Opium Poppies Grown at WHF?

[Holly Goodhead]

It's obvious to ME that Susan is talking about when she was FIRST told about the shootings, i.e. on the 7th or very soon after, and between then and the 27th they discussed it on a number of occasions! After the 27th Julie then says that they didn't talk any more about it.

Reading the before and after pages of the WS's it's difficult to arrive at the above conclusion.  I have found numerous inconsistencies in the WS's.

[Holly Goodhead]

Supplying cannabis (class B drugs) is a serious crime. 

I think all concerned genuinely believed, and probably continue to believe, JB is guilty as charged.  If the police told prosecution witnesses SC was shot twice and this ruled out suicide why would they disbelieve the police?  They would not have access to the pathologist or his reports.  Their paths may not even have crossed with the pathologists giving evidence at trial if they gave evidence on different days.  They would be unable to google 'suicide multiple gunshot wounds'.  I guess they could take themselves off to a library to thumb through forensic science books...

Who are the casts of thousands who have to be lying?  Where do West and Bonnet fit in with lying?

[scipio_usmc]

Why wouldn't they lie if EP sold them the idea JB was responsible plus they saved themselves from a criminal record in the process?  Would JM, SB, LR and JR want to think of a mass murderer and child killer walking away with his parents estate?

Plus if any nagging doubt existed, I believe you have a degree in psychology so you will no doubt be familiar with Stanley Milgram's famous experiment on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience:

"Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority are among the most important psychological studies of this century.  Perhaps because of the enduring significance of the findings—the surprising ease with which ordinary persons can be commanded to act destructively against an innocent individual by a legitimate authority—it continues to claim the attention of psychologists and other social scientists, as well as the general public. This study continues to inspire valuable research and analysis."

You forget that the police were content with suicide early on.  While they were content with suicide it was the family that did not believe Sheila killed the others and herself.  The police didn't have to convinced the family of anything.  They didn't need the family to lie about anything they developed solid evidence establishing Jeremy's guilt which is why they prosecuted him and why he was convicted.

[Holly Goodhead]

You forget that the police were content with suicide early on.  While they were content with suicide it was the family that did not believe Sheila killed the others and herself.  The police didn't have to convinced the family of anything.  They didn't need the family to lie about anything they developed solid evidence establishing Jeremy's guilt which is why they prosecuted him and why he was convicted.

The family sowed the seeds of doubt.  The police then found themselves in a difficult position as they didn't call to SoC a pathologist, biologist and ballistics expert as per procedures.  Had these experts been called to SoC it's unlikely we would be discussing the case now. 

[Caroline]

Supplying cannabis (class B drugs) is a serious crime. 

I think all concerned genuinely believed, and probably continue to believe, JB is guilty as charged.  If the police told prosecution witnesses SC was shot twice and this ruled out suicide why would they disbelieve the police?  They would not have access to the pathologist or his reports.  There paths may not even have crossed with the pathologists giving evidence at trial if they gave evidence on different days.  They would be unable to google 'suicide multiple gunshot wounds'.  I guess they could take themselves off to a library to thumb through forensic science books...

Who are the casts of thousands who have to be lying?  Where do West and Bonnet fit in with lying?

A friend of mine was prosecuted for selling cannabis in the early 1990's, she and her boyfriend got community service and a small fine. Hardly something to confine an innocent man to prison for 30 years.

Think about what it would take to maintain this facade? Or are all these professional people stupid? Where do West and Bonnett come into it? The so called phone call from Nevill. Clearly, if nevill called they would know Bamber is innocent.

Julie knew Jeremy for 2 years, she isn't going to go from believing his family were killed by Sheila, to believing Jeremy guilty without proof and it's too much to consider that three other people would do the same - simply on the strengtho f a few comments that don't match.

On the one hand, David is saying they all colluded and that the statements are the same (even though they aren't) and as such, Bamber must be innocent and you're saying they're different ........ case of you can't win.

[scipio_usmc]

The family sowed the seeds of doubt.  The police then found themselves in a difficult position as they didn't call to SoC a pathologist, biologist and ballistics expert as per procedures.  Had these experts been called to SoC it's unlikely we would be discussing the case now.

I disagree. Jeremy supporters will raise anything and everything no matter how ridiculous to get this case on the radar screen.  It got so much coverage because of fanciful claims that turned out to be nonsense. Outrageous claims of proof that Nevill called police and police using the crime scene for training and that multiple moderators were seized and tested and doctored and made to appear only 1 was found and so forth are why we are discussing this case.

