Really? Yet I assume you would like to conduct a civil discussion with me?
Is your attitude right, do you think?
Yet in a different post, you admitted that Essex Police HAD messed up the crime scene and lost "vital evidence".
But I'm wrong about everything, you say?
Perhaps, yes. As you say, perhaps it is a testament to the strength of the case against him.
A black cab driver circa 30 years ago: "If a top QC couldn't get the Birmingham Six off in an appeal, what does that tell you, eh guv'nor? I once had that Reggie Kray in the bad of me cab once. Gentleman he was....."
I don't find your point very convincing! Sorry.
The camera can lie.
I say we can't rely on the police for the reasons YOU yourself have just given in this post and in a previous post in which you admitted the police had destroyed "vital evidence".
But I am not maligning the police. I do also agree with you that the police have a difficult job to do and it's easy for me to sit here and criticise. In fact, I don't blame the police at all. I blame the mistake and I'm glad the police have reformed their practices. They learned from it. What else can we ask? They're only human and they do their best.
Another point to reflect on is that it must have been terrible for the police officers who came on the scene. You may guffaw at this, but this may even have affected the senior officers' emotions and, although I appreciate it's their job, Taff Jones and others may have even gone through a sort of PTSD themselves and that may even explain the initial mistakes.
To be honest, this is the only useful part of your post. If you had just stuck to facts like this and you could be a bit more civil, we could have a useful discussion and I may well change from thinking Bamber probably did it to accepting that he definitely did it.
I do know already about what you say, but my understanding of the evidence is different. I will look again.
Please refer to a post in which I have stated, suggested or even implied any of this. If you can't, then I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from making allegations like this. Please be careful about what you say to people.
I have read the case through. If we assume he did hide the moderator, then it was hid at the scene. Why didn't the police find it?
There is no evidence he used the moderator in the kilings, but I find it interesting that you cling to this evidence, even though it's not necessary for you to do say. You could throw the moderator away. Indeed, isn't that what the trial judge said in his summing-up to the jury?
I know she lied. She admits it herself. The question is whether we should believe what she said subsequently. My question is: Why should I? Neither you nor anybody else can give me a strong reason.
I suspect she was arrested, I don't know it, and I note that Essex Police are hiding behind PII certificates.
Your facts aren't quite right there. She wasn't a volunteer. Her testimony was coerced and she was given immunity, not so much for her own benefit, but for the Crown, though it did benefit her.
Sorry but she could have learned all this from other sources, including Jeremy. Remember that even if Jeremy told her these things, that doesn't make him guilty, since Jeremy himself could have gleaned the information from innocent sources.
But just to refresh my memory, perhaps you could quickly link to her statements where she provided all this information?
The critical part of her statement was hearsay (and also untrue). You are wrong when you say that hearsay evidence was inadmissible at that time in English criminal trials. There have always been exceptions to the common law rule against hearsay, including hearsay involving criminal admissions by an accused.
Also, arguably it wasn't technically hearsay on the basis that both Bamber himself and McDonald were open to cross-examination - indeed, I assume this was one of the reasons McDonald was called, the other one being to quash the notion of a hitman in the jury's minds and point the finger solely at Jeremy.
Sorry but here you fall into the classic trap of trying to deodorise Julie Mugford. I needn't take it seriously or respond further. Both Julie Mugford and Jeremy Bamber were abominable individuals, and she was a criminal in her own right.
Well, it is a truism that the police must have moved the body at some stage, and it's also not controversial to suppose that the police moved her when they found her as (I assume) they would have had to safe the rifle and maybe attempt to resuscitate her, depending on what they found. So my point actually stands. You've just misunderstood me.
I'm not ignoring facts. I'll get on to discussing the Bible in due time. I appreciate you adding your own views, but it would be more helpful if you could calm down a bit.
You make some good points here, but you also make the assumption that the moderator was used in the killings. It may have been. I'll need to re-consider the points you make above about the DNA found in the moderator.
That's an argument from incredulity. Why not clean herself?
There was more than one loaded gun in the house and you've admitted that the police missed "vital evidence" [your words]. Why is it laughable?
No, I think he probably did it, actually. I've said that half-a-dozen times. Please don't impugn my motives.
I’m not replying to all your answers as they don’t warrant my time: you’ve written lots of words but said very little
It’s also difficult to reply when you’ve quoted everything in your super long post: I can see your replies, but I can’t see what you’re replying to — so I don’t know what you’re referring to
I shall reply to this one, though:
“ bigeye on May 17, 2020, 04:52:44 PM
And despite the initial mistakes made by the police under the orders of Taff Jones, the police photographer was actually praised for being so thorough and complete in his taking of pictures of all the bodies and crime scene. They even moved Sheila’s arm to show the blood stain beneath it on her nightdress — so how you can say the photographs cannot be relied upon?”
“The camera can lie.
I say we can't rely on the police for the reasons YOU yourself have just given in this post and in a previous post in which you admitted the police had destroyed "vital evidence".
But I am not maligning the police. I do also agree with you that the police have a difficult job to do and it's easy for me to sit here and criticise. In fact, I don't blame the police at all. I blame the mistake and I'm glad the police have reformed their practices. They learned from it. What else can we ask? They're only human and they do their best.
Another point to reflect on is that it must have been terrible for the police officers who came on the scene. You may guffaw at this, but this may even have affected the senior officers' emotions and, although I appreciate it's their job, Taff Jones and others may have even gone through a sort of PTSD themselves and that may even explain the initial mistakes.”
You saying the camera can lie is silly.. Yes, when amateurs take poor photographs, they can, and professional photographers can alter images, obviously, especially now with photoshop etc. But police have to take ACCURATE photographs, hence why they use specialised photographers who have the top equipment to take clear, defined, detailed images. They’re highly experienced photographers who take photos of bodies from all angles, including pictures of the crime scene — so no — those photos of the WHF soc do not lie at all. Indeed, experts have been commissioned to study those very images not just for the trial, but throughout all the decades when Bamber has made several fruitless attempts to get out of jail. The photos are so detailed and clear, which is why the photographer was highly praised
The police were only useless at the very start, and that was due to Taff Jones who had severe emotional issues, allegedly. There were even rumours that he may have had a brain tumour: such was his bizarre behaviour. After they slung him off the case the ball of justice started rolling.
And you suggesting Taff Jones and all the other police made mistakes that first day due to PTSD shows you have no insight into it. PTSD doesn’t manifest itself until many months after a tragedy. It begins to build up slowly — you don’t suddenly get struck down with it within seconds of a tragic event.
There’s other things you’ve said in your post which are equally wrong, and I don’t agree with any of your hypothesis whatsoever. I’m also surprised how you act as though it’s just YOU who has to be convinced. And you seem to be treating this as though we’re all in a court room and you’re the judge 😌
Well, I’m afraid you’re not a judge, nor a barrister — and neither am I. But I don’t haughtily demand people convince me of certain factors, and then if I’m not satisfied write “We shall all move on from that now, that subject’s closed”. 😤 May I ask what your profession is?
