UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on November 25, 2015, 09:27:05 AM
-
I appreciate you and others have changed your stance Caroline but much of what you are now arguing against you did in fact support for some 2 years so some humility wouldn't go amiss 8((()*/
9
-
He was only 7 yoa at the time!
I appreciate you and others have changed your stance Caroline but much of what you are now arguing against you did in fact support for some 2 years so some humility wouldn't go amiss 8((()*/
Having been so vociferous in defending his innocence, it requires some humility to admit to being wrong.
-
Having been so vociferous in defending his innocence, it requires some humility to admit to being wrong.
Lets hope then April if JB's conviction is ever quashed , which I think it will be, you haven't exhausted your capacity for humility.
I'm not sure why you think anyone takes anything you say particularly seriously when by your own admission forensics are not your thing:
"Lookout, I won't attempt to debate forensics. They're not my "thing" but I understand that even in the case of very little, circumstantial is enough and in this case, given that WHF was his second home, traces of him could have been found -and explained- all over the house. What value forensics then?"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7129.msg337738.html#msg337738
This case isn't going to be cracked one way or another by the tel calls or JM's testimony. It will be cracked by forensics using established branches of science.
-
Lets hope then April if JB's conviction is ever quashed , which I think it will be, you haven't exhausted your capacity for humility.
I'm not sure why you think anyone takes anything you say particularly seriously when by your own admission forensics are not your thing:
"Lookout, I won't attempt to debate forensics. They're not my "thing" but I understand that even in the case of very little, circumstantial is enough and in this case, given that WHF was his second home, traces of him could have been found -and explained- all over the house. What value forensics then?"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7129.msg337738.html#msg337738
This case isn't going to be cracked one way or another by the tel calls or JM's testimony. It will be cracked by forensics using established branches of science.
"I'm not sure why you think anyone takes anything you say particularly seriously....................." DO I think that, Holly or might it just be what you think I think? I'm really not bothered about what "anyone" thinks about what I say, any more than, I imagine, are you when people disagree with what you say.
I'm glad you're keeping alive the hope that the case "will be cracked by forensics using established branches of science." You have a 50/50 chance of being right.
-
There is sooner a chance of someone parting the Red Sea than Jeremy having his conviction quashed. He's guilty as sin, the judges know it, the lawyers know it and the kinds of tricks resorted to in order to free guilty peopel such as saying a confession was beaten out of them so they were convicted based on illegal evidence doesn't apply here. There is nothing that will get him out of jail besides his death.
-
There is sooner a chance of someone parting the Red Sea than Jeremy having his conviction quashed. He's guilty as sin, the judges know it, the lawyers know it and the kinds of tricks resorted to in order to free guilty peopel such as saying a confession was beaten out of them so they were convicted based on illegal evidence doesn't apply here. There is nothing that will get him out of jail besides his death.
http://bfms.org.uk/challenging-miscarriages-of-justice/
http://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/our-people/mark-newby
-
There is sooner a chance of someone parting the Red Sea than Jeremy having his conviction quashed. He's guilty as sin, the judges know it, the lawyers know it and the kinds of tricks resorted to in order to free guilty peopel such as saying a confession was beaten out of them so they were convicted based on illegal evidence doesn't apply here. There is nothing that will get him out of jail besides his death.
Certainly not wishful thinking.
-
http://bfms.org.uk/challenging-miscarriages-of-justice/
http://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/our-people/mark-newby
This would be like me ignoring the facts of a case and tossing the Knox/Sollecito acquittal out there and saying because of that we should believe all convictions are bogus and skip trying to actually look in detail for legitimate gripes.
When advocates are unable to find anything legitimate to latch onto they resort to such which is really just a smokescreen and waste of time.
The only way to undo the conviction and get anew trial is to attack the main evidence that convicted him.
That main evidence is:
1) Julie's testimony
2) Proof that Sheila can't have killed herself and absence of evidence establishing she beat or killed anyone else which would have existed had she done so.
The only way to get a new trial is to undermine these. The only way to undermine Julie's testimony would be if she recanted. If she told someone she lied and made it up that would be new evidence that would undermine the trial testimony and likely result in a new trial.
The only way to undermine the evidence would be to use new evidence to challenge the testimony at trial that:
1) she suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback
2) new evidence that she did have GSR or other evidence on her body or clothing
Short of new independent analysis of the body and clothing there is no chance of proving she did in fact have evidence on her body and clothing. Testing her body is impossible and clothing might be impossible and even if not will never happen.
