!
Your mission should you choose to accept it is to prod Gladys into his 78th beltdown. I'm sure it's that time of the month again. 8((()*/
-
Cooee Clappy Lookout 8)-)))
Thanks for the vote of confidence 8((()*/ Yes I am in a minority but it keeps me on my toes and out of my comfort zone and I'm quite happy posting here. Plus we have drop dead gorgeous guys here. Who do you have? Mike and Gladys. No thanks. We all know that Blue posters read Red and vice-versa with posts copied over, so to all intents and purposes it creates a sort of Purple forum which is fun 8)-))) There's not much interest in the JB case at the moment. Most posters on Red post on the McCann board. When the new books are out and/or a new application is submitted to the CCRC it will generate new interest and posters.
The Bamber case is a dead duck Hols ... even Nelly NGB admitted the last CCRC application was JB's last, best and only hope! Bamber's lawyers trawled the case for anything new and the best they could come up with was the 'burn marks' on Neville's back and a quite ludicrous 'theory' that Sheila made the marks in some silly torture ritual!
Pig skin shooting desperadoes 8)--))!
I think there is a very good reason Bamber's 'dream team' won't released a word of the CCRC's 89 page denial. They are rightly too embarrassed!
-
The Bamber case is a dead duck Hols ... even Nelly NGB admitted the last CCRC application was JB's last, best and only hope! Bamber's lawyers trawled the case for anything new and the best they could come up with was the 'burn marks' on Neville's back and a quite ludicrous 'theory' that Sheila made the marks in some silly torture ritual!
Pig skin shooting desperadoes 8)--))!
I think there is a very good reason Bamber's 'dream team' won't released a word of the CCRC's 89 page denial. They are rightly too embarrassed!
The Bamber case might be a "dead duck" but does that mean we are too? Where art thou? I am missing you 8(8-))
4 T from T:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yaw1j7XT0c
I will be away on hols soon. Hope to see you soon. Love 'n' hugs xxx.
-
What kind of god awful
singer screecher is she? ?8)@)-)
Holly, I'm disappointed in you... and I thought you had taste!
8**8:/: 8()(((@#
-
What kind of god awful singer screecher is she? ?8)@)-)
Holly, I'm disappointed in you... and I thought you had taste!
8**8:/: 8()(((@#
Nice one Myster...I never thought of that one...haven't seen anything so funny for weeks!
-
I thought that this was the most appropriate thread on which to acknowledge Johns recent, excellent work over on blue!
8@??)( 8@??)(
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwXai-sgM-s
-
God strewth, sika... he's worse than Alicia Keys! @)(++(*
-
I thought that this was the most appropriate thread on which to acknowledge Johns recent, excellent work over on blue!
8@??)( 8@??)(
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwXai-sgM-s
@)(++(*
Mikey Potter and the Crock of Shite.
"f..kofferamus."