Ritual dressing

[anglolawyer]

Thanks for the heads up folks.   It's no good, though. I now have my sights set on getting a piece of the $650M.   I know it's only dollars but it's still money (just).

[scipio_usmc]

Don't worry, anglolawyer.  Teskowski won't put anything online that reinforces Bamber's guilt.

The court transcripts will be at the bottom of the pile of 50,000 documents in his shed (if they ever exist), and it'll take another 30 years before they willingly surface to the top, by which time mice and moths will have eaten them all away and Bamber popped his clogs.

The site's amusing for an occasional guffaw at his crackpot theories... and some atrocious grammar, but little else. Bamber washed his hands of MT many moons ago.

The defense filed to produce his trial transcripts for the 2002 appeal.  It is doubtful they gave such to Mike...

He intentionally refused to post the portion of the Dickinson Report that addressed the trial and would not post the full testimony of Fletcher even.

When he feels he can distort something he posts it and does distort it like the misrepresentation that Dr Craig examined her body on the bed though in fact he said she was on the floor hidden by the bed and that Dr Craig said she had only 1 wound at the time though he nowhere said she had only a single wound but rather simply identified a single wound that supports his assertion she died from being shot.  He did that will all the victims- he identified a single gunshot to support his proposition he didn't claim any of them solely had a single wound.

If more people would challenge his crap and chastise him- he can't ban everyone or he will have an empty site- then- then maybe he would change some of his ways.   

[Holly Goodhead]

Thanks for the heads up folks.   It's no good, though. I now have my sights set on getting a piece of the $650M.   I know it's only dollars but it's still money (just).

Lol sterling equivalent £429,894,504.00p! 

[scipio_usmc]

I'm not so sure MT cherry picks but rather likes the drama of 'never-before-seen' material which only he has access to!

AL, The Blue forum has been in existence for some 5 years, if MT has been unable to find a way of uploading docs to a forum set up primarily to help a man he believes has suffered a grave miscarriage of justice this is perhaps quite telling  &%+((£

NGB has always been helpful to MT in running the forum and I daresay would arrange some practical help, logistical and financial,  if other material was available for uploading.  How much would it cost to drop off docs to some provider of business solutions for high speed scanning?  Once scanned the docs could be organised into some sort of manageable system.  It should also be noted that it wasn't even MT who set up the archives and library on Blue. That task was carried out by posters Alias and Hartley.  Prior to this documents were simply scattered about in threads.

JB's campaign team set up an electronic document management system and as far as I'm aware they hold most of the docs.

No Mike cherry picks.  It is not some accident he posts isolated pages of documents like Fletcher's testimony instead of the full documents.  It is not an accident he only will post isolated parts of the Dickinson Report.

Many documents on blue were posted on other websites years earlier. Harters saved them from those sites (like sleuthing for justice) and he ended up posting them on blue himself to challenge some of Mike's lies. For example Mike ended up posting all of the Dickinson Report on another website with the exception of the attachments (exhibits), the section on the reinvestigation and section on the trial.  On blue Mike only posted about 6 pages of the report.  He refused to post anymore so Harters posted everything he could.   

The statement archive is simply an index.  It is an index of which threads contain which documents and has hyperlinks so you can jump to the thread where those documents had been posted.  Harters created the index and the mods liked it so much they moved it to its own section where only mods can alter it.  Mods like Caroline have added to it as new statements are posted or any that were missed are come across.   

I made a pest of myself in asking for them to add things I came across.  I also repeatedly challenge Mike to post the 2 sections of the Dickinson report he refused to post as well as the entire transcript of testimony of certain people like Fletcher where he cherry picked which pages he would post.  Naturally he refused saying he will do whatever he wants.

He won't scan documents anymore now he takes a photo from a distance with a phone making them more difficult to read.

[scipio_usmc]

Thanks for the heads up folks.   It's no good, though. I now have my sights set on getting a piece of the $650M.   I know it's only dollars but it's still money (just).

What $650 million?

[anglolawyer]

What $650 million?

Too late for you, scip.   You got busted out of town just as the going got good.   Too bad.   Maybe I'll remember you in my will.   These are the film rights, I think.   MT says he has a deal with JB under which he, MT, gets to cream off the profits on the film rights up to a measly $650,000,000.  I aim to get me a piece of that.

[scipio_usmc]

Too late for you, scip.   You got busted out of town just as the going got good.   Too bad.   Maybe I'll remember you in my will.   These are the film rights, I think.   MT says he has a deal with JB under which he, MT, gets to cream off the profits on the film rights up to a measly $650,000,000.  I aim to get me a piece of that.

Did you see this contract?  Mike says a lot of contradictory things.  For instance he originally said he was asked to be caretaker of Jeremy's documents and his holding them for anytime Jeremy wants them.  Jeremy doesn't want him posting these documents anymore so now he claims they are his and he can do anything he wants with them he is not a mere custodian.

In any event Jeremy has as much chance of getting out of prison and thus being able to pursue a movie deal as I have of becoming a citizen of North Korea.
 

[anglolawyer]

Did you see this contract?  Mike says a lot of contradictory things.  For instance he originally said he was asked to be caretaker of Jeremy's documents and his holding them for anytime Jeremy wants them.  Jeremy doesn't want him posting these documents anymore so now he claims they are his and he can do anything he wants with them he is not a mere custodian.

In any event Jeremy has as much chance of getting out of prison and thus being able to pursue a movie deal as I have of becoming a citizen of North Korea.

I assume it is an oral contract made on a basis of trust.   A gentleman's word his his bond and all that.   Good enough for me.

[Holly Goodhead]

No Mike cherry picks.  It is not some accident he posts isolated pages of documents like Fletcher's testimony instead of the full documents.  It is not an accident he only will post isolated parts of the Dickinson Report.

Many documents on blue were posted on other websites years earlier. Harters saved them from those sites (like sleuthing for justice) and he ended up posting them on blue himself to challenge some of Mike's lies. For example Mike ended up posting all of the Dickinson Report on another website with the exception of the attachments (exhibits), the section on the reinvestigation and section on the trial.  On blue Mike only posted about 6 pages of the report.  He refused to post anymore so Harters posted everything he could.   

The statement archive is simply an index.  It is an index of which threads contain which documents and has hyperlinks so you can jump to the thread where those documents had been posted.  Harters created the index and the mods liked it so much they moved it to its own section where only mods can alter it.  Mods like Caroline have added to it as new statements are posted or any that were missed are come across.   

I made a pest of myself in asking for them to add things I came across.  I also repeatedly challenge Mike to post the 2 sections of the Dickinson report he refused to post as well as the entire transcript of testimony of certain people like Fletcher where he cherry picked which pages he would post.  Naturally he refused saying he will do whatever he wants.

He won't scan documents anymore now he takes a photo from a distance with a phone making them more difficult to read.

I see little difference between yourself and MT.  Eg you cut and pace snippets of docs such as the following.  I've asked you loads of times to upload links or the complete doc so we can check the source.  The following doc that starts "I now want to look at..." appears to lack autheticity for many reasons:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6704.msg286229#msg286229

You and Mike both get verbally aggressive with anyone who disagrees with you.  There's nothing moderate about either of you.  You're both at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

[scipio_usmc]

I see little difference between yourself and MT.  Eg you cut and pace snippets of docs such as the following.  I've asked you loads of times to upload links or the complete doc so we can check the source.  The following doc that starts "I now want to look at..." appears to lack autheticity for many reasons:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6704.msg286229#msg286229

You and Mike both get verbally aggressive with anyone who disagrees with you.  There's nothing moderate about either of you.  You're both at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

Why should  I post full documents that are already posted?  That you didn't bother to read them while you were on blue before getting banned is your problem not mine. It just shows that you made up your mind about this case before looking at the relevant evidence and chose not to bother trying to look for the relevant evidence though some of it was posted.

You made false claims and I posted the RELEVANT section of documents that proved such.  It is no different than you quoting 1 paragraph from the COA decision instead of posting the entire thing.

Mike cherry picks in an effort to conceal that he is lying.  He distorts what the sources actually claim.  There is nothing else in Lincoln's report about the blood on the rifle I posted the full section pertaining to such and that is what we were debating.  It clearly said there was blood on the stock thus refuting your claim there was none on it.  It is that simple.

Mike also makes up absurd lies such as his claim that Ewen Smith told him that he spoke to Dr. Craig and Dr Craig told him Sheila was on the bed when he examined her and that Ewen smith had photos of Sheila on the bed taken by police which Mike stole and mailed to Jeremy but prison authorities seized them before Jeremy could receive them.  Then there are his lies about meeting secret informants and secret forensic experts...

You ignore anything in your own sources that refute what you choose to argue and thus contradict what your very own sources assert.  You take generalized claims and twist them instead of going with information specific to the very issue at hand.  For instance to take a worthless generalized claim that GSR will be more pronounced on the crook support arm when one uses a longgun ignoring the specific evidence posted about the exact weapon used.  Then to make matters worse you posted an ordinary video claiming it showed no GSR is deposited on the shooter though it didn't use a camera capable of capturing the GSR plume. 

You ignore the evidence that location is the key to whether drawback will occur from a contact shot and keep making up the false claim only a shot to the head can result in drawback from a 22LR even though you have no source that states this because it is untrue and indeed if it were true the defense would have had experts argue such to the courts.

You make up your own things much like Mike does. You are much more like Mike than I will ever be...

[puglove]

Thanks for the heads up folks.   It's no good, though. I now have my sights set on getting a piece of the $650M.   I know it's only dollars but it's still money (just).

Easy, Tiger! Just in case you're looking at yachts (or nellycopters) you need to know that when things go quiet on the Bamber front, Mike has 2-way conversations with Princess Diana, the devil, Keith Bennett, Madeleine McCann, and his dog Misty (Border Collie and part-time oncologist).

[anglolawyer]

Easy, Tiger! Just in case you're looking at yachts (or nellycopters) you need to know that when things go quiet on the Bamber front, Mike has 2-way conversations with Princess Diana, the devil, Keith Bennett, Madeleine McCann, and his dog Misty (Border Collie and part-time oncologist).

I bet that's just a ruse to ward off money-grubbing opportunists.   It won't work with me.

[Holly Goodhead]

Why should  I post full documents that are already posted?  That you didn't bother to read them while you were on blue before getting banned is your problem not mine. It just shows that you made up your mind about this case before looking at the relevant evidence and chose not to bother trying to look for the relevant evidence though some of it was posted.

You made false claims and I posted the RELEVANT section of documents that proved such.  It is no different than you quoting 1 paragraph from the COA decision instead of posting the entire thing.

Mike cherry picks in an effort to conceal that he is lying.  He distorts what the sources actually claim.  There is nothing else in Lincoln's report about the blood on the rifle I posted the full section pertaining to such and that is what we were debating.  It clearly said there was blood on the stock thus refuting your claim there was none on it.  It is that simple.

Mike also makes up absurd lies such as his claim that Ewen Smith told him that he spoke to Dr. Craig and Dr Craig told him Sheila was on the bed when he examined her and that Ewen smith had photos of Sheila on the bed taken by police which Mike stole and mailed to Jeremy but prison authorities seized them before Jeremy could receive them.  Then there are his lies about meeting secret informants and secret forensic experts...

You ignore anything in your own sources that refute what you choose to argue and thus contradict what your very own sources assert.  You take generalized claims and twist them instead of going with information specific to the very issue at hand.  For instance to take a worthless generalized claim that GSR will be more pronounced on the crook support arm when one uses a longgun ignoring the specific evidence posted about the exact weapon used.  Then to make matters worse you posted an ordinary video claiming it showed no GSR is deposited on the shooter though it didn't use a camera capable of capturing the GSR plume. 

You ignore the evidence that location is the key to whether drawback will occur from a contact shot and keep making up the false claim only a shot to the head can result in drawback from a 22LR even though you have no source that states this because it is untrue and indeed if it were true the defense would have had experts argue such to the courts.

You make up your own things much like Mike does. You are much more like Mike than I will ever be...

The only people in the innocent camp who take MT seriously are the likes of Lookout, and even she seems to be seeing the light, other than that he is basically ignored and written off as a crank.  The same applies to yourself with the guilty camp.

[Holly Goodhead]

1) Police say the clothing/cushions were there when they found the body

2) The clothing/cushions soaked up blood these items were not placed on dry blood but rather wet blood because that is the only way they could soak up blood.

3) The blood was dry by the time police entered.

These 2 things combined means the killer is the only one who could have placed the items in the blood.  Asserting the police lied and they are the ones who placed them there fails miserably. Not only did they have no reason to try to soak up dried blood, cloth does not absorb dry blood.

So all rational people with half a brain recognize the killer did it.  Some reasons why the killer would do so I already enumerated.     

I will ask for a second time.  Please post the relevant W/S's, or other documentary evidence, where the police state the clothes and cushions were found in the pool of blood by NB. 

[scipio_usmc]

I assume it is an oral contract made on a basis of trust.   A gentleman's word his his bond and all that.   Good enough for me.

You know about that pesky thing known as the Statute of Frauds right?