There is no new evidence that casts doubt on her wound being a contact wound nor is there any way for experts to ever make such a determination. They can't examine her they are stuck with the assessments of the experts who did and there is nothing in those assessments open to challenge.
There is nothing to refute the testimony that the wound would result in drawback. It is well documented that when a prior damage causes internal hemorrhaging in an area that shooting such blood filled area will result in backspatter if fired at non-contact range and drawback if fired at contact range. There will never be some new science saying this doesn't happen.
Short of proving the wound a) was not a contact wound and thus drawback would not have been able to result
or b) it was a contact that would not result in drawback Jeremy is toast. That is because the following flows from the implication of Sheila suffering from a contact would that would result in drawback:
If she was shot sans moderator her blood would have been in the rifle but if shot with the moderator it would have been in the moderator.
It was in the moderator but she could not have shot herself with the moderator attached and most certainly could not have removed the moderator and put it away after she was dead. So if shot with the moderator she was murdered and surely Jeremy killed her.
So as a lawyer this case is a lost cause. There is no hope of finding any evidence to free Jeremy. As a lawyer who wanted to help those wrongly convicted I would move on to another case because there is no hope here. A good lawyer recognizes the key issues, explores them and then either makes their case or faces there is no hope and moves on.
-
I appreciate you and others have changed your stance Caroline but much of what you are now arguing against you did in fact support for some 2 years so some humility wouldn't go amiss 8((()*/
I'm sure Andrea and many others who have changed their minds can explain to you that humility doesn't come into it. I have no more reason than you to express humility and as you never have, I suggest you you keep your advice to yourself. However, there is quite a lot of humility in admitting you're wrong and accepting that people like you, will TRY to use it in a pathetic attempt to discredit.
I changed my mind after learning more and asking the man himself various questions. I now know that much of what is argued boils down to nothing more than a few admin errors and some embroidery and spinning from the OS. He's guilty and won't be going anywhere any time soon.
-
I must admit I was originally a fence sitter but after reading thousands of pages of evidence I am firmly in the Jerry is guilty camp. That said, I don't think I have ever found anyone who thought him guilty who now considers him innocent, it's usually the other way round.
-
I must admit I was originally a fence sitter but after reading thousands of pages of evidence I am firmly in the Jerry is guilty camp. That said, I don't think I have ever found anyone who thought him guilty who now considers him innocent, it's usually the other way round.
I disagree with your view that the case doesn't need dissecting under a microscope:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7101.msg337933.html#msg337933
Caroline was guilty, then innocent, now guilty:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103751.html#msg103751
-
I disagree with your view that the case doesn't need dissecting under a microscope:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7101.msg337933.html#msg337933
Caroline was guilty, then innocent, now guilty:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103751.html#msg103751
Thanx Holly. I believe the White House Farm murders have already been dissected sufficiently and in sufficient detail to allow anyone to come to a decision. The only thing which will change this are advances in forensic science, new evidence, the release of documents held under PII or a confession.
The evidence points to Jeremy's guilt but there is always that 1% of doubt.
-
I disagree with your view that the case doesn't need dissecting under a microscope:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7101.msg337933.html#msg337933
Caroline was guilty, then innocent, now guilty:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103751.html#msg103751
Correction I was a 'not interested' then innocent and now guilty. Not sure why you're so interested in what I think. I'd be flattered if I didn't think it was related to you grudge! 8(0(*
-
Correction I was a 'not interested' then innocent and now guilty. Not sure why you're so interested in what I think. I'd be flattered if I didn't think it was related to you grudge! 8(0(*
I couldn't give a flying fig what anyone thinks about JB's case yesterday, today or tomorrow. I was simply responding to John's post and linked the two:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6819.msg289169#msg289169
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103751.html#msg103751
I have always rated this forum over Blue. If you dont believe me ask Nelly. I advised him long before my ban I intended joining this forum and posting here. Lets face it, if I really wanted to post on Blue I am sure I could do one way or another 8((()*/
-
I couldn't give a flying fig what anyone thinks about JB's case yesterday, today or tomorrow. I was simply responding to John's post and linked the two:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6819.msg289169#msg289169
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103751.html#msg103751
I have always rated this forum over Blue. If you dont believe me ask Nelly. I advised him long before my ban I intended joining this forum and posting here. Lets face it, if I really wanted to post on Blue I am sure I could do one way or another 8((()*/
Yeah, you don't care so much so that you make a whole thread about it! @)(++(*
Why would I care where you post? No explanation required - I'm sure NGB has better things to do than comment on where you post - I know I have!
