Author Topic: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?  (Read 486623 times)

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline The General

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1020 on: April 23, 2020, 07:13:55 AM »

Perhaps you should tell that to yourself, General

After all, deluded people don’t realise they are...if you finally face up to it you can get help 😊
Well at least you've reluctantly come to your senses and admitted your delusion was unfounded.
Subject Matter Expert - Hobos.

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1021 on: April 23, 2020, 10:30:54 AM »
Some people are apparently fascinated by his behaviour and how he keeps appealing his 5 life sentences & full life term?

In Jan 2012 here https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killers-lose-european-court-whole-life-appeal-6290743.html it was reported Bamber said,

”Both the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice set my minimum tariff as 25 years.

"Quite why the Home Secretary felt that I should die in jail when the judges felt otherwise is a mystery.


It’s not really though is it

His psychopathy is the ‘mystery’ to which he refers and it’s why he’s never disclosed or publicised his per trial assessment report

« Last Edit: April 23, 2020, 10:35:11 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline APRIL

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1022 on: April 23, 2020, 11:16:21 AM »
In Jan 2012 here https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killers-lose-european-court-whole-life-appeal-6290743.html it was reported Bamber said,

”Both the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice set my minimum tariff as 25 years.

"Quite why the Home Secretary felt that I should die in jail when the judges felt otherwise is a mystery.


It’s not really though is it

His psychopathy is the ‘mystery’ to which he refers and it’s why he’s never disclosed or publicised his per trial assessment report


Whilst I'm certain that Jeremy clung to 25 years then freedom, the trial judge added the rider that it remained to be seen whether it it would ever be considered safe to release him, meaning 25 years was a minimum. I'm guessing that the Home Secretary considered it wasn't safe.

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1023 on: April 23, 2020, 11:43:55 AM »

Whilst I'm certain that Jeremy clung to 25 years then freedom, the trial judge added the rider that it remained to be seen whether it it would ever be considered safe to release him, meaning 25 years was a minimum. I'm guessing that the Home Secretary considered it wasn't safe.

And the Home Secretary would have access to ALL of Bamber’s reports - including the ones he doesn’t want his campaigners & supporters to see
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1024 on: April 23, 2020, 02:07:53 PM »

Can you provide evidence of what you are saying? You have no idea of the men and women who are friendly with Jeremy for various reasons. It is wrong of you to make assumptions and post as fact. One female who is extremely close to Jeremy is the film maker Emilia di Girolamo. She visits him regularly. She is neither old, frumpy or lacking a man in her life and is an intelligent professional lady. There are many others like her and also intelligent men who are his friends. None of us know for sure if Jeremy is a murderer because we weren’t there on the night. Only Jeremy knows the truth. I wonder whether the extreme hatred you spout out is because you have something lacking in YOUR life!  The truth will come out eventually when all undisclosed documents are released.

No one is immune from being abused by a psychopath like Bamber Daisy - including Emilia di Girolamo

She’s another individual who’s been conned and is being conned by him
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1025 on: April 23, 2020, 02:53:20 PM »
Hi Caroline  my post was a response to Ispy who said that all women who support Jeremy are desperate sad individuals. I was just demonstrating that this isn’t true. By the way Ispy obviously includes you as one of those people. How does that make you feel as you used to support Jeremy? I am still waiting for evidence to back up those sweeping statements. If we don’t stop wild assumptions being presented as facts then we lose track of the actual facts.

Sadly Daisy that’s how you were hooked in to begin with

And it’s never Bamber’s fault http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8541.0

Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1026 on: April 23, 2020, 03:56:02 PM »
In another case here https://www.thejusticegap.com/we-were-never-going-to-be-collateral-damage/

Mark Newby stated,

”Frankly, it was blindingly obvious that the allegations made against him were false back in 2012,’ 

‘That the Crown stuck doggedly to a case – there was not one but two attempts at a retrial – is not only a scandalous waste of money but, even more alarming, reveals a credulous approach to self-evidently flawed evidence. It always was a nothing case. What was the prosecution thinking?’


(In 2015 Jon Robins wrote his interpretation on Geoffrey Long’s case for the Daily Mail - don’t know if he was responsible for the header or not https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3298591/A-father-s-life-destroyed-child-sex-abuse-claims-daughter.html)

On the Bamber case,

Mark Newby said:

The evidence strongly suggests the chain of events could not have been what the prosecution alleged.”

“The phone call information is consistent with what Jeremy Bamber always said. It is part of a package of evidence that should lead to a positive review for Jeremy.

“It’s fair to say when we go back to the CCRC we will have a pretty strong package which we hope they will refer to the Court of Appeal. We hope we will get it across the line.

“If we do, it is probably this country’s greatest ever miscarriage of justice.”


