The Picture That Bamber Ripped Up

[Caroline]

It rather depends what counts as evidence. I acknowledge evidence which is supported by cites, which Mr Wilkes doesn't provide. Why should his word be believed?

What excatly are you disputing? The photograph exists - you acknowledge that you can see it right?

[Vertigo Swirl]

It rather depends what counts as evidence. I acknowledge evidence which is supported by cites, which Mr Wilkes doesn't provide. Why should his word be believed?

Why should Jeremy’s word be believed?

[G-Unit]

Why should Jeremy’s word be believed?

It's not a matter of believing anyone, it's a matter of reliable sources. Wilkes isn't the source of this story, he's repeating what he was told. Without knowing who told him it's uncheckable.

'Someone' found a torn up photo. Who? Where? 'Someone' decided it was Jeremy Bamber who tore it up. How? Was it fingerprinted? 'Someone' assumed Bamber did it because one of the twins was pointing at the camera. That could be an assumption. 'Someone' leaked the photo to Wilkes. Why?

[Caroline]

It's not a matter of believing anyone, it's a matter of reliable sources. Wilkes isn't the source of this story, he's repeating what he was told. Without knowing who told him it's uncheckable.

'Someone' found a torn up photo. Who? Where? 'Someone' decided it was Jeremy Bamber who tore it up. How? Was it fingerprinted? 'Someone' assumed Bamber did it because one of the twins was pointing at the camera. That could be an assumption. 'Someone' leaked the photo to Wilkes. Why?

Someone likes to make excuses but did you know, that Wilkes's book was written with the permission and cooperation of Bamber? I also have a vague recollection that Bamber received payment from Wilkes.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's not a matter of believing anyone, it's a matter of reliable sources. Wilkes isn't the source of this story, he's repeating what he was told. Without knowing who told him it's uncheckable.

'Someone' found a torn up photo. Who? Where? 'Someone' decided it was Jeremy Bamber who tore it up. How? Was it fingerprinted? 'Someone' assumed Bamber did it because one of the twins was pointing at the camera. That could be an assumption. 'Someone' leaked the photo to Wilkes. Why?

Do you accept that it’s quite possible JB ripped up the photo?

[APRIL]

It's not a matter of believing anyone, it's a matter of reliable sources. Wilkes isn't the source of this story, he's repeating what he was told. Without knowing who told him it's uncheckable.

'Someone' found a torn up photo. Who? Where? 'Someone' decided it was Jeremy Bamber who tore it up. How? Was it fingerprinted? 'Someone' assumed Bamber did it because one of the twins was pointing at the camera. That could be an assumption. 'Someone' leaked the photo to Wilkes. Why?

On one level, of course you're correct. The FACT is that anyone -ANYone- could have torn that picture to shreds. However, when we look at who was the MOST likely to have done it, I can't see that anyone OTHER than Jeremy fits the bill. Even down to the way it was torn -to shreds- points to someone wishing to eradicate. Any one just clearing out 'clutter' would have been more likely to rip it in half.

[Vertigo Swirl]

On one level, of course you're correct. The FACT is that anyone -ANYone- could have torn that picture to shreds. However, when we look at who was the MOST likely to have done it, I can't see that anyone OTHER than Jeremy fits the bill. Even down to the way it was torn -to shreds- points to someone wishing to eradicate. Any one just clearing out 'clutter' would have been more likely to rip it in half.

If one wanted to dispose of such a sweet photo why would one even need to rip it in half?  In this case “someone” looked at it, tore it in half, put the two bits together, tore it in half again, and then again.  That is complete destruction.  How could anyone do that, knowing those two children had recently been murdered and knowing that they had a grieving father who would almost certainly have treasured such a photo?

[APRIL]

If one wanted to dispose of such a sweet photo why would one even need to rip it in half?  In this case “someone” looked at it, tore it in half, put the two bits together, tore it in half again, and then again.  That is complete destruction.  How could anyone do that, knowing those two children had recently been murdered and knowing that they had a grieving father who would almost certainly have treasured such a photo?

When I throw something of no moment, I usually tear it in half, really for ease of making room for it. However, if I tear something personal, if I don't put it through the shredder, I tear it to shreds. I don't think anyone but Jeremy, would have gone to those lengths because it wouldn't have been personal to them. Anyone for whom it was, would surely have kept it?

[mrswah]

Someone likes to make excuses but did you know, that Wilkes's book was written with the permission and cooperation of Bamber? I also have a vague recollection that Bamber received payment from Wilkes.

So, did Bamber give Wilkes the photo, do you think?

[Brietta]

Someone likes to make excuses but did you know, that Wilkes's book was written with the permission and cooperation of Bamber? I also have a vague recollection that Bamber received payment from Wilkes.

I think he (Bamber) was desperate to raise money to further his appeal ... was it to pay for ballistic tests?? so it wouldn't surprise me if Wilkes paid him.

[Holly Goodhead]

Someone likes to make excuses but did you know, that Wilkes's book was written with the permission and cooperation of Bamber? I also have a vague recollection that Bamber received payment from Wilkes.

JB's financial compensation funded the blood stain analysis by Prof MacDonnell.

[Caroline]

I think he (Bamber) was desperate to raise money to further his appeal ... was it to pay for ballistic tests?? so it wouldn't surprise me if Wilkes paid him.

The ballistics came later, it must have been for the DNA stuff. I can't be definite about payment but it was written with his full cooperation.

[Brietta]

The ballistics came later, it must have been for the DNA stuff.

It was just tonight that I read it, you would think I would be able to remember.  Short term memory syndrome perhaps.

Not that it really matters but I'll have a look and see if I can find it again.




Found it ... definitely ballistics and the author offered him a deal, which rather suggests that you were spot on that there was some monetary advantage for Bamber.
I think if Roger Wilkes says in his book that Bamber ripped the twins' photograph up I think it is obvious from whom he got his information.
Snip
To my tentative first letter, Bamber had replied briskly, pointing out that I was not the first journalist to approach him about his story and asking me not to contact him again unless I was prepared to help. Convicted for the merciless shooting of five members of his family at their farmhouse in Essex in 1985, he wanted to commission a new ballistics report, but had no money to pay for it. Without it there would be no prospect of a full appeal hearing, and no co-operation for me. I offered a deal; he agreed to meet.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-telegraph/20200105/282149293240572

[Caroline]

It was just tonight that I read it, you would think I would be able to remember.  Short term memory syndrome perhaps.

Not that it really matters but I'll have a look and see if I can find it again.




Found it ... definitely ballistics and the author offered him a deal, which rather suggests that you were spot on that there was some monetary advantage for Bamber.
I think if Roger Wilkes says in his book that Bamber ripped the twins' photograph up I think it is obvious from whom he got his information.
Snip
To my tentative first letter, Bamber had replied briskly, pointing out that I was not the first journalist to approach him about his story and asking me not to contact him again unless I was prepared to help. Convicted for the merciless shooting of five members of his family at their farmhouse in Essex in 1985, he wanted to commission a new ballistics report, but had no money to pay for it. Without it there would be no prospect of a full appeal hearing, and no co-operation for me. I offered a deal; he agreed to meet.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-telegraph/20200105/282149293240572

Thanks Brietta  I knew there was some kind of deal.

[Nicholas]

So, did Bamber give Wilkes the photo, do you think?

Unlikely the pieces of the photo were returned to Bamber ?!

It could be a copy of a copy ?

Wilkes may have got a copy from the police ?

The original pieces may well have been returned to CC or they still lay in the original files stored by police ?