-
Could we have more debate and less mud slinging please girls. In my view changing ones mind often reflects a healthy knowledge of a case as long as it only occurs once or twice. Any more is pure silly imo.
-
http://www.perspegrity.com/papers/NCDD08_Uncertainty_Methods-workshopHandout.pdf
-
Could we have more debate and less mud slinging please girls. In my view changing ones mind often reflects a healthy knowledge of a case as long as it only occurs once or twice. Any more is pure silly imo.
In a nutshell - thought he was guilty, heard a few things that might suggest he wasn't, realised they were BS and that I was right the first time.
-
http://www.perspegrity.com/papers/NCDD08_Uncertainty_Methods-workshopHandout.pdf (http://www.perspegrity.com/papers/NCDD08_Uncertainty_Methods-workshopHandout.pdf)
I hope you don't expect everybody to read through all that psychobull. %56&
There might have been a chance... if it was as amusing as Tesko's OCD rifle rants.
Just put each other on IGNORE. 8((()*/
-
I hope you don't expect everybody to read through all that psychobull. %56&
There might have been a chance... if it was as amusing as Tesko's OCD rifle rants.
Just put each other on IGNORE. 8((()*/
Hmmm I would hardly call a document produced by the following from one of the world's top unis "psychobull"
http://www.tommurray.us/
-
Ask anyone else here of their opinion - APRIL, Caroline, John, sika, scipio, pugsy, et al, and they'll agree with me that it's pure gibberish!
-
Ask anyone else here of their opinion - APRIL, Caroline, John, sika, scipio, pugsy, et al, and they'll agree with me that it's pure gibberish!
I have always been interested in understanding how others form opinions about the case:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2624.msg84471.html#msg84471
I don't care if I'm the only person in the world that thinks JB is the victim of a MoJ and in all probability innocent. I will not be changing my mind unless something I haven't considered causes me to rethink.
-
I have always been interested in understanding how others form opinions about the case:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2624.msg84471.html#msg84471
I don't care if I'm the only person in the world that thinks JB is the victim of a MoJ and in all probability innocent. I will not be changing my mind unless something I haven't considered causes me to rethink.
You are unique Holly in that you appear to still believe that Jeremy might be innocent despite the overwhelming evidence against him. That is your right and you have gone to a lot of trouble to examine the evidence in some depth. My only qualm would be that you tend to look for the sinister in every event when the true nature of it is there for all to see.
I have found from experience that there is usually some single event in which the determination of any case will succeed or fall. Can I ask you which event you consider that to be in this case?
-
I have always been interested in understanding how others form opinions about the case:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2624.msg84471.html#msg84471
I don't care if I'm the only person in the world that thinks JB is the victim of a MoJ and in all probability innocent. I will not be changing my mind unless something I haven't considered causes me to rethink.
You made up your mind without consideration of the evidence and have decided to stand by it no matter what thus choose to make up nonsense to try to refute the evidence.
You and others like you remind me of people who get swindled by Nigerian scammers and would rather give the scammers every last dime they own rather than to admit they got scammed and stop sending money.
-
You made up your mind without consideration of the evidence and have decided to stand by it no matter what thus choose to make up nonsense to try to refute the evidence.
You and others like you remind me of people who get swindled by Nigerian scammers and would rather give the scammers every last dime they own rather than to admit they got scammed and stop sending money.
You mean your ill-informed theories about draw-back, back spatter and GSR where you refuse to take into account that SIZE MATTERS!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You made up your mind without consideration of the evidence and have decided to stand by it no matter what thus choose to make up nonsense to try to refute the evidence.
You and others like you remind me of people who get swindled by Nigerian scammers and would rather give the scammers every last dime they own rather than to admit they got scammed and stop sending money.
And you and others like you remind me of:
-
You are unique Holly in that you appear to still believe that Jeremy might be innocent despite the overwhelming evidence against him. That is your right and you have gone to a lot of trouble to examine the evidence in some depth. My only qualm would be that you tend to look for the sinister in every event when the true nature of it is there for all to see.
I have found from experience that there is usually some single event in which the determination of any case will succeed or fall. Can I ask you which event you consider that to be in this case?
I think it's probably best I stop there you John...
-
Hello posters, long time no posty....
I have always believed JB to be guilty but I have also believed that, if one applied the standards of the JB police investigation in 1985 to how these would be viewed during a trial nowadays, the result might have been different. So, I kinda have a foot in both camps from a CJS perspective. The standard of police investigations in the 70's and 80's was often shocking despite, in the vast majority of cases, a genuine desire on the part of individual police officers themselves to get the 'right result'. In those days, hierarchy often led to a herd mentality which, hopefully, is far less tolerated today.
JB's case I feel is more cut and dried than most, as his own alibi made it him or Sheila, narrowing the possible scenarios. However, I still think about how convinced I was that Simon Hall was innocent - as a lawyer, not as a result of cr*p spewed by his wife etc.
Anyhoo, hope you all are well :) I'll have to stop by more often.
-
Hello posters, long time no posty....
I have always believed JB to be guilty but I have also believed that, if one applied the standards of the JB police investigation in 1985 to how these would be viewed during a trial nowadays, the result might have been different. So, I kinda have a foot in both camps from a CJS perspective. The standard of police investigations in the 70's and 80's was often shocking despite, in the vast majority of cases, a genuine desire on the part of individual police officers themselves to get the 'right result'. In those days, hierarchy often led to a herd mentality which, hopefully, is far less tolerated today.
JB's case I feel is more cut and dried than most, as his own alibi made it him or Sheila, narrowing the possible scenarios. However, I still think about how convinced I was that Simon Hall was innocent - as a lawyer, not as a result of cr*p spewed by his wife etc.
Anyhoo, hope you all are well :) I'll have to stop by more often.
Yes please do stop by more often.
I am reminded of DI Miller's comment's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-OlvzCVrmc&feature=youtu.be&t=40s
"It was a shocking crime in an area where there was very little or no crime"
I don't believe those responsible for analysisng the SoC: police officers, staff at FSS, and perhaps to a lesser degree the pathologist, had the training and experience to deal with a SoC such as WHF. When you consider modern forensic science and how experts work together to form conclusions there's no comparison with how the SoC was treated at WHF.
-
Yes please do stop by more often.
I am reminded of DI Miller's comment's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-OlvzCVrmc&feature=youtu.be&t=40s
"It was a shocking crime in an area where there was very little or no crime"
I don't believe those responsible for analysisng the SoC: police officers, staff at FSS, and perhaps to a lesser degree the pathologist, had the training and experience to deal with a SoC such as WHF. When you consider modern forensic science and how experts work together to form conclusions there's no comparison with how the SoC was treated at WHF.
I started watching this yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02l4pjs
Two further episodes to follow.
Many thanks to Jan on Blue for highlighting 8((()*/
-
If you want Episodes 1 and 3 but not 2 unfortunately, see here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlC9bHHXMho (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlC9bHHXMho)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wwy-rcKpBGk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wwy-rcKpBGk)
You know what to do Holly ?>)()< ... and choose 720pHD for best quality.
-
You mean your ill-informed theories about draw-back, back spatter and GSR where you refuse to take into account that SIZE MATTERS!
Everything I posted about ballistics and blood evidence is accurate. You on the other hand make up things to suit your agenda. Bias can be harmful which is why lawyers who represent themselves have a fool for a client. Pretending things are how you wish accomplishes less than nothing.
One has to take the evidence as it is and deal with it. I presented the only ways Jeremy could get his conviction quashed:
1) if Julie changed her testimony
or
2) proving that the blood in the moderator was planted AND either: a) blood found in the rifle muzzle was concealed or b) the fatal wound was not a contact wound or for some other reason not a wound that would result in drawback.
One can choose to be productive and analyze these things or be a fool and waste their time on meaningless crap that will accomplish nothing.
No one has turned up any evidence Julie has changed her tune so that is a dead end. No evidence has been turned up regarding her telling anyone a different story so as to justify her being forced to submit to questioning by any government bodies or defense counsel. So this is a dead end unless she were to voluntarily come forward to change her testimony. If that happened a CCRC submission could be made based on it but if it never happens then can't be.
Nor is there anything to support the blood was planted in the moderator and blood found int he rifle itself was concealed. Unless and until someone confessed to doing such there will not be any evidence to support such. So again nothing can be done it is simply a matter of IF someone were to come forward then the opportunity to raise such claim would present itself. The claims made would have to be investigated to try to find corroboration etc but only a confession of sorts would get the ball rolling.
There is no hope of proving the fatal wound wasn't a wound that would result in drawback. There is not enough evidence existing for review to be able to challenge Vanezis' assessment. Nothing in the photos enable such a conclusion and nothing Vanezis recorded would be able to refute his conclusions what he asserted supported his conclusions. This is why the defense wasn't able to challenge such at trial.
The biased games you engage in don't help your cause at all they just demonstrate you are unreliable. I posted a source explaining where GSR lands when firing a semi-auto 22LR like the murder weapon. It based such on testing and even showed the GSR plume which was captured by using a special camera. You chose to ignore this and simply make up that no rifle period will leave GSR on hands because you read a generalized statement that IN GENERAL long guns don't leave GSR on shooting hands. Generalized claims that don't take account variation between weapons can only go so far. There are always exceptions to generalizations. You choose to ignore specifics that prove you wrong and to instead run with broad generalizations that are inaccurate to the facts here. Taht doesn't help prove Jeremy innocent and doesn't help your reputation.
The things you make up like that rifles don't leave GSR on hands or that Your fantasy about 22LR not being able to result in drawback simply render you not credible.
-
Everything I posted about ballistics and blood evidence is accurate. You on the other hand make up things to suit your agenda. Bias can be harmful which is why lawyers who represent themselves have a fool for a client. Pretending things are how you wish accomplishes less than nothing.
One has to take the evidence as it is and deal with it. I presented the only ways Jeremy could get his conviction quashed:
1) if Julie changed her testimony
or
2) proving that the blood in the moderator was planted AND either: a) blood found in the rifle muzzle was concealed or b) the fatal wound was not a contact wound or for some other reason not a wound that would result in drawback.
One can choose to be productive and analyze these things or be a fool and waste their time on meaningless crap that will accomplish nothing.
No one has turned up any evidence Julie has changed her tune so that is a dead end. No evidence has been turned up regarding her telling anyone a different story so as to justify her being forced to submit to questioning by any government bodies or defense counsel. So this is a dead end unless she were to voluntarily come forward to change her testimony. If that happened a CCRC submission could be made based on it but if it never happens then can't be.
Nor is there anything to support the blood was planted in the moderator and blood found int he rifle itself was concealed. Unless and until someone confessed to doing such there will not be any evidence to support such. So again nothing can be done it is simply a matter of IF someone were to come forward then the opportunity to raise such claim would present itself. The claims made would have to be investigated to try to find corroboration etc but only a confession of sorts would get the ball rolling.
There is no hope of proving the fatal wound wasn't a wound that would result in drawback. There is not enough evidence existing for review to be able to challenge Vanezis' assessment. Nothing in the photos enable such a conclusion and nothing Vanezis recorded would be able to refute his conclusions what he asserted supported his conclusions. This is why the defense wasn't able to challenge such at trial.
The biased games you engage in don't help your cause at all they just demonstrate you are unreliable. I posted a source explaining where GSR lands when firing a semi-auto 22LR like the murder weapon. It based such on testing and even showed the GSR plume which was captured by using a special camera. You chose to ignore this and simply make up that no rifle period will leave GSR on hands because you read a generalized statement that IN GENERAL long guns don't leave GSR on shooting hands. Generalized claims that don't take account variation between weapons can only go so far. There are always exceptions to generalizations. You choose to ignore specifics that prove you wrong and to instead run with broad generalizations that are inaccurate to the facts here. Taht doesn't help prove Jeremy innocent and doesn't help your reputation.
The things you make up like that rifles don't leave GSR on hands or that Your fantasy about 22LR not being able to result in drawback simply render you not credible.
We've been all over this time and time again and I don't intend to repeat myself. You will never accept you are wrong. Even when proven wrong you lie and cheat.
What credentials do you have in biology, medical pathology or ballistics? None. No more than I do. But I do know, and take into account, that size matters with regard to ammo, draw-back, back spatter and GSR. Something you will never admit to as it flattens your ill-informed theories. And more importantly I do appreciate that what was available 30 years ago in terms of SoC reconstruction, ballistics, and medical pathology is a world away to what is available today.
I'll wait to see all the stuff that is being worked on behind the scenes thank you 8(0(*
-
We've been all over this time and time again and I don't intend to repeat myself. You will never accept you are wrong. Even when proven wrong you lie and cheat.
What credentials do you have in biology, medical pathology or ballistics? None. No more than I do. But I do know, and take into account, that size matters with regard to ammo, draw-back, back spatter and GSR. Something you will never admit to as it flattens your ill-informed theories. And more importantly I do appreciate that what was available 30 years ago in terms of SoC reconstruction, ballistics, and medical pathology is a world away to what is available today.
I'll wait to see all the stuff that is being worked on behind the scenes thank you 8(0(*
My education and experience is sufficient for me to be able to comprehend the issues, science, law and evidence with extreme clarity.
You can live in fantasyland all you like. I prefer to face reality. There is no scientific testing which could help Jeremy. It is established fact drawback gets inside 22LR moderators. Your desire to prove it not possible is as useful as wishing you can fly without any mechanical help. You can jump out of a plane or off a tall structure but that simply amounts to falling/gliding not flying.
-
My education and experience is sufficient for me to be able to comprehend the issues, science, law and evidence with extreme clarity.
You can live in fantasyland all you like. I prefer to face reality. There is no scientific testing which could help Jeremy. It is established fact drawback gets inside 22LR moderators. Your desire to prove it not possible is as useful as wishing you can fly without any mechanical help. You can jump out of a plane or off a tall structure but that simply amounts to falling/gliding not flying.
-
Errrm, so skis and poles are not _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ? (to be completed).
-
Errrm, so skis and poles are not _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ? (to be completed).
Not mechancial in terms of machinery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDLXDXh9SQo
There's more than one way to skin a cat 8((()*/
-
Not mechancial in terms of machinery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDLXDXh9SQo
There's more than one way to skin a cat 8((()*/
A ski jumping is akin to gliding for a short period it doesn't count as flying anymore than jumping up the air for 2 seconds does or pole vaulting would. In the meantime like hang gliding and pole vaulting it utilizes tools aka skis and poles. Mechanical means tools not simply machinery otherwise a hang glider would suffice.
"MECHANICAL
1a (1) : of or relating to machinery or tools"
So you sewing together giant wings to attach to your arms (a variation of a glider) would not count either for that
-
My education and experience is sufficient for me to be able to comprehend the issues, science, law and evidence with extreme clarity.
(http://replygif.net/i/1165.gif)
You can live in fantasyland all you like. I prefer to face reality.
(http://s4.postimg.org/eoyugqjv1/gunshot_study.jpg)
Source - Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensics. edition 2015
By Vincent J.M. DiMaio, M.D
There is no scientific testing which could help Jeremy. It is established fact drawback gets inside 22LR moderators. Your desire to prove it not possible is as useful as wishing you can fly without any mechanical help.
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/lol_ricky_gervais.gif)
-
We've been all over this time and time again and I don't intend to repeat myself. You will never accept you are wrong. Even when proven wrong you lie and cheat.
What credentials do you have in biology, medical pathology or ballistics? None. No more than I do. But I do know, and take into account, that size matters with regard to ammo, draw-back, back spatter and GSR. Something you will never admit to as it flattens your ill-informed theories. And more importantly I do appreciate that what was available 30 years ago in terms of SoC reconstruction, ballistics, and medical pathology is a world away to what is available today.
I'll wait to see all the stuff that is being worked on behind the scenes thank you 8(0(*
Obviously I have no idea what's being worked on behind the scenes, Holl, but wouldn't they have to recreate the original scene somehow? And wouldn't that involve a (living) young woman (appropriately medicated), the gun, the silencer (on and off), a bedroom carpet and a bible? I do hope that Bamber isn't holding his breath. 8(8-))
On a lighter note, it looks like he might just get to play Pie Face with the Yorkshire Ripper after their scrummy Christmas lunch! Good times!
-
... and then watch a special screening of the Queen's Christmas Message Tesko's Toilet Talk for even more laughs.
-
... and then watch a special screening of the Queen's Christmas Message Tesko's Toilet Talk for even more laughs.
Ha!! That would be so brilliant!!
"May husband and Ay are having a massive dump on a victoria sponge in support of Jeremy Bamber. And Ay am talking like Clint Eastwood to be even more of a tit. Don't you know."
-
So....Bamber has 2 supporters left. Poor old mad Mike with his brain rumour......and angry old, housebound Peggy Mount.
It really, really isn't looking very good.
8)><(
-
Obviously I have no idea what's being worked on behind the scenes, Holl, but wouldn't they have to recreate the original scene somehow? And wouldn't that involve a (living) young woman (appropriately medicated), the gun, the silencer (on and off), a bedroom carpet and a bible? I do hope that Bamber isn't holding his breath. 8(8-))
On a lighter note, it looks like he might just get to play Pie Face with the Yorkshire Ripper after their scrummy Christmas lunch! Good times!
Fortunately there's enough hard data eg SoC photos, pathology reports, expert testimony to apply modern forensic science to the prosecution case against JB for example SoC reconstruction and forensic photo analysis.
I would suggest the photo that has done the rounds showing wet blood running does not fall into the category of forensic photo analysis but rather 'manipulation' at the hand of dodgy lawyer de Stefano.
http://www.forensicresources.co.uk/forensic-photographic-analysis.php
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/papers/spie.pdf
If accurate measurments of WHF do not exist (I doubt they do) hopefully the Eatons will oblige by allowing an appropriately qualified person to enter WHF with a laser distance measuring tools to enable a crime scene reconstruction.
It should also be possible to determine the decibels from gunshots from room to room.
The above is by no means exhaustive.
Does any expert testimony exist re SC's ability to use the rifle in terms of experience and any interaction with her prescribed medication? I haven't see any.
-
So....Bamber has 2 supporters left. Poor old mad Mike with his brain rumour......and angry old, housebound Peggy Mount.
It really, really isn't looking very good.
8)><(
I don't believe the Blue forum represents the level of support for JB's case.
-
Mike and Lookout are the hardcore long term supporters that post every day. Jane J posts every day but is a guilter.
A few other posters say they don't believe Bamber would risk going up against five people, or could act so calm afterwards etc. These posters post less often and seem to be on the fence.
-
Mike and Lookout are the hardcore long term supporters that post every day. Jane J posts every day but is a guilter.
A few other posters say they don't believe Bamber would risk going up against five people, or could act so calm afterwards etc. These posters post less often and seem to be on the fence.
Most of what emanates from the Blue forum, for or against, is utter drivel.
-
Most of what emanates from the Blue forum, for or against, is utter drivel.
-
If accurate measurments of WHF do not exist (I doubt they do) hopefully the Eatons will oblige by allowing an appropriately qualified person to enter WHF with a laser distance measuring tools to enable a crime scene reconstruction.
The most accurate plan is probably the unfinished one (attachment 1) from which I drew the completed plan (attachment 2). This might have been drawn up by the police or someone they employed using on-site measurements or other scaled plans which the family owned; or from any stored in the local planning department. The conversion of the rear part to a lower and upper office, store room, scullery and rear hall would have needed accurate ones drawn to scale for Building Regulation approval and for the builder to follow.
Other than that, the later redrawn plans with plastic covers in the official case files might be just as accurate.
BUT...
If I was a member of the Eaton family and received a letter from any Bamber supporter, Official Site members or their lawyers, polite or otherwise asking for access to WHF, I'd tell 'em to stick their request where the sun don't shine... and no doubt that's what they'd also say to any other interfering busybody!
-
The most accurate plan is probably the unfinished one (attachment 1) from which I drew the completed plan (attachment 2). This might have been drawn up by the police or someone they employed using on-site measurements or other scaled plans which the family owned; or from any stored in the local planning department. The conversion of the rear part to a lower and upper office, store room, scullery and rear hall would have needed accurate ones drawn to scale for Building Regulation approval and for the builder to follow.
Other than that, the later redrawn plans with plastic covers in the official case files might be just as accurate.
BUT...
If I was a member of the Eaton family and received a letter from any Bamber supporter, Official Site members or their lawyers, polite or otherwise asking for access to WHF, I'd tell 'em to stick their request where the sun don't shine... and no doubt that's what they'd also say to any other interfering busybody!
Putting guilt or innocence aside, Apparently Eatons has kept the house exactly how it was in 1985. In 2003 ITN(itv) film producers were guided round the house they were shown dried blood stains on a lampshade and also the kitchen light was still broken from the night of the murders. (According to ITN).
That is just creepy
-
The most accurate plan is probably the unfinished one (attachment 1) from which I drew the completed plan (attachment 2). This might have been drawn up by the police or someone they employed using on-site measurements or other scaled plans which the family owned; or from any stored in the local planning department. The conversion of the rear part to a lower and upper office, store room, scullery and rear hall would have needed accurate ones drawn to scale for Building Regulation approval and for the builder to follow.
Other than that, the later redrawn plans with plastic covers in the official case files might be just as accurate.
BUT...
If I was a member of the Eaton family and received a letter from any Bamber supporter, Official Site members or their lawyers, polite or otherwise asking for access to WHF, I'd tell 'em to stick their request where the sun don't shine... and no doubt that's what they'd also say to any other interfering busybody!
CCRC have the powers to override.
-
Putting guilt or innocence aside, Apparently Eatons has kept the house exactly how it was in 1985. In 2003 ITN(itv) film producers were guided round the house they were shown dried blood stains on a lampshade and also the kitchen light was still broken from the night of the murders. (According to ITN).
That is just creepy
The broken lampshade story was probably apocryphal. There's a photo in the pg.186 photo section of Wilkes' book showing the kitchen as it was c.1993/4? with an intact smoked glass lampshade, and there's a video I've seen somewhere online looking through the kitchen window from outside showing the same. The once red AGA surround in the photo has also been repainted to white or cream, with an additional long wooden rack above it to hang knickknacks. And a different table. So not exactly the same.
Maybe they kept the bloodstains just in case police wanted or might still want samples for blood-typing/DNA analysis in future... which I believe they did.
-
CCRC have the powers to override.
Says who? You? I believe that as much as I do your notoriously inaccurate predictions of Bamber's imminent release!
-
Says who? You? I believe that as much as I do your notoriously inaccurate predictions of Bamber's imminent release!
Says CCRC:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/249340/Ch35.pdf
Powers.
2. The CCRC has powers to refer cases to the appropriate court for an appeal
to be heard. The CCRC does not consider innocenc
e or guilt, but whether there is new
evidence or argument that may cast doubt on
the safety of a decision. The CCRC has wide-
ranging investigative powers and can obtain and preserve documentation held by any public
body (including the Services). The CCRC will also investigate and report to the Court Martial
Appeal Court (CMAC) on any matter referred to them by the Court.
Have I ever predicted "Bamber's imminent release!"? Thought it was more the case turning?
-
Doesn't that refer to obtaining and investigating documents only? Nothing to do with gaining access to measure up someone's private property, but only concerned with getting hold of existing plans from say, the local planning dept.
Case drawings filed from 1985/86 might be sufficiently accurate if needed anyway.
But even so, Bamber won't have another shot at the Court of Appeal for at least another ten years, if ever, by which time the Eatons might have retired to live elsewhere, with the trustees/new tenants carrying out a major refurbishment to change WHF internally beyond recognition.
-
Doesn't that refer to obtaining and investigating documents only? Nothing to do with gaining access to measure up someone's private property, but only concerned with getting hold of existing plans from say, the local planning dept.
Case drawings filed from 1985/86 might be sufficiently accurate if needed anyway.
But even so, Bamber won't have another shot at the Court of Appeal for at least another ten years, if ever, by which time the Eatons might have retired to live elsewhere, with the trustees/new tenants carrying out a major refurbishment to change WHF internally beyond recognition.
I think the def of "wide-ranging investigative powers" is as it says wide-ranging and I don't believe anything is off-limits.
Precise measurements might exist anyway. The building is grade 2 listed so restrictions will apply re alterations. Plus as far as I'm aware the property is still owned by the Henry Smith charity so tenants will need the approval of the trustees to make alterations.
What makes you think JB's case has a 10 year wait for CoA?
Scipio will be along later to put us all right ?>)()<
-
Because of the backlog of other cases which the CCRC are investigating and giving priority over Jeremy Bamber's.
-
Because of the backlog of other cases which the CCRC are investigating and giving priority over Jeremy Bamber's.
About 2 years I believe:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2599.msg81472.html#msg81472
-
About 2 years I believe:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2599.msg81472.html#msg81472 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2599.msg81472.html#msg81472)
That 3½ years wasted... only another 6½ to go. 8((()*/
hoots! trumps!
-
that's*... damn this sticky keyboard! 8(8-))
-
That 3½ years wasted... only another 6½ to go. 8((()*/
hoots! trumps!
I notice the OS has changed from a CCRC application that was being worked on months ago and due to be submitted immenently to same words but different date.
She shoots! She scores!
-
Who with!!? ... hope your Pete doesn't find out.
-
Who with!!? ... hope your Pete doesn't find out.
Just trumping your hoot to TomG!
-
Just trumping your hoot to TomG!
Och aye the noo!... it's gonna be a braw bricht nicht tonicht, ma dear lassie.
-
Getting back to the title of the thread I notice a poster on Blue, who has posted for nearly 4 years and made thousands of posts, now believes JB is a psychopath but until recently had dismissed the idea. In fact this particular poster was apt to beat the drum, hard, letting everyone know JB has been assessed 27 times and was deemed 'normal' by all concerned. As far as I'm aware no new information has emerged. Interesting.