These claims got the attention of journalists and others. Upon scrutiny these claims all fell apart which is why the movement basically died but for a few diehards who look for additional things to try to use to fool people.

These diehards have twisted anything they can even typos and clerical errors.

The notion that police instantly know who commit most crimes and instantly know what happened is nonsense, that is on TV only.  It is not at all unusual for an investigation to take months or even years.  It is not unusual for someone who is initially suspected to be cleared or for evidence to point to someone not originally suspected.  It is not unusual for testing to take months- only in September did the lab test and prove the Anschutz was the murder weapon that fired all 25 shots. It is not unusual for police ot return to do more searches because they found additional things to search for.

Conspiracy theorists will take advantage of such things and try to twist them but it will only sway the ignorant and people who are biased.

Objective informed people want real proof not unsubstantial allegations or worse allegations that totally fall apart upon inspection.

If Jeremy supporters were honest who would care about this case?  The honest thing to say is as follows, "I believe Jeremy is innocent and was framed but have no evidence to prove it." How many people would give this case a second thought if someone said that?  So they lie their arses off with spectacular claims.  They have to hope people will not dig deeper and will just fall for their lies though because anyone who does did will find out they lied their arses off and then will be so perturbed they will walk away or worse they will go on a crusade against the lies/liars.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

A friend of mine was prosecuted for selling cannabis in the early 1990's, she and her boyfriend got community service and a small fine. Hardly something to confine an innocent man to prison for 30 years.

Think about what it would take to maintain this facade? Or are all these professional people stupid? Where do West and Bonnett come into it? The so called phone call from Nevill. Clearly, if nevill called they would know Bamber is innocent.

Julie knew Jeremy for 2 years, she isn't going to go from believing his family were killed by Sheila, to believing Jeremy guilty without proof and it's too much to consider that three other people would do the same - simply on the strengtho f a few comments that don't match.

On the one hand, David is saying they all colluded and that the statements are the same (even though they aren't) and as such, Bamber must be innocent and you're saying they're different ........ case of you can't win.

I don't believe any of the prosecution witnesses testified against JB on the basis they thought he was innocent.  I think EP did a sterling job in convincing them JB was in fact guilty.  The relatives didn't need any convincing and were able to influence the direction and outcome of the case as the SoC wasn't processed as it should have been on 7th August.

Who are all the professional people that need to be stupid?

I don't believe NB called EP.

I would hardly call the JB/JM relationship meaningful.  They both sounded pretty immature perhaps due to the fact they were only in their early 20's.  They didn't live together and what time they did spend together sounded like they were both spaced out on cannabis!  JB said the relationship had been cooling for the past 6 months.  They got together just before Christmas '83 and parted Aug '85 so a little over 18 months with the relationship cooling during the last 6 months. 

David has compared the WS's and other info from the relatives and JM.  I've compared the WS's from JM and SB.  They are completely different comparisons with different conclusions.

[Caroline]

I don't believe any of the prosecution witnesses testified against JB on the basis they thought he was innocent.  I think EP did a sterling job in convincing them JB was in fact guilty.  The relatives didn't need any convincing and were able to influence the direction and outcome of the case as the SoC wasn't processed as it should have been on 7th August.

Who are all the professional people that need to be stupid?

I don't believe NB called EP.

I would hardly call the JB/JM relationship meaningful.  They both sounded pretty immature perhaps due to the fact they were only in their early 20's.  They didn't live together and what time they did spend together sounded like they were both spaced out on cannabis!  JB said the relationship had been cooling for the past 6 months.  They got together just before Christmas '83 and parted Aug '85 so a little over 18 months with the relationship cooling during the last 6 months. 

David has compared the WS's and other info from the relatives and JM.  I've compared the WS's from JM and SB.  They are completely different comparisons with different conclusions.

So the police fabricated evidence and made up a scenario for Julie to follow and then convinced her friends to go along with it - all so they wouldn't be prosecuted for dealing weed?  None of them could have thought that highly of Jeremy if they were willing to take on board he was capable of such a crime and as I said before, if they didn't think him capable it is more likely that they had reasons to think so. Also if EP gave Julie a script - why bother including a hit man and why would they choose MM?

Who are the professionals? Everyone at the COA COLP, CCRC, doctors, lawyers and Indian Chiefs, who haven't managed to see through the grand conspiracy (I was going to include politicians - but thought better of it given that the word 'stupid' was involved).

I'm glad you haven't fallen for for the 'call from Nevill' nonsense.