“The afternoon gave a more critical perspective with solicitor Mark Newby urging the CCRC to undertake more proactive reviews, to challenge the Police and to search for evidence rather than to accept assurances that it had been lost or had never existed. This was important in historic sex abuse cases and Newby cited cases where it was established that defendants were innocent of allegations of child abuse, a subject that Conference Chair, David Rose described as being one of society’s few remaining taboos.

https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/righting-wrongs

Why did the CCRC’s John Curtis choose to omit naming the cases Mark Newby cited at the conference from his article?

Did he disagree with him perhaps?

Mark Newby
@MarkNewbyqsj
To be fair great support from CCRC today john Curtis and chairman richard foster - this time CCRC at it's very best
11:56 AM · Dec 13, 2013·Twitterrific for iOS


2 Retweets - 1 by Carolyn Hoyle - 1 by FACT.Uk.org

https://factuk.org/2013/03/12/solicitors-to-challenge-to-sex-offenders-registration-rules/

Newby’s concerns on reviews were echoed by Professor Carolyn Hoyle of Oxford University. Professor Hoyle is leading an externally funded research project covering the Commission’s investigative and decision-making processes. The CCRC has facilitated access to its archives and open interviews with personnel. Hoyle’s initial findings suggest some differences between the CCRC’s investigators. Some appear to be more prepared to go “beyond the bundle” than others, to ask questions, or to conduct crime scene visits, or to speak with those connected with the case be they experts, representatives or police officers.

John Curtis & Mark Newby attended a 2015 meeting held by United Against Injustice

Another speaker was Mick Geen

MICK GEEN will speak about his son Ben Geen a nurse, who was jailed for 30 years for murdering two patients and seriously harming 15 others yet new evidence suggests that no crime ever took place.
Mick will present an overview of the case , where they are with the CCRC and his insight into how evidence can be twisted and manipulated to make the glove fit.

https://www.unitedagainstinjustice.com/speakers-2015

The Court of Appeal judgement re Ben Geen can be found here https://bengeen.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/geen-judgment.pdf

Paras 3 & 4 are worth reading as is Lady Justice Hallett’s comments with regards Geens legal representation on page 32 (foot of judgement)
« Last Edit: April 23, 2020, 05:26:38 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1027 on: April 23, 2020, 04:06:55 PM »

What are you talking about? I know he is a man as I spoke to him. He and his friend Sarah Hanover used to run Jeremy’s campaign while running their own business.  If you want to know the ins and outs I am sure others on this forum can tell you more about them. I also used to contact them regularly when I was typing documents for Jeremy.

Who do you think was feeding these ‘salacious’ stories to the media Daisy ?

The ‘sample’ is a few minutes long - have a listen
‘The Murders at White House Farm’ is available on audiobook now https://www.storytel.com/in/en/books/1169910-The-Murders-at-White-House-Farm

Who do you think was the source(s) for these stories about SC ?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2020, 05:14:29 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1028 on: April 24, 2020, 10:01:36 AM »
The following was ‘Originally published in the Guardian on 29 October 1986

“Jeremy Bamber, the farmer's son who boasted that he could commit the perfect crime, was gaoled for 25 years yesterday after he was found guilty of murdering five members of his family.

Bamber, aged 25, shot and killed his adoptive parents, Neville and June Bamber, both aged 61, his sister, Sheila Caffell, aged 27, and her six-year-old twin boys, Daniel and Nicholas, at their farmhouse in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in August last year in the hope of becoming the sole beneficiary of the family's £436,000 estate.

Bamber staged the massacre in such a way as to raise suspicions that his 27-year-old mentally ill sister had carried out the killings and then turned the gun on herself.

However, after considering the evidence for 9 ½ hours, the jury of seven men and five women at Chelmsford crown court brought in 10-2 majority verdicts against him yesterday on all five counts of murder.

Bamber, who had denied the charges and who had remained impassive throughout the 18-day trial.

Sentencing him, Mr Justice Drake told Bamber that his conduct in planning and carrying out the killing of five members of his family was "evil almost beyond belief".

"It shows that you, young man though you are, have a warped, callous and evil mind concealed behind an outwardly presentable, civilised manner."

The judge said that Bamber's action in killing his mother, father and sister had been dreadful enough. But he went on: "You fired shot after shot into them and also into the two little boys aged six who you murdered in cold blood while they were asleep in their beds.

"I believe that you did so partly out of greed because, although you were a well-off young man for your age, you were impatient for more money.

"You wanted to be master of your own life and to enjoy an inheritance much of which would have come to you anyway in the fullness of time."

In recommending that Bamber serve a minimum of 25 years in prison, Mr Justice Drake said he had to consider when it would be safe to release into society a person who had planned and killed five members of his family.

The police initially believed that Sheila Caffell had indeed carried out the killings and then committed suicide. Before carrying out the murders, Bamber told his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, that he had devised "the perfect murder" in which his sister would be the scapegoat.

A month after the killings, Miss Mugford went to the police and told them that Bamber had confessed to her he was responsible.
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/oct/29/archive-essex-family-murders-trial-1986
« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 10:18:06 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1029 on: April 24, 2020, 10:17:34 AM »
The following is from the Essex Chronicle & says it’s by a person called Hope Woolston who’s referred to as a ‘Multimedia Reporter’

The byline reads -We have taken a look in our archives from 1985’

This is apparently Hope Woolstons interpretation - although the byline is misleading as it states ‘we’ therefore she could have put the article together with others and they’ve not been mentioned or it could mean something else - or it could have been all put together by Hope Woolston & the ‘we’ could simply mean her & the Essex Chronicle?



“Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm murders have been launched back into the public eye with ITV's new drama.

But, at the time, the case was all over the news.

The drama focuses on the case of Jeremy Bamber - the adopted son who brutally murdered his father and mother Nevill and June, their adopted daughter Sheila and her twin boys, Daniel and Nicholas.

They were all shot dead at the Bamber farmhouse in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, near Maldon, in August 1985.

We have searched through our archives and collected all of the Essex Chronicle's coverage at the time, revealing how the story unfolded to the eyes of the public.

The bold headline emblazoned the newspaper after the horrific incident was first discovered.

Sheila 'Bambi' Caffell, from around the time of her modelling days, was pictured as a happy 19-year-old.

The front page was published on August 9, 1985, just two days after the bodies were found.

At this point, everyone believed that Sheila had committed a murder-suicide, and there was no suggestion that Jeremy Bamber was actually the killer.

The headline for the story, which shook the small Essex town read "FARMHOUSE OF DEATH", expressing how horrific the murders were.

Sheila's mental health is discussed, and her recent "nervous breakdown" is what the article suggests made her do it.

The only mention of Jeremy Bamber is that he had received a phone call from his father on the night of the killings.

It describes how Nevill "phoned his son for help" but that it "failed to save their lives".

Another article tells of the shock that the local community felt.

There is a lot of tributes to Nevill and June from neighbours, local shop owners and even the vicar of the local church.

Reverent Bernard Robson, from St Nicholas church where June was churchwarden, described seeing them just a few days before their tragic deaths.

He said: "I saw Nevill early on Sunday morning at around 8am and there was no inkling that any trouble was brewing."

He said that the couple were "pillars of the church and community" and that Nevill was a "gentleman who did a lot for the village."

Bill Cooper lived close to the Bambers and described them as "very, very nice people."

He told the Essex Chronicle at the time: "They were both kind and considerate. Everyone had a good word for them.

"Whenever Mrs Bamber heard that anyone in the village was sick, she was always straight round to see them. She encouraged and helped everybody."

The week after the White House Farm murders, The Essex Chronicle reported on the inquest openings of the Bamber family.

At the hearing, it was revealed that all of the victims had died from gunshot wounds,

Detective Inspector Bob Miller told the coroner that the fatal wounds on Nevill, June, Daniel and Nicholas had all been inflicted by someone else.

However, he said that the wounds on Sheila suggested that she "apparently" killed herself.

Miller also described where each victim was found during the police raid.

Nevill was found in the kitchen on a chair near the phone, while June was upstairs on the floor of her bedroom.

Sheila was also found in her parents bedroom, close to June.

Daniel and Nicholas were found in their own beds in a different room.

He told the court that a police surgeon, who was called to the farmhouse, said that all of the victims had been dead for "some time" before police found them

Miller said: "Death had been instantaneous, particularly in the case of the two boys who were still lying in a sleeping position."

The Bamber family's funeral was reported in the Essex Chronicle on August 23, 1985.

It was largely focused on Jeremy, portrayed as the grieving son, brother and uncle who had lost all of his immediate family in the shootings.

A picture of Jeremy being comforted by his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, dominates the story.

He is seen with a "grief-stricken" face and described as having "all but collapsed" at the sight of the coffins being carried ahead of him.

There was no suspicion at the time that Jeremy was the real killer, and the Essex Chronicle described how he had to "begin to pick up the pieces of his own shattered life."

Hundreds of mourners attended the service at St Nicholas parish church in Tolleshunt D'Arcy.

The church with a capacity of 180 was packed full with 230 people, standing wherever they could.

Outside the church there was around another 100 people there to show their respects.

Only the coffins of the adults were taken to the church, as the twins had already been buried in London.

Following the public service, they were cremated in a private service in Colchester.

During the service, Reverend Robson spoke a lot about Nevill and June, but only briefly about Sheila.

Afterwards he admitted he didn't know Sheila well enough, he said: "I'm afraid I just did not know her at all and so it was impossible to have given a personal account.

The article mentions two wreaths that were laid by Colin Caffell, Sheila's ex-husband and the father of her two boys.

He laid them both for Sheila, one from Colin which had a card that read: "Dear Sheila. I'll be thinking of you together with our sons forever. Love, Colin."

The other was on behalf of the boys, it said: "We'll be together again soon, Mummy, D and N."

It wasn't until more than a month after the murders that police started to expect someone else was involved.

Before then, the case had been closed in the eyes of the public, with the deaths put down to a murder-suicide carried out by Sheila.

Then Essex Chronicle reported on September 13, 1985, that police had started new enquiries.

National papers at the time speculated that the family could have been killed by a hit man hired by drug traffickers, but the police would not comment.

Mr Simpson, a senior officer from Essex Police said at an inquest: "Our enquiries have continued since the night of the incident.

"The reason we are unable to confirm or deny press speculation such as this is by and large governed by the rules of sub judice and because the inquiries we are making are yet to be finalised and confirmed."

The paper reported that a special task force from Essex Police had been sent to the village and Goldhanger - Jeremy Bamber's house.

They said that they were there to carry out house to house inquiries.

The morning of the publication, Bamber was due in court accused of breaking into a caravan site office and stealing £980.

On September 20, 1985, The Essex Chronicle published a story about claims that the investigation by Essex Police hadn't been done properly.

It featured an interview with Assistant Chief Constable, Peter Simpson, who said he was "perfectly satisfied with the ongoing investigation".

He was answering claims by 'Fleet Street papers' that procedures hadn't been followed and that mistakes had been made.

They wanted to know why police had burned blood stained furniture, if they ignored a blood stained silencer, as well as why the bodies were allowed to be cremated.

When asked about two torches that were found in a hedge near to the house, he said that they believed they had been left by poachers, and were not anything to do with the deaths.

When questioned about the silencer, Simpson said: "At an early stage of the investigation a silencer was taken away from White House Farm for forensic examination.

"The police do not find it unusual to have found a silencer in this house, but until results of the scientific tests are to hand, it will not be possible to confirm whether or not it was used in connection with the deaths."

Responding to the fact that police burned furniture, Simpson said "if anything was destroyed from the farmhouse it was with the knowledge or consent of the investigating officers and we have retained all items or samples that had forensic value."

He revealed that police had begun house to house inquiries and the big question they were asking was "Who did you see around the farmhouse on August 6 and 7?"

Jeremy Bamber wasn't charged with murder until the end of September 1985.

The Essex Chronicle reported on his first appearance at magistrates court, where he smiled at press cameras.

At the short hearing, Bamber's solicitor said his client was "completely innocent".

Mr Bruce Bowler, issuing a statement outside court, said: "In view of the wild speculation which has surrounded this case, my client wishes it to be known that he is completely innocent on all five charges of murder now made against him."

After the 18 minute hearing, Bamber was told the case would be sent to Chelmsford Crown Court, but a date was not set.

He was remanded in custody and as he left court he smiled at the waiting film crews and photographers.

More than a year after his first court appearance, Bamber was found guilty of the White House Farm Murders.

On October 31, 1986, the Essex Chronicle reported on Bamber's trial, conviction and sentencing.

The judge, Mr Justice Drake described Bamber as being "evil almost beyond belief" as he sentenced him to 25 years.

Bamber continued to deny that he was guilty of killing his parents, sister and nephews.

A jury found him guilty of the murders with a majority of 10 to two after nine and a half hours of deliberations.

The Essex Chronicle reported how over the 19 day trial, people queued to try and get a seat in the public gallery, which held 30.

It describes Bamber as having "swallowed several times" when the guilty verdicts were given, even though he had shown very little emotion throughout the trail.

Bamber's family were to thank for a lot of the evidence that lead to his coviction.

They were convinced that Sheila had not killed the family, and Julie Mugford, Jeremy's ex-girlfriend, told police that he had told her about his murder plan.

Passing his sentence, Mr Justice Drake said: "You killed your mother, you killed your father, you killed your sister - alone each would have been a dreadful crime.

"But you killed all of them and you fired shot after into two little boys.

"You murdered them in cold blood while they were asleep in their beds.

"I believe you did so partly out of greed.

"Although you were a well-off young man for your age, you were impatient for more money and possessions.

"I believe you also killed out of an arrogance on your character which made you resent any form of parental restriction or criticism of your behaviour.

"I believe you wanted at once to be master completely of your own lif and to enjoy the inheritