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: scipio_usmc on March 21, 2015, 06:18:27 PM
Title: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 21, 2015, 06:18:27 PM
"EP initially believed it to be murder, suicide, so to say that it was impossible that Sheila had done it is a stretch."
What a cop or anyone else is willing to believe has no bearing at all on whether something is impossible or not.
What matters is whether objective evidence proves something. You are bringing up the opinions of people who were unaware of the complete objective evidence at the time they formed their opinion. They based their opinion solely on Jeremy's claims and the way the scene looked.
The very people you cite changed their minds after they were made aware of all the relevant evidence including evidence that established Jeremy had been lying to them.
Since you can't prove the evidence wrong you instead go back to the early hours of the investigation when they had been fooled and make the irraitonal claim that because they were fooled this somehow means that it was possible for Sheila to have committed the murders.
Your argument fails miserably.
31
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: John on March 23, 2015, 12:59:19 PM
Like so many, me included, I can remember the event quite clearly and remember thinking what sort of a lunatic would have done such a thing. It never crossed my mind that the adopted son could have done such a terrible deed to his own family and especially to two sleeping youngsters.
And like most people, I was not privy to the evidence in the case at that point and was reliant on Press reports for any news.
Jeremy set out to take advantage of Sheilas presence at the farmhouse, it was an opportunity he could not miss. All that had gone on in the weeks and months prior to that fateful night reveal that he had murder on his mind for some time. In the end though he came to realise that killing June and Nevill would not get him what he wanted, he had to get rid of Sheila and the boys as well.
On the morning of the murders Jeremy's conduct was clearly that of a culpable individual but that was not immediately recognizable to the police with one exception and that was DS Stan Jones. Jones was a seasoned detective and he wasn't for taking anything for granted. When he inadvertently encountered Jeremy and Julie behaving oddly just hours after the murders his suspicions were truly raised. He must have thought all his Christmas's had come at once the day Julie Mugford walked into his office.
In the end the whole sorry saga unravelled and the police began to realise that they had been played from the very first phone call to them. A crazy sister with a history of mental health problems goes berserk with a rifle which had been conveniently laid out the previous night. The police bought it, hook, line and sinker! A clear cut case of four murders and a suicide as DC Taff Jones called it just before he sped off to the golf course and a destiny which within weeks would see him fall from a ladder at home and sustain fatal injuries.
It's a true saying though, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. {attributed to Abraham Lincoln}
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 24, 2015, 10:29:55 AM
Like so many, me included, I can remember the event quite clearly and remember thinking what sort of a lunatic would have done such a thing. It never crossed my mind that the adopted son could have done such a terrible deed to his own family and especially to two sleeping youngsters.
And like most people, I was not privy to the evidence in the case at that point and was reliant on Press reports for any news.
Jeremy set out to take advantage of Sheilas presence at the farmhouse, it was an opportunity he could not miss. All that had gone on in the weeks and months prior to that fateful night reveal that he had murder on his mind for some time. In the end though he came to realise that killing June and Nevill would not get him what he wanted, he had to get rid of Sheila and the boys as well.
On the morning of the murders Jeremy's conduct was clearly that of a culpable individual but that was not immediately recognizable to the police with one exception and that was DS Stan Jones. Jones was a seasoned detective and he wasn't for taking anything for granted. When he inadvertently encountered Jeremy and Julie behaving oddly just hours after the murders his suspicions were truly raised. He must have thought all his Christmas's had come at once the day Julie Mugford walked into his office.
In the end the whole sorry saga unravelled and the police began to realise that they had been played from the very first phone call to them. A crazy sister with a history of mental health problems goes berserk with a rifle which had been conveniently laid out the previous night. The police bought it, hook, line and sinker! A clear cut case of four murders and a suicide as DC Taff Jones called it just before he sped off to the golf course and a destiny which within weeks would see him fall from a ladder at home and sustain fatal injuries.
It's a true saying though, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. {attributed to Abraham Lincoln}
In order to secure JB's conviction the only people that needed fooling some of the time were the jurors...and they were {attributed to me}
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: John on March 24, 2015, 11:34:56 AM
... or they fancied the pants off Johnny Broom's look-a-like.
Does anyone know if the two dissenters were female? 8)-)))
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Daisy on March 24, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
Yes they were two young women and when the verdict was read out they cried. I was told this by one of Jeremy's friends and he confirmed this is correct.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Myster on March 24, 2015, 08:11:11 PM
It figures... 8()-000(
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 25, 2015, 03:54:33 AM
In order to secure JB's conviction the only people that needed fooling some of the time were the jurors...and they were {attributed to me}
You mean Jeremy needed to fool the jury to be acquitted or in the alternative fool the prosecutor so that he was never tried.
Since the Knox case is back in the news again that is something different in Italy. The lead investigator handles the prosecution as well. In our systems the prosecution decides whether to try a case not the investigators. Also we have and indictment process for major crimes a prosecutor decides whether to seek an indictment.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 25, 2015, 07:03:42 AM
Yes they were two young women and when the verdict was read out they cried. I was told this by one of Jeremy's friends and he confirmed this is correct.
Hello Daisy. Good to see you posting again 8((()*/
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 25, 2015, 07:16:42 AM
Hahaha that is funny. Reminds me of when I need air in my tyres and ask some poor unsuspecting male at a filling station "Are you in a hurry"? 8**8:/: So far the answer has always been along the lines of "No, why?" "I think my tyres might need some air in and I'm not sure how to do it 8**8:/: We move to air with me sitting in warm car and man getting horribly blown about, wet, cold and dirty hands @)(++(*
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 25, 2015, 07:26:51 AM
You mean Jeremy needed to fool the jury to be acquitted or in the alternative fool the prosecutor so that he was never tried.
Since the Knox case is back in the news again that is something different in Italy. The lead investigator handles the prosecution as well. In our systems the prosecution decides whether to try a case not the investigators. Also we have and indictment process for major crimes a prosecutor decides whether to seek an indictment.
Jeremy doesn't strike me as capable of fooling anyone as evidenced by the fact he has no idea how a silencer works
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/silencer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-keuXw5xfRs
What a numpty @)(++(*
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Myster on March 25, 2015, 07:46:27 AM
Hahaha that is funny. Reminds me of when I need air in my tyres and ask some poor unsuspecting male at a filling station "Are you in a hurry"? 8**8:/: So far the answer has always been along the lines of "No, why?" "I think my tyres might need some air in and I'm not sure how to do it 8**8:/: We move to air with me sitting in warm car and man getting horribly blown about, wet, cold and dirty hands @)(++(*
While I'm on a roll...
http://vk.com/videos4894493?z=video4894493_143102559 (http://vk.com/videos4894493?z=video4894493_143102559) Never realised you were so good-looking! Ditch the psi (pounds per square inch) and we'll get on fine. 8(>((
I thought only Northerners were numpties? &%+((£
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 25, 2015, 08:52:23 AM
"EP initially believed it to be murder, suicide, so to say that it was impossible that Sheila had done it is a stretch."
What a cop or anyone else is willing to believe has no bearing at all on whether something is impossible or not.
What matters is whether objective evidence proves something. You are bringing up the opinions of people who were unaware of the complete objective evidence at the time they formed their opinion. They based their opinion solely on Jeremy's claims and the way the scene looked.
The very people you cite changed their minds after they were made aware of all the relevant evidence including evidence that established Jeremy had been lying to them.
Since you can't prove the evidence wrong you instead go back to the early hours of the investigation when they had been fooled and make the irraitonal claim that because they were fooled this somehow means that it was possible for Sheila to have committed the murders.
Your argument fails miserably.
What evidence established JB lied?
If EP had any concrete evidence against JB why allow a potential mass murderer to roam about for 53 days and worse still (one of your favourite sayings) allow him to leave the country twice? He was not interviewed under caution until 10th September 1985. And not charged with the murders until 29th September 1985.
How Dr Craig viewed the scene at 8.10am on 7th Aug '85:
"38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand. In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted."
How Dr Vanezis viewed the victims and feedback from EP
"We then had a candid discussion during which the only dissenter from the murder/suicide theory was D/Sgt JONES. I gained the impression that he did not discount the murder/suicide theory but that he was uneasy with the reaction he was getting from Jeremy."
"We mentioned a number of points which I recall tended to relate to Jeremy's general reactions which D/Sgt JONES did not think compatible with the manner in which he expected him to react. Whilst respecting his views there was nothing impressive about what he said and certainly I cannot recall anything of evidential substance to the effect that Sheila could not have done it."
The turning point from the late DI Miller @ 22.50 in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDpM7W4OVck
"This startling revelation (JM's testimony) along with the blood results from the silencer gave the police two strong indications that SC may not have killed her family. Their attention quickly turned to Jeremy Bamber".
@ 24.00 in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDpM7W4OVck
"With her statement (JM) and also the evidence found by the family (silencer) DI Miller and his team were keen to turn the investigation round"
"Mick Ainsley, Sergeant Jones, myself, Taff Jones were in an office at Witham police station we related of what we'd got from Julie Mugford and Mike Ainsley went round the circle of us said right what do you think? Taff Jones said I'm sticking with what I've always said that she's committed the murders and shot herself. He said to Stan Jones what do you think. He said well I think Jeremy's done it. And he said to me what do you think and I said well this witness (JM) seems very plausible. As far as I was concerned there was enough evidence to bring in and charge with the murders Jeremy Bamber AT THAT POINT.
"Jeremy Bamber was interviewed and charged with 5 counts of murder on 29th September 1985".
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Daisy on March 25, 2015, 09:09:19 AM
Hello Daisy. Good to see you posting again 8((()*/
Thank you Holly. I will only post if there is a question asked which I know the answer to. I don't want to get involved in arguments with others. However I will say still no submissions to the CCRC despite Jeremy telling me 16 months ago "we have the last pieces of the jigsaw. I will soon be free"
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 25, 2015, 10:00:02 AM
Thank you Holly. I will only post if there is a question asked which I know the answer to. I don't want to get involved in arguments with others. However I will say still no submissions to the CCRC despite Jeremy telling me 16 months ago "we have the last pieces of the jigsaw. I will soon be free"
I know what you mean by his ...'I'll soon be free'...Perhaps it's how he keeps himself sane whether he's innocent or guilty.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 25, 2015, 03:20:11 PM
Only someone who ignores everything posted on this site would ask such a foolish question.
Jeremy lied claiming he received a call from a terrified Nevill who wanted him to come over right away because Sheila was going crazy and had a gun. The evidence establishes that Nevill had no reason or ability to call Jeremy and that this was a lie. The murderer entered the master bedroom and emptied the gun into the parents. While Nevill's wounds didn't immobilize him they did prevent him from speaking. There was no opportunity to make a call. Nor would there be any point of making a call to Jeremy if she did have a gun the need to disarm her would be immediate ot one of waiting for Jeremy to get dressed and come over. Nevill was larger and stronger than Jeremy so why would he need Jeremy to fdo it? If too scared to do it disarmed he coudl arm himself with any of the wide variety of available weapons including but not limited to firearms, a non-lethal airgun, knives and pokers. The evidence proves Sheila didin't load a gun, fire a gun, beat anyone and didn't kill herself. Someone else did these things. Why would Nevill call Jeremy with the lie that Sheila had the gun and was going crazy? Obviously he lied about the call. His actions after allegedly receiving the call further demonstrate he hadn't received such a call. SOmeone receiving such a call would either call 999 or dress and rush over. He did neither he called Julie before police and didn't even dial 999. Julie said that before the murders he told her part of his plan was to pretend he received a phone call from WHF. Collectiviely all of these things prove for sure he made up the claim he received a phone call from Nevill.
Jeremy lied claiming he immediately tried to call Nevill back but the phone was busy so then immediately called police. Had he actually received the call claimed and the phone have been left off the hook then he would have to have waited a couple of minutes for the line to clear, He woudl have thought something was wrong with his phone. Furthermore he called Julie before police. He lied about calling police before Julie.
Jeremy lied by telling numerous police Sheila had fired all guns in the house and that he had trained her how to use the murder weapon. When he filled out his written statement he totally backtracked and echoed the claims of his relatives admitting he had not known her to ever fire a weapon.
Jeremy lied to police telling them there was no spare key to the house though there was one hidden in the coal shed which even the gas man knew about. He lied saying there was no way in the house though he knew how to get in through the windows and knew how to lock the kitchen window from the outside to make it appear the house was all locked up tight so no one could have gotten in or out.
Jeremy lied to police claiming he left the gun out and bullets out in the kitchen to make it appear there was a wepaon of opportunity for Sheila to come across. The evidence proves he mad eup the story about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits, leaving it out sans moderator and leaving the bullets by the phone. He left too many bullets revealing he staged the bullets after the murders.
Jeremy told the police his sister was a nutter not revealing she was currently being successfully treated.
Julie didn't tell police what she knew and tried to protect Jeremy.
All of these things helped to cause the police to have the initial impression Sheila did it. Had he told the truth police would have had a different impression from the outset. Some saw problems anyway like the raid team felt she was too clean but they were not in charge of the investigation.
Before Julie came forward and before the evidence was fully processed a new investigator was put in charge of the case. There were concerns that Taff Jones was unwilling to keep an open mind to the possibility it was not a murder suicide and ignored any evidence that pointed in that direction. The lab finally processed the evidence fully and Julie came forward with the truth when it was already in the hands of a new lead investigator.
That is what happened. To try claiming that because police initially believed she could have done it when they were unaware there was a way into and out of the house, unaware that Sheila can't have killed herself and didn't kill anyone else and unaware of Julie's claims- thus operating from a position of ignorance- proves she could have done it is ludicrous. It proves no such thing all it proves is that the initial police impression was wrong nothing more.
Jeremy supporters have no way to refute the evidence that Jeremy was planning these murders for a long time and evidence that he killed them then removed the moderator and put it away and lied about receiving a call from his father. So Alias and other Jeremy supporters (she wants to pretend she isn't one though her posts betray her) assert that the subjective opinion of police early on when they not aware of all the facts amounts to evidence that Sheila could have done it. It is a ridiculous argument that makes no sense at all.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 25, 2015, 03:23:02 PM
Only someone who ignores everything posted on this site would ask such a foolish question.
Jeremy lied claiming he received a call from a terrified Nevill who wanted him to come over right away because Sheila was going crazy and had a gun. The evidence establishes that Nevill had no reason or ability to call Jeremy and that this was a lie. The murderer entered the master bedroom and emptied the gun into the parents. While Nevill's wounds didn't immobilize him they did prevent him from speaking. There was no opportunity to make a call. Nor would there be any point of making a call to Jeremy if she did have a gun the need to disarm her would be immediate ot one of waiting for Jeremy to get dressed and come over. Nevill was larger and stronger than Jeremy so why would he need Jeremy to fdo it? If too scared to do it disarmed he coudl arm himself with any of the wide variety of available weapons including but not limited to firearms, a non-lethal airgun, knives and pokers. The evidence proves Sheila didin't load a gun, fire a gun, beat anyone and didn't kill herself. Someone else did these things. Why would Nevill call Jeremy with the lie that Sheila had the gun and was going crazy? Obviously he lied about the call. His actions after allegedly receiving the call further demonstrate he hadn't received such a call. SOmeone receiving such a call would either call 999 or dress and rush over. He did neither he called Julie before police and didn't even dial 999. Julie said that before the murders he told her part of his plan was to pretend he received a phone call from WHF. Collectiviely all of these things prove for sure he made up the claim he received a phone call from Nevill.
Jeremy lied claiming he immediately tried to call Nevill back but the phone was busy so then immediately called police. Had he actually received the call claimed and the phone have been left off the hook then he would have to have waited a couple of minutes for the line to clear, He woudl have thought something was wrong with his phone. Furthermore he called Julie before police. He lied about calling police before Julie.
Jeremy lied by telling numerous police Sheila had fired all guns in the house and that he had trained her how to use the murder weapon. When he filled out his written statement he totally backtracked and echoed the claims of his relatives admitting he had not known her to ever fire a weapon.
Jeremy lied to police telling them there was no spare key to the house though there was one hidden in the coal shed which even the gas man knew about. He lied saying there was no way in the house though he knew how to get in through the windows and knew how to lock the kitchen window from the outside to make it appear the house was all locked up tight so no one could have gotten in or out.
Jeremy lied to police claiming he left the gun out and bullets out in the kitchen to make it appear there was a wepaon of opportunity for Sheila to come across. The evidence proves he mad eup the story about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits, leaving it out sans moderator and leaving the bullets by the phone. He left too many bullets revealing he staged the bullets after the murders.
Jeremy told the police his sister was a nutter not revealing she was currently being successfully treated.
Julie didn't tell police what she knew and tried to protect Jeremy.
All of these things helped to cause the police to have the initial impression Sheila did it. Had he told the truth police would have had a different impression from the outset. Some saw problems anyway like the raid team felt she was too clean but they were not in charge of the investigation.
Before Julie came forward and before the evidence was fully processed a new investigator was put in charge of the case. There were concerns that Taff Jones was unwilling to keep an open mind to the possibility it was not a murder suicide and ignored any evidence that pointed in that direction. The lab finally processed the evidence fully and Julie came forward with the truth when it was already in the hands of a new lead investigator.
That is what happened. To try claiming that because police initially believed she could have done it when they were unaware there was a way into and out of the house, unaware that Sheila can't have killed herself and didn't kill anyone else and unaware of Julie's claims- thus operating from a position of ignorance- proves she could have done it is ludicrous. It proves no such thing all it proves is that the initial police impression was wrong nothing more.
Jeremy supporters have no way to refute the evidence that Jeremy was planning these murders for a long time and evidence that he killed them then removed the moderator and put it away and lied about receiving a call from his father. So Alias and other Jeremy supporters (she wants to pretend she isn't one though her posts betray her) assert that the subjective opinion of police early on when they not aware of all the facts amounts to evidence that Sheila could have done it. It is a ridiculous argument that makes no sense at all.
Oh I thought you said there was evidence that established JB lied!
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 25, 2015, 09:44:12 PM
Oh I thought you said there was evidence that established JB lied!
To someone with [ moderated ] that is what I posted. Claims proven false or mutually exclusive are lies. To someone without one mutually exclusive claims cna both be true and impossible claims are not lies.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 25, 2015, 10:05:30 PM
Does anyone know if the two dissenters were female? 8)-)))
Roger Wilkes makes ref to two female jurors weeping at the end of the trial, so I think the assumption is that they were the two capable of independent thought and returned verdicts of not guilty 8)-)))
It doesn't surprise me as firstly females would know for sure that loading a magazine and firing a rifle 25 times would not necessarily result in any damage to fingernails.
Also they would observe from soc photos that SC did not suffer with "very poor coordination" as evidenced by her shaped eyebrows, manicured and polished nails, well groomed hair, hair free legs so must have removed hair in some way, fastened her watch strap. These are all tasks requiring fine motor skills and would be impossible to carry out with "very poor coordination".
Females would then think along the lines ok we know the above is wrong so what else is wrong &%+((£
Females might be less inclined to see JM as a reliable prosecution witness.
The jury was unfairly gender balanced 7 males : 5 females:
Verdict By Gender
7 Males : Guilty 58.33% Not Guilty 0%
5 Females : Guilty 24.99% Not Guilty 16.66%
The entire investigation and trial was male dominated:
- All EP male other than WPC Jeapes
- All staff at FSS male other than Glynnis Howard
- All expert witnesses male
- All members of defence, prosecution and trial judge male
- As far as I can see all media by way of journalists were male
A very unhealthy situation. No doubt if JB's conviction is ever quashed we will have a deluge of males telling us (50% females) how and why it went wrong and what lessons will be learned; even though no females played any part other than WPC Jeapes and Glynnis Howard 8)><(
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 25, 2015, 11:27:41 PM
Roger Wilkes makes ref to two female jurors weeping at the end of the trial, so I think the assumption is that they were the two capable of independent thought and returned verdicts of not guilty 8)-)))
It doesn't surprise me as firstly females would know for sure that loading a magazine and firing a rifle 25 times would not necessarily result in any damage to fingernails.
Also they would observe from soc photos that SC did not suffer with "very poor coordination" as evidenced by her shaped eyebrows, manicured and polished nails, well groomed hair, hair free legs so must have removed hair in some way, fastened her watch strap. These are all tasks requiring fine motor skills and would be impossible to carry out with "very poor coordination".
Females would then think along the lines ok we know the above is wrong so what else is wrong &%+((£
Females might be less inclined to see JM as a reliable prosecution witness.
The jury was unfairly gender balanced 7 males : 5 females:
Verdict By Gender
7 Males : Guilty 58.33% Not Guilty 0%
5 Females : Guilty 24.99% Not Guilty 16.66%
The entire investigation and trial was male dominated:
- All EP male other than WPC Jeapes
- All staff at FSS male other than Glynnis Howard
- All expert witnesses male
- All members of defence, prosecution and trial judge male
- As far as I can see all media by way of journalists were male
A very unhealthy situation. No doubt if JB's conviction is ever quashed we will have a deluge of males telling us (50% females) how and why it went wrong and what lessons will be learned; even though no females played any part other than WPC Jeapes and Glynnis Howard 8)><(
All you are doing is insulting your own gender by ascribing your failings onto other women. Your refusal to face that Jeremy did it makes you [ moderated ]
Rational people regardless of gender realize:
1) that she can't have shot herself then after dead go put the moderator away.
2) That she would have broke her nails and gotten medium velocity spatter from Nevill on her clothing and body if she had been the one bashing Nevill with the rifle
3) That she would have broken the nail of her index finge rif she had pushed the trigger with said finger.
and the list goes on and on.
You seem to want all women to be emotional instead of using their heads. Fortunately most women are not like that or there would have been good cause for our forefathers denying women the right to vote, leadership positions etc. The whole reason women are considered equals is because such concerns were unfounded yet that is apparently what you want to pretend is the case.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 26, 2015, 05:31:44 PM
To someone with [ moderated ] that is what I posted. Claims proven false or mutually exclusive are lies. To someone without one mutually exclusive claims cna both be true and impossible claims are not lies.
There's no evidence to prove JB lied re these aspects of the case. They are open to interpretation. And I am not going round the houses with you.
In any event EP were aware of the various aspects in your post, all of which were/are open to interpretation, well before JB was interviewed under caution on 10th September. EP were unable to charge JB due to lack of evidence. He was free. In fact so much so he was allowed to leave the country and returned of his own accord. It was only after the silencer 'evidence' and JM's testimony were brought into the equation that EP were able to charge JB on 29th September. The various aspects of your post, all of which were/are open to interpretation, were then used to construct a case around the silencer and JM's testimony.
All you are doing is insulting your own gender by ascribing your failings onto other women. Your refusal to face that Jeremy did it makes you [ moderated ]
Rational people regardless of gender realize:
1) that she can't have shot herself then after dead go put the moderator away.
2) That she would have broke her nails and gotten medium velocity spatter from Nevill on her clothing and body if she had been the one bashing Nevill with the rifle
3) That she would have broken the nail of her index finge rif she had pushed the trigger with said finger.
and the list goes on and on.
You seem to want all women to be emotional instead of using their heads. Fortunately most women are not like that or there would have been good cause for our forefathers denying women the right to vote, leadership positions etc. The whole reaosn women are considered equals is because such concerns were unfounded yet that is apaprently what you want to pretend is the case.
All I am doing is highlighting what all the research shows ie that gender diversity leads to less group think which is widely accepted as one of the causes of the financial crisis 2008/09. All you do is show yourself up as [ moderated ] with every post you make.
1) I have never claimed SC used the silencer and returned it to the gun cupboard. I don't believe the silencer left the gun cupboard on that fateful night.
2) EP, Dr Craig and Dr Vanezis have never commented on the lack of medium and high velocity spatter. And it didn't form part of the prosecution' case. Please provide some OFFICIAL documents referring to the lack of medium and high velocity spatter on SC. I have no idea whether the injuries inflicted on the victims would result in spatter [ moderated ]
3) When Dr Vanezis was asked about the impact on SC's fingernails from loading and firing the rifle he said it was the province of ballistics. As far as I am aware this wasn't followed up? [ moderated ]
There's no evidence to prove JB lied re these aspects of the case. They are open to interpretation. And I am not going round the houses with you.
In any event EP were aware of the various aspects in your post, all of which were/are open to interpretation, well before JB was interviewed under caution on 10th September. EP were unable to charge JB due to lack of evidence. He was free. In fact so much so he was allowed to leave the country and returned of his own accord. It was only after the silencer 'evidence' and JM's testimony were brought into the equation that EP were able to charge JB on 29th September. The various aspects of your post, all of which were/are open to interpretation, were then used to construct a case around the silencer and JM's testimony.
There is no dispute that Julie's testimony and the drawback evidence is the strongest. That doesn't mean the other evidence is meaningless. You though choose to ignore the moderator everidence, Julie's evidence and all other evidence. Your efforts to refute some of such evidence failed miserably and you simply choose not to accept it though you can't refute it.
Your illogical claims never cease helnce trying to salvage the pathetic point Alias and other defenders make which is the bogus claim that subjective opinions of police investigators mean a thing when evaluating evidence of guilt. The fac tpolice were fooled has no ability at all to establish Sheila could have done it. At most it can establish they were fooled nothing more. Those Jeremy supporters who have zilch to hang their hat on try hanging it on any desperate claim they can think up including this one. If the facts were on the side of Jeremy supporters then it would not be necessary to cling to such depseration and the facts instead would be discussed like Knox defenders do.
You are so biased you are trying to pretend that it is reasonably likely that a dozen police including people who didn't routinely work together all made up the claim that Jeremy Jeremy said Sheila had fired all the weapons in the house and that he had taught her how to use the Anschutz. You ignroe reality and just pretend anything you desire- a perfect example is how you constantly ignore what your own sources state and pretend they say something different than they do including pretending they say backspatter always has tissue beyond blood.
The evidence that Jeremy called Julie before police is quite strong but again you just ignore it and say he didn't lie. You just make up excuse after excuse to defend someone obviously guilty for no rational reason. In some cases alleged to be MOJs there is evidence to establish innocence and that is why people believe in the innocence of such people. Cases like this though are driven by lies and nonsense. Lies about Sheila being killed in other rooms, being killed by police, lies about Nevill phoning police, lies about multiple moderators being doctored, the list goes on and on. These lies are told because there is no legitimate claims to actually make.
This happens with case after case it is hardly unique to th eBamber case. Indeed a number of people on the Bamber forum were insisting the convicted murderer of Sarah Cherry, Dechaine, was framed. Dechaine supporters allege: someone decided to rape and kill Cherry and to frame Dechaine for it. This person followed his truck around and then when Dechaine walked away ran to his truck and took rope, papers with Dechain's name, a scarf and bandana. The person left the papers in the driveway of the house they kidnapped Cherry from in order to implicate Dechaine and used the rope to tie her hands up, the bandana as a gag and strangled her with the scarf. The person either drove around looking for Dechaine's truck to bury the body near and was clairvoyant and knew police would catch Dechaine walking out of the woods before he could move his truck or alternatively waited till after police found his truck and somehow knew where police had found his truck and decided to go bury the body near that location and somehow was able to avoid all the police in the area searching for her and right under their noses buried the body.
Some people who want to believe a convict is innocent will make up anything no matter how ridiculous. They close their eyes to logic and make up excuse after excuse to try to pretend evidence doesn't mean something. It happens in case after case.
Real MOJs don't need to have anything made up because there is actual evidence to rely upon in contrast and logical arguments to be made.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 26, 2015, 07:42:15 PM
All I am doing is highlighting what all the research shows ie that gender diversity leads to less group think which is widely accepted as one of the causes of the financial crisis 2008/09. All you do is show yourself up as a [ moderated ] with every post you make.
1) I have never claimed SC used the silencer and returned it to the gun cupboard. I don't believe the silencer left the gun cupboard on that fateful night.
The defense argued at trial it was used on all victims except Sheila then put away before she killed herself. On appeal they tried the same thing.
Your opinion it sat in the closet and was never used is not based on anything except your own desire to believe Jeremy is innocent. You have failed to come up with a shred of evidence to suggest the blood was planted and blood that blood had been found in the rifle muzzle but this was concealed. You don't follow the evidence you choose to ignore it.
2) EP, Dr Craig and Dr Vanezis have never commented on the lack of medium and high velocity spatter. And it didn't form part of the prosecution' case. Please provide some OFFICIAL documents referring to the lack of medium and high velocity spatter on SC. I have no idea whether the injuries inflicted on the victims would result in spatter [ moderated ]
Yes they did- they commented that the only blood found on her gown was her own. The tesimony at trial was that it would be expected that she would have blood of the citims on her had she done the killings. Even if they had failed to note such it is a consideration known to science today so something that can and should be considered by US in assessing the issue of guilt. At any rate, why do you think the defense came up with their stupid ritualistic cleaning claims? It wasn't for their health it was to try to explain away the lack of any victim blood on her and lack of GSR. The court of appeals didn't summarize this for no reason: "Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood." The reaosn to mention no victim blood was found was because the lack of it was evidence to support that she didn't beat oor kill anyone.
3) When Dr Vanezis was asked about the impact on SC's fingernails from loading and firing the rifle he said it was the province of ballistics. As far as I am aware this wasn't followed up? [ moderated ]
See Farm Girl's long polished nails loading and firing a rifle without causing any damage to her nails/polish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbc @ 1.20 in
You prefer to rely on DB @ 6.20 in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
The only incoherent ramblings are from you. You know that bashing someone with a rifle would have damaged her nails so ignore it. You are the one who asked what they were claiming with respect to the nails and trigger and were informed that the only way for her to activate the trigger was by pushing it like pushing the button of a telephone and thus her nail would have struck the trigger instead of her finger tip. You ignroe such things because you don't want to face Jeremy did it and want to pretend he is innocent. Ignoring evidence makes you wrong and sad, not right.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 26, 2015, 08:17:37 PM
There is no dispute that Julie's testimony and the drawback evidence is the strongest. That doesn't mean the other evidence is meaningless. You though choose to ignore the moderator everidence, Julie's evidence and all other evidence. Your efforts to refute some of such evidence failed miserably and you simply choose not to accept it though you can't refute it.
Your illogical claims never cease helnce trying to salvage the pathetic point Alias and other defenders make which is the bogus claim that subjective opinions of police investigators mean a thing when evaluating evidence of guilt. The fac tpolice were fooled has no ability at all to establish Sheila could have done it. At most it can establish they were fooled nothing more. Those Jeremy supporters who have zilch to hang their hat on try hanging it on any desperate claim they can think up including this one. If the facts were on the side of Jeremy supporters then it would not be necessary to cling to such depseration and the facts instead would be discussed like Knox defenders do.
You are so biased you are trying to pretend that it is reasonably likely that a dozen police including people who didn't routinely work together all made up the claim that Jeremy Jeremy said Sheila had fired all the weapons in the house and that he had taught her how to use the Anschutz. You ignroe reality and just pretend anything you desire- a perfect example is how you constantly ignore what your own sources state and pretend they say something different than they do including pretending they say backspatter always has tissue beyond blood.
The evidence that Jeremy called Julie before police is quite strong but again you just ignore it and say he didn't lie. You just make up excuse after excuse to defend someone obviously guilty for no rational reason. In some cases alleged to be MOJs there is evidence to establish innocence and that is why people believe in the innocence of such people. Cases like this though are driven by lies and nonsense. Lies about Sheila being killed in other rooms, being killed by police, lies about Nevill phoning police, lies about multiple moderators being doctored, the list goes on and on. These lies are told because there is no legitimate claims to actually make.
This happens with case after case it is hardly unique to th eBamber case. Indeed a number of people on the Bamber forum were insisting the convicted murderer of Sarah Cherry, Dechaine, was framed. Dechaine supporters allege: someone decided to rape and kill Cherry and to frame Dechaine for it. This person followed his truck around and then when Dechaine walked away ran to his truck and took rope, papers with Dechain's name, a scarf and bandana. The person left the papers in the driveway of the house they kidnapped Cherry from in order to implicate Dechaine and used the rope to tie her hands up, the bandana as a gag and strangled her with the scarf. The person either drove around looking for Dechaine's truck to bury the body near and was clairvoyant and knew police would catch Dechaine walking out of the woods before he could move his truck or alternatively waited till after police found his truck and somehow knew where police had found his truck and decided to go bury the body near that location and somehow was able to avoid all the police in the area searching for her and right under their noses buried the body.
Some people who want to believe a convict is innocent will make up anything no matter how ridiculous. They close their eyes to logic and make up excuse after excuse to try to pretend evidence doesn't mean something. It happens in case after case.
Real MOJs don't need to have anything made up because there is actual evidence to rely upon in contrast and logical arguments to be made.
How can you talk about logic and make the statement highlighted above? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
The following high profile long running MoJ's, where the convictions have since been quashed, are no different to JB's and include the following features:
How can you talk about logic and make the statement highlighted above? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
The following high profile long running MoJ's, where the convictions have since been quashed, are no different to JB's and include the following features:
The lack of logic is yours. The way other MOJs were established is with evidence. That is totally absent here. No evidence of police securing false confessions, no evidence of police lying...
In MOJ's where police lied and that was the basis of the convictions being vacated there was evidence. You keep ignoring that there is none here.
In the meantime what MOJ featured a lab faking evidence? The Bamber case features the allegation that the police all lied repeatedly, that the family lied, that Julie lies and that police, the family and lab all acted in concert to lie fake the moderator evidence. The most wideranging conspiracy in the history of the UK is alleged and yet zero evidence to establish Julie lied, police lied, that ank evidence was faked- you and other Jeremy supporters choose to believe it happened just because you want to believe it not because there is a shred of evidence.
Logic suggests that since evidence was found in cases where far less happened than alleged to have happened here that you could come up with evidence if your claims were actually true.
Your claims are not only illogical and lacking in any evidentiary support, time after time you ignore the evidence including what your own sources state all to pretend your irraitonal claims could be true. You want to pretend that drawback can't get in a moderator though if that had been true then the defense would have found an expert to state such. It is documented drawback occurs with moderators. Instead of a detailed inquiry of the lcoation of the wound you want to pretend backspatter only happens with head wounds. This is intentioanl twisting on your part to try to find a way to pretend the moderator evidence was plante dbecause you have no evidence to establish it was planted.
You have no evidence to establish any of your claims and even ridiculously suggest you can better evaluate Sheial's mental problems than the doctor who spoke to her and treated her.
The bottom line is that real MOJs have evidence to establish such whereas alleged MOJs that have no evidence to estbalish an MOJ occurred are bogus like the Bamber case.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 26, 2015, 10:21:07 PM
http://vk.com/videos4894493?z=video4894493_143102559 (http://vk.com/videos4894493?z=video4894493_143102559) Never realised you were so good-looking! Ditch the psi (pounds per square inch) and we'll get on fine. 8(>((
I thought only Northerners were numpties? &%+((£
I bet Susie Wolff could give you the ride of your life!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErvwBZrPx0
Hows about then the kinetic energy of the Eley subsonic hollow point bullets when expelled from the muzzle of the Anshutz .22 rifle/Parker Hale silencer instead of the reduction of pound force per square inch by using the silencer? Its not looking good for draw-back 8)-))) Certainly not as far back as the 8th baffle or even the 5th baffle.
JB has spent enough time in the North at Full Sutton, York, plus Mike's influence, to become a Northern Numpty. Hope Andrea doesn't read this 8()-000(
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 27, 2015, 12:56:04 AM
I bet Susie Wolff could give you the ride of your life!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErvwBZrPx0
Hows about then the kinetic energy of the Eley subsonic hollow point bullets when expelled from the muzzle of the Anshutz .22 rifle/Parker Hale silencer instead of the reduction of pound force per square inch by using the silencer? Its not looking good for draw-back 8)-))) Certainly not as far back as the 8th baffle or even the 5th baffle.
JB has spent enough time in the North at Full Sutton, York, plus Mike's influence, to become a Northern Numpty. Hope Andrea doesn't read this 8()-000(
All you keep doing is saying that you choose to believe that drawback can't get inside a moderator or can't get a few inches inside. You can't find any experts that assert this though you just made it up yourself. Though all sources say one has to take a look at the area where the wound occurred and the conditions of the skin and availability of blood in that area you refuse to do so. You refuse to do so because such a look reveals her neck was full of blood and the conditions ideal for back spatter.
Courts and rational objective people don't care about your biased opinion. Courts and rational objective people care about evidence.
The irrefutable evidence is that drawback has been found in moderators and your claims to the contrary are false. Thus neither at trial nor on appeal has the defense attempted to argue to the courts that drawback can't occur with moderators attached to a weapon.
The irrefutable evidence is that 3 different things combine to cause drawback getting into a weapon during a contact wound- temporary cavity, the effect of the gases and tailsplash.
The irrefutable evidence is that the volume of blood available for drawback/backspatter is significantly more when there is a previous nearby wound that caused bleeding.
The irrefutable evidence is that the first wound filled her neck with blood.
The testimony at trial that drawback would be virtually certain to occur form a shot to the area of the fatal shot under all the conditions described was neither challenged at trial nor on appeal by any experts.
Your claims are just unsupported claims you mad eup nothing more and your mad eup claims don't deal with either leg of the prosecution's argument.
The prosecution's argument was two-fold:
1) Had the moderator not been attached blood would have gotten inside the muzzle of the rifle. You have not dealt with this at all. Your arguments about reduced gas pressure do not apply with the moderator unattached. You have no way at all to refute the argument that the rifle san's moderator would have resulted in drawback getting inside the rifle.
2) The fact blood got inside the moderator proves it was used in the murders- the distribution of the blood was consistent with drawback- atomized particles projected inside at all different angles thus manageng to strike 8 baffles. Blood can only get more than 5mm inside when a wound is a contact wound. Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound while her non-fatal wound wasn't so that proves the drawback was from the fatal wound. So her fatal wound was fired with the moderator attached.
Either of the above is sufficient to establish the the moderator was used but combined it is even more powerful.
Evidence that drawback happens less frequently with moderators would not help dent either of the above points in fact it makes the first point even stronger. In this case blood did get in the moderator despite the gas pressure reduction so without the moderator even more blood would have gotten inside and it definitely would have gotten inside. That is the import of the things you keep claiming.
So congrats you helped the prosecution's case instead of hurting it.
The distance the blood was found inside was not too far for backspatter to travel. The volume of blood was small but significant. Had the blood been planted then blood would have been inside the rifle muzzle.
The only way to prove the blood was planted it through evidence establishing who planted what blood when and who concealed the finding of blood in the moderator. Saying you choose to believe it was planted doesn't prove squat, it is not evidence.
No one who asserts the moderator evidence was faked has any such evidence. They simply decide they want to believe it was planted and that is the end of it. In the real world that amounts to nothing and fails to refute it. You have bare suspicion it was planted and nothing more. Suspicion doesn't mean anything to to rational objective people decided what to accept as fact and thus means nothing at all to the courts.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Myster on March 27, 2015, 05:55:36 AM
Confess Jeremy pleeease!... before even I lose the will to live refereeing this endless virtual boxing mismatch. 8)><(
When you're next on the canvas for the umpteenth time Holly, I'll stop the show and send you back to the blue corner* permanently.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Myster on March 27, 2015, 06:26:18 AM
* they're excellent at cross-stitch and stroking pussies... so I've heard.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: John on March 27, 2015, 02:20:48 PM
Yes they were two young women and when the verdict was read out they cried. I was told this by one of Jeremy's friends and he confirmed this is correct.
Thanks Daisy. Now why aren't I surprised? &%+((£
Members are reminded to attack the arguments and not each other. TY
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 14, 2015, 04:05:25 PM
Hmmm mesmerized by a man the prosecution was arguing coldly murdered two sleeping 6 year old boys.
Sadly we will never if all those involved pre and during trial, eg EP, FSS, expert witnesses, prosecution and defence, had been a less homogenous group, leading possibly to less group think, whether this would have altered the outcome. The group consisted of white, middle class, middle-aged males with the exception of WPC Jeapes and Glynis Howard.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: John on April 14, 2015, 05:03:01 PM
Hmmm mesmerized by a man the prosecution was arguing coldly murdered two sleeping 6 year old boys.
Sadly we will never if all those involved pre and during trial, eg EP, FSS, expert witnesses, prosecution and defence, had been a less homogenous group, leading possibly to less group think, whether this would have altered the outcome. The group consisted of white, middle class, middle-aged males with the exception of WPC Jeapes and Glynis Howard.
To be honest Holly I don't think it would have mattered if they were all female including counsel and the judge. The evidence for his conviction is very solid still 30 years on.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 14, 2015, 05:25:24 PM
To be honest Holly I don't think it would have mattered if they were all female including counsel and the judge. The evidence for his conviction is very solid still 30 years on.
I'm not suggesting that an all female group would have been a good idea just a less homogenous one.
We will have to agree to disagree on the evidence surrounding JB's conviction.
It will be interesting to see if anything develops over the coming months in terms of the two book releases and any new application from JB to the CCRC.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Myster on April 14, 2015, 07:45:38 PM
It will be interesting to see if anything develops over the coming months in terms of the two book releases and any new application from JB to the CCRC.
According to you Jeremy Bamber was supposed to be a free man by last Christmas... you placing another bet with sika for the next one?
Dead bodies that don't move has segued into Jeremy Bamber the deviant, so it doesn't sound to me very supportive, and CAL's book is probably more a general retelling of the WHF story, because the other main ones about the case are out of print.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 15, 2015, 01:00:58 PM
According to you Jeremy Bamber was supposed to be a free man by last Christmas... you placing another bet with sika for the next one?
Dead bodies that don't move has segued into Jeremy Bamber the deviant, so it doesn't sound to me very supportive, and CAL's book is probably more a general retelling of the WHF story, because the other main ones about the case are out of print.
I settled my previous bet with Sika and have entered into a new one with an increase in stakes ?>)()<
According to PH he has the smoking gun and is going to put the case to bed once and for all &%54%
Reminds me of BW where he claims he has "unearthed chilling new evidence" whereas in reality it was nothing more than his views on the telephones being moved around.
PH made some fairly ambitious claims about his Bible John book which turned out to be a damp squib. However I shall wait patiently with bated breath and read the book when it becomes available.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dancing-Devil-Bible-John-Murders/dp/1904091733 - check out the reviews
I settled my previous bet with Sika and have entered into a new one with an increase in stakes ?>)()<
According to PH he has the smoking gun and is going to put the case to bed once and for all &%54%
Reminds me of BW where he claims he has "unearthed chilling new evidence" whereas in reality it was nothing more than his views on the telephones being moved around.
PH made some fairly ambitious claims about his Bible John book which turned out to be a damp squib. However I shall wait patiently with bated breath and read the book when it becomes available.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dancing-Devil-Bible-John-Murders/dp/1904091733 - check out the reviews
She hails from the north too so it is good to see that the region is capable of producing non-numptified individuals. 8((()*/
The evidence used to convict Jeremy already establishes his guilt beyond a reaosnable doubt. The fact Sheila was killed while seated propped up against something then subsequently moved flat so that the blood changed course to run down the side of her neck to the floor where it pooled, that the bible was then placed in this blood pool and that the killer removed the moderator, put it away in the closet then placed the rifle across her body prooves beyond question that Sheila was murdered.
You have nothing to refute any of this evidence nor could the tiral defense or Jeremy's appeal lawyers come up with anything. There of course was other evidence that can't be rebutted including Julie's testimony and Jeremy's various lies/changing claims. He lied about calling Julie after police and did so because he knew that calling her before police is not something someone who actually received the call he claims to have received would do.
Those who refuse to believe he is guilty have decided to ignroe the evidence in a similar manner that those who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense have decided to close their eyes to facts and instead to just believe unsupported claims they can't justify with any rational evidence.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 16, 2015, 05:06:26 PM
The evidence used to convict Jeremy already establishes his guilt beyond a reaosnable doubt. The fact Sheila was killed while seated propped up against something then subsequently moved flat so that the blood changed course to run down the side of her neck to the floor where it pooled, that the bible was then placed in this blood pool and that the killer removed the moderator, put it away in the closet then placed the rifle across her body prooves beyond question that Sheila was murdered.
You have nothing to refute any of this evidence nor could the tiral defense or Jeremy's appeal lawyers come up with anything. There of course was other evidence that can't be rebutted including Julie's testimony and Jeremy's various lies/changing claims. He lied about calling Julie after police and did so because he knew that calling her before police is not something someone who actually received the call he claims to have received would do.
Those who refuse to believe he is guilty have decided to ignroe the evidence in a similar manner that those who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense have decided to close their eyes to facts and instead to just believe unsupported claims they can't justify with any rational evidence.
I'm not going round in circles covering old ground about SC's position, bibles etc, etc. None of this is measurable in terms of science and is open to interpretation. If firearms testing shows that draw-back is possible with a silencer and that the blood could have been drawn back as far as the 8th baffle with the blood distributing as it was found then I will re-evaluate my position. Along with a biologist confirming that the flake of blood would have withstood any heat in the silencer, 3 days or so in a cupboard, in a box in a bag and then a journey in the boot of car, man-handled and another day or so hanging around until EP took possession of it and was still capable of producing blood group/type results ie did not degrade then again I'm prepared to re-evaluate my position. Until then the fight goes on ?>)()<
Another analogy might be the billions all over the world, from all walks of life, that believe in a God vs those who do not 8(0(* If you speak with say The Archbishop of Canterbury, an intelligent man, he will swear blind that his God exists. If you speak with say Prof Richard Dawkins, an equally intelligent man, he will swear blind that no Gods exist. They both cant be right.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: scipio_usmc on April 16, 2015, 05:35:07 PM
I'm not going round in circles covering old ground about SC's position, bibles etc, etc. None of this is measurable in terms of science and is open to interpretation. If firearms testing shows that draw-back is possible with a silencer and that the blood could have been drawn back as far as the 8th baffle with the blood distributing as it was found then I will re-evaluate my position. Along with a biologist confirming that the flake of blood would have withstood any heat in the silencer, 3 days or so in a cupboard, in a box in a bag and then a journey in the boot of car, man-handled and another day or so hanging around until EP took possession of it and was still capable of producing blood group/type results ie did not degrade then again I'm prepared to re-evaluate my position. Until then the fight goes on ?>)()<
Another analogy might be the billions all over the world, from all walks of life, that believe in a God vs those who do not 8(0(* If you speak with say The Archbishop of Canterbury, an intelligent man, he will swear blind that his God exists. If you speak with say Prof Richard Dawkins, an equally intelligent man, he will swear blind that no Gods exist. They both cant be right.
The defense found ZERO experts who are able to assert blood will not get several inches into a moderator on the first 8 baffles. If they had found an experts who asserted such was not possible they would have used them. You have unrelaistic expectations and ignroe that they are attacking the evidence in a different manner thus confirming they still can't find anyone to attack it directly.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 16, 2015, 06:16:18 PM
The defense found ZERO experts who are able to assert blood will not get several inches into a moderator on the first 8 baffles. If they had found an experts who asserted such was not possible they would have used them. You have unrelaistic expectations and ignroe that they are attacking the evidence in a different manner thus confirming they still can't find anyone to attack it directly.
The defence have never looked for experts to refute the blood and silencer 'evidence'. Instead of attempting to refute the 'evidence' Geoffrey Rivlin went along with it on the basis SC used the silencer, returned it to the gun cupboard and the blood was an intimate mix of NB's and June's. Complete and utter madness.
Again at 2002 appeal Michael Turner built on the above, which I guess was somewhat of a legacy handed to him by Geoffrey Rivlin, by arguing that SC's DNA was not in the silencer and that the DNA belonged to June. It was then agreed by all the scientists and appeal court judges, and for what its worth I agree with their findings, that SC's DNA may have been in the silencer and June's DNA was in fact in the silencer. However the overall findings all agreed by the scientists and appeal court judges, which again I agree with, is that it was all "utterly meaningless" due to the potential for contamination.
To date the defence have not attempted to discredit the silencer and blood 'evidence'.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: scipio_usmc on April 16, 2015, 07:25:59 PM
The defence have never looked for experts to refute the blood and silencer 'evidence'. Instead of attempting to refute the 'evidence' Geoffrey Rivlin went along with it on the basis SC used the silencer, returned it to the gun cupboard and the blood was an intimate mix of NB's and June's. Complete and utter madness.
Again at 2002 appeal Michael Turner built on the above, which I guess was somewhat of a legacy handed to him by Geoffrey Rivlin, by arguing that SC's DNA was not in the silencer and that the DNA belonged to June. It was then agreed by all the scientists and appeal court judges, and for what its worth I agree with their findings, that SC's DNA may have been in the silencer and June's DNA was in fact in the silencer. However the overall findings all agreed by the scientists and appeal court judges, which again I agree with, is that it was all "utterly meaningless" due to the potential for contamination.
To date the defence have not attempted to discredit the silencer and blood 'evidence'.
The defense hired an expert to examine the blood evidence and to examine the moderator. That expert was not used at trial because that expert agreed with the prosecution and also found miscroscopic traces of blood on the first 8 baffles which he determined to be group A blood. Your claimt he defense did nothing is not int he least bit true you jsut keep demonstrating your bias makes you ignore relaity.
The DNA tests were done even though the defense knew fromt he outset the results would be worthless because AT MOST a test of the moderator could demonstrate whose blood reained in the mdoerator after the testing by the defense and prosecution labs it would not be able to demonstrate whose blood was removed by the prosecution and defense labs in 1985 and 1986. But the moderator tested negative for blood so the DNA tests could not even establish anoyone's blood was present in the mdoerator in 2002. The DNA tests were always just an exercise meant to try to fool the courts and public into thinking Jerey was innocent though it never had any ability to prove such.
The defense failed to find anyone who could refute that blood would be able to get in the moderator through drawback and to be distributed in the matter found and still hasn't been able to find anyone let alone one that can cite new science. You have failed to find anyone either you just have decided you don't want to believe it and that's that. Deciding you don't want to believe it though you have zero evidence to establish it just means you choose to live in denial.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 17, 2015, 09:27:48 PM
The defense hired an expert to examine the blood evidence and to examine the moderator. That expert was not used at trial because that expert agreed with the prosecution and also found miscroscopic traces of blood on the first 8 baffles which he determined to be group A blood. Your claimt he defense did nothing is not int he least bit true you jsut keep demonstrating your bias makes you ignore relaity.
I assume you are referring to Dr Lincoln? If so he had nothing whatsoever to do with ballistics. The defence sent Dr Lincoln to FSS to discuss the blood testing and results with Mr Hayward at the FSS. He examined the silencer only insofar as examining it for blood. I assume Dr Lincoln was a biologist.
The DNA tests were done even though the defense knew fromt he outset the results would be worthless because AT MOST a test of the moderator could demonstrate whose blood reained in the mdoerator after the testing by the defense and prosecution labs it would not be able to demonstrate whose blood was removed by the prosecution and defense labs in 1985 and 1986. But the moderator tested negative for blood so the DNA tests could not even establish anoyone's blood was present in the mdoerator in 2002. The DNA tests were always just an exercise meant to try to fool the courts and public into thinking Jerey was innocent though it never had any ability to prove such.
As per usual you are completely wrong in your assertions. LCN DNA is not capable of identifying the source of biological material eg blood, sweat, semen etc.
I have no idea whose idea it was to carry out the LCN DNA. It was a fruitless exercise as even if it had shown SC's DNA was definitely in the silencer it would not have been able to show how it came to be there. You do realise that the CCRC thought there was enough merit in it to refer it to the COA? All it has done is add another layer of confusion and complexity. It was written off by all the scientists and appeal court judges as "utterly meaningless" and I agree with their findings.
The defense failed to find anyone who could refute that blood would be able to get in the moderator through drawback and to be distributed in the matter found and still hasn't been able to find anyone let alone one that can cite new science. You have failed to find anyone either you just have decided you don't want to believe it and that's that. Deciding you don't want to believe it though you have zero evidence to establish it just means you choose to live in denial.
For the last time, hopefully, the defence have never attempted to refute the blood and silencer evidence. Lol so its my job now to source expert witnesses and overturn JB's conviction?
One more time Scip. A small calibre weapon used in conjunction with low velocity bullets and a silencer is UNLIKELY to result in draw-back. Not only is draw-back UNLIKELY but it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that the blood would have located and distributed the way in which it was found when it arrived at FSS. To date no firearms reconstruction has taken place.
Plus you do realise that once blood leaves a body it degrades quickly? It needs to be stored at 4C. During August in the UK the average minimum temperature is 11.5C with the average maximum temperature 20.7C.
"Storage and transfer of whole blood samples
Samples should be refrigerated to 4°C immediately after collection. They can also be shipped in refrigerated packaging at 4°C. At that temperature they are stable for 7 days. If it is anticipated that analysis can not occur within 7 days, samples should be frozen immediately at -70°C (-20°C is not sufficient)".
If the blood in the silencer was there as a result of draw-back (early hours Wed 7th August), found by the relatives on Saturday 8th August and handed to DS Jones during the evening on Mon 12th August; this would mean the silencer was at ambient temperature for at least some 5 days by which time the blood would have degraded and been incapable of producing the blood test/group results.
Why do you think we have full readings for the victims as follows:
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1 June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1 Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2 Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1 Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
Reason is that Dr Vanezis withdrew the blood from the victims and placed them in appropriate containers and storage facilities to ensure they were kept at the correct temperature. They were then handed to EP in a medi-carrier to regulate the temperature and then placed in the refrigerator at EP HQ Chelmsford.
You will be aware that a number of exhibits were tested in an attempt to determine whose blood was on them: carpet samples, wallpaper and rifle. These exhibits were only capable of providing limited results: human blood and ABO groupings. The reason for this is that the blood had already degraded from over exposure to ambient temperature by the time they were analysed. The only exhibit capable of blood group/type readings was the silencer as EP dobbed some blood from SC's sample in it. Note the hand-over at the top of the page in the following:
Thank you Holly. I will only post if there is a question asked which I know the answer to. I don't want to get involved in arguments with others. However I will say still no submissions to the CCRC despite Jeremy telling me 16 months ago "we have the last pieces of the jigsaw. I will soon be free"
@)(++(*
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Myster on April 18, 2015, 08:02:44 PM
Thank you Holly. I will only post if there is a question asked which I know the answer to. I don't want to get involved in arguments with others. However I will say still no submissions to the CCRC despite Jeremy telling me 16 months ago "we have the last pieces of the jigsaw. I will soon be free"
Seriously Myster IF the silencer and blood evidence is discredited so much so JB's conviction is quashed at CoA would you still believe JB guilty?
It'll never happen... but as you've got great wads of cash burning a hole in your handbag which could be more enjoyably spent on the piste, go ahead with backing your experiment and convince me.
I've mentioned this to you before, but if Sheila had an extensive knowledge of using all the firearms at WHF as well as through game shooting in Scotland as you seem to believe, why didn't she change tack after making such a laboured job needing 23 bullets to destroy her family? Why did she think just one or two would be sufficient for herself after she fired eight into her sons' heads and four into her dad's? The first bullet wasn't even aimed up into the brain, but perpendicular to her neck!!!
With three or four shotguns to choose from and plenty of ammunition available; a shorter barrel therefore easier to reach the trigger; much more powerful than an Anschutz, so capable of doing extensive damage to the head with lights out using just one cartridge... wouldn't this have been a more logical decision?
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 20, 2015, 10:57:00 AM
It'll never happen... but as you've got great wads of cash burning a hole in your handbag which could be more enjoyably spent on the piste, go ahead with backing your experiment and convince me.
Never say Never. I think the understanding of pathology, soc forensics, ballistics and psychology has moved on leaps and bounds over the last 3 decades. Especially with regard to taking a multi-disciplinary approach and the various players actually communicating which to date doesn't appear to have been the case. The question is resources; until such time JB's case gets referred to CoA he will not be eligible for any legal aid. The CT say all services must be pro bono and they do not accept donations.
I've mentioned this to you before, but if Sheila had an extensive knowledge of using all the firearms at WHF as well as through game shooting in Scotland as you seem to believe, why didn't she change tack after making such a laboured job needing 23 bullets to destroy her family? Why did she think just one or two would be sufficient for herself after she fired eight into her sons' heads and four into her dad's? The first bullet wasn't even aimed up into the brain, but perpendicular to her neck!!!
I'm not sure firearms reconstruction will be necessary to prove the blood in the silencer was not there as a result of draw-back. It appears to be well documented that exhibits containing blood residue found at soc and sent for serological analysis must be processed correctly otherwise blood will degrade and not be capable of yielding test results. As far as I can see the flake in the silencer would not have withstood ambient temperature in the UK during August over some 6 days and still be capable of producing the blood type/group results for the ABO groupings along with the two enzymes Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase and Adenylate Kinase and the protein Haptoglobin. I am also keen to understand why the flake was unable to produce a result for the enzyme Phosphoglucomutase. The victims' samples were able to produce a result for this enzyme. I am sure a biologist will know the answer and if not it will be easy enough to set up tests.
There are also some standard Do's and Dont's with collecting blood for serological analysis. Three of the dont's:
- Don't expose to heat - what was the temperature inside the silencer immediately after firing and how long did it take to cool? Draw-back results in an immediate suck back of blood. The hot gases expand in the silencer and slowly dissipate and exit after discharge of the bullet. Also what was the actual effect of the gas on the blood, if any?
- Don't place wet blood in a plastic bag - the prosecution claim JB returned the silencer to the box and placed it in a plastic bag in the gun cupboard.
- Don't place in the boot of a car due to heat - AE's Ford Sierra was parked at WHF for a long period during the day on Saturday 10th August. The silencer then went in the boot and was transported to Oak Farm.
Were the biologists that tested the silencer for blood pre trial John Hayward and Dr Lincoln aware of exactly how a silencer works in terms of the gases?
I've mentioned this to you before, but if Sheila had an extensive knowledge of using all the firearms at WHF as well as through game shooting in Scotland as you seem to believe, why didn't she change tack after making such a laboured job needing 23 bullets to destroy her family? Why did she think just one or two would be sufficient for herself after she fired eight into her sons' heads and four into her dad's? The first bullet wasn't even aimed up into the brain, but perpendicular to her neck!!!
(I've never made any ref to shooting in Scotland). I don't think SC needed an extensive knowledge of firearms. If she was responsible she was clearly in some altered state of mind: psychosis or rage etc and went for any firearm and fired randomly. I don't think there would have been any weighing up of the advantages and disadvantages of rifle v shotgun. Why fire 5 shots at DC and yet 3 at NC?
With three or four shotguns to choose from and plenty of ammunition available; a shorter barrel therefore easier to reach the trigger; much more powerful than an Anschutz, so capable of doing extensive damage to the head with lights out using just one cartridge... wouldn't this have been a more logical decision?
If SC was responsible did logic come into it? I do think the one thing that gave SC some self-esteem was her physical appearance, particularly her face, and by shooting at her neck she saved her face. The fear of surviving and being grossly disfigured might have played a part. Or even how she appeared by those finding her.
If JB was responsible then surely he would have had similar thought processes to your own and used a shotgun? Especially when he would know ideally he needed to kill SC with one bullet? If he was able to position SC compliantly for the neck shot then why not aim at the temple, mouth or forehead which are all locations far more likely to result in death with one shot?
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Jodie on May 03, 2015, 11:07:18 PM
If JB was responsible then surely he would have had similar thought processes to your own and used a shotgun? Especially when he would know ideally he needed to kill SC with one bullet? If he was able to position SC compliantly for the neck shot then why not aim at the temple, mouth or forehead which are all locations far more likely to result in death with one shot?
It does make you wonder why the killer chose to use this weapon when there were seemingly others more suitable available? JB probably underestimated how difficult it would be to kill people without having to reload several times - not like shooting rabbits with it. Another of his mistakes I think.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Admin on May 03, 2015, 11:27:51 PM
It does make you wonder why the killer chose to use this weapon when there were seemingly others more suitable available? JB probably underestimated how difficult it would be to kill people without having to reload several times - not like shooting rabbits with it. Another of his mistakes I think.
I believe so, he completely underestimated the ability of a .22 rifle to kill humans.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 04, 2015, 06:00:32 PM
It does make you wonder why the killer chose to use this weapon when there were seemingly others more suitable available? JB probably underestimated how difficult it would be to kill people without having to reload several times - not like shooting rabbits with it. Another of his mistakes I think.
As Einstein said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result; so instead of reloading why not change tact by swapping the rifle for one of the more powerful shotguns? Or are we expected to believe that JB, a farmer's son and a marksman in the army cadets, had no idea about the capability of firearms?
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Myster on May 04, 2015, 07:29:54 PM
JB wanted to buy a five-shot automatic 12-bore shotgun from the Eatons just a few weeks before the murders, but was poo-pooed.
Mmmm, now let's think &%+((£ ... that's one cartridge for each member of the family.
When that plan fell through he tried to get Sheila to load the Anschutz magazine in full view of Robert Boutflour and June. Most likely to demonstrate that she was capable of using the weapon, and hoping that Robert, having seen this, would support his alibi that she did carry out the murders.
(I've never made any ref to shooting in Scotland). I don't think SC needed an extensive knowledge of firearms. If she was responsible she was clearly in some altered state of mind: psychosis or rage etc and went for any firearm and fired randomly. I don't think there would have been any weighing up of the advantages and disadvantages of rifle v shotgun. Why fire 5 shots at DC and yet 3 at NC?
If SC was responsible did logic come into it? I do think the one thing that gave SC some self-esteem was her physical appearance, particularly her face, and by shooting at her neck she saved her face. The fear of surviving and being grossly disfigured might have played a part. Or even how she appeared by those finding her.
If JB was responsible then surely he would have had similar thought processes to your own and used a shotgun? Especially when he would know ideally he needed to kill SC with one bullet? If he was able to position SC compliantly for the neck shot then why not aim at the temple, mouth or forehead which are all locations far more likely to result in death with one shot
Because he was saving the last two in the magazine for Sheila.
Because he had second thoughts about spoiling her good looks. I think the first neck shot was a mistake, possibly when he pulled the hair-trigger accidentally before he'd got her fully aligned for the fatal one.
Title: Re: For alias and other Jeremy supporters arguing the following illogical claim
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 05, 2015, 10:59:40 PM
JB wanted to buy a five-shot automatic 12-bore shotgun from the Eatons just a few weeks before the murders, but was poo-pooed.
Mmmm, now let's think &%+((£ ... that's one cartridge for each member of the family.
When that plan fell through he tried to get Sheila to load the Anschutz magazine in full view of Robert Boutflour and June. Most likely to demonstrate that she was capable of using the weapon, and hoping that Robert, having seen this, would support his alibi that she did carry out the murders.
I thought RB claimed June told him and PB that JB attempted to get SC to load the Anschutz magazine in full view of June.
I am reminded of RB's diary entry for his explanation as to how SC met her end:
"Wake up Sheila, Mummy wants you to say prayers with her, bring your bible, give me your arm, I'll help you". When in their mother's bedroom, "lie down here darling, put the bible on your chest" the bible is placed on her chest, "give me your hand Sheila darling". The gun has been rested on the bible, the hands are taken, the left hand is placed on the end of the barrell under the chin as the right hand is placed on the trigger guard and the thumb pressed onto the triger. bang - Sheila has committed suicide!!"
Because he was saving the last two in the magazine for Sheila.
Because he had second thoughts about spoiling her good looks. I think the first neck shot was a mistake, possibly when he pulled the hair-trigger accidentally before he'd got her fully aligned for the fatal one.
I think the trigger on the semi-auto was ultra light and the second shot could have been some sort of reflex eg cadaveric spasm. According to the pathologist had the second shot not supervened the first shot would have resulted in death.
All concerned were aware of the two shots from day one. If it was indicative of 5 murders why wasn't JB interviewed under caution sooner, arrested and charged sooner and in the intervening period allowed to leave the country twice?