Exactly, you both compared statements and David suggested that they all colluded to come up with a consistent scenario. You suggest that the opposite was true, at least where JM and SB are concerned. I don't think the police are so stupid and to make such a balls up of the statements, which could easily be ripped apart if collusion or consistent lies were present. We can scrutinise every sentence and find fault, but I think we have to consider what significance such similarities are differences make? I think there is something of the drama Queen about JM and that she is capable of exaggerating - that's different from lying.

[Holly Goodhead]

So the police fabricated evidence and made up a scenario for Julie to follow and then convinced her friends to go along with it - all so they wouldn't be prosecuted for dealing weed?  None of them could have thought that highly of Jeremy if they were willing to take on board he was capable of such a crime and as I said before, if they didn't think him capable it is more likely that they had reasons to think so. Also if EP gave Julie a script - why bother including a hit man and why would they choose MM?

Who are the professionals? Everyone at the COA COLP, CCRC, doctors, lawyers and Indian Chiefs, who haven't managed to see through the grand conspiracy (I was going to include politicians - but thought better of it given that the word 'stupid' was involved).

I'm glad you haven't fallen for for the 'call from Nevill' nonsense.

Exactly, you both compared statements and David suggested that they all colluded to come up with a consistent scenario. You suggest that the opposite was true, at least where JM and SB are concerned. I don't think the police are so stupid and to make such a balls up of the statements, which could easily be ripped apart if collusion or consistent lies were present. We can scrutinise every sentence and find fault, but I think we have to consider what significance such similarities are differences make? I think there is something of the drama Queen about JM and that she is capable of exaggerating - that's different from lying.

Well yes according to you.  You've consistently maintained the silencer evidence was fabricated.  I understand you believe EP/DS Jones were responsible.

[Caroline]

Well yes according to you.  You've consistently maintained the silencer evidence was fabricated.  I understand you believe EP/DS Jones were responsible.

We aren't talking about the silencer. If the silencer were fabricated, it didn't involve Julie or her friends which is what we're discussing here.

[Holly Goodhead]

We aren't talking about the silencer. If the silencer were fabricated, it didn't involve Julie or her friends which is what we're discussing here.

You referred to "fabricated evidence".  I don't think any 'supporters' have claimed JM/friends "fabricated evidence"? 

[Caroline]

You referred to "fabricated evidence".  I don't think any 'supporters' have claimed JM/friends "fabricated evidence"?

Evidence is in the form of their testimony, if they lied, they fabricated evidence.

http://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/court-procedure/witness-statements/

A witness statement is a formal document containing your own account of the facts relating to issues arising in a dispute. Comments made in the statement should be limited to fact, and comments based on opinion should be kept to a minimum.

The purpose of the witness statement is to provide written evidence to support a party's case that will, if necessary, be used as evidence in court. The statement is a crucial part of the case, designed to show it in its strongest light. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the statement is accurate and comprehensive.

[Holly Goodhead]

Evidence is in the form of their testimony, if they lied, they fabricated evidence.

http://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/court-procedure/witness-statements/

A witness statement is a formal document containing your own account of the facts relating to issues arising in a dispute. Comments made in the statement should be limited to fact, and comments based on opinion should be kept to a minimum.

The purpose of the witness statement is to provide written evidence to support a party's case that will, if necessary, be used as evidence in court. The statement is a crucial part of the case, designed to show it in its strongest light. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the statement is accurate and comprehensive.

Gottcha.  I refer to written or oral evidence from witnesses as witness testimony preceded by the word false or unreliable if applicable.  When you referred to "fabricated evidence" I thought you were referring to the silencer.  Well that's that sorted.

[Caroline]

Gottcha.  I refer to written or oral evidence from witnesses as witness testimony preceded by the word false or unreliable if applicable.  When you referred to "fabricated evidence" I thought you were referring to the silencer.  Well that's that sorted.

Not in this instance.

[david1819]

On the one hand, David is saying they all colluded and that the statements are the same (even though they aren't) and as such, Bamber must be innocent and you're saying they're different ........ case of you can't win.

I am not saying Jeremy must be innocent because of Julies evidence, I am saying that because the evidence surrounding Julie contains a considerable degree of connivance and inconsistencies it does not prove Jeremy is guilty and should not be used as evidence of such. Like it or not the evidence surrounding Julie favours the defence case because it can be linked directly to AE and not Jeremy 

Holly seems to be looking at the minor details like ones activities on certain days whereas my analysis was based on the crime scene. What Holly has noticed is significant because its the minor details that they wont bother to go over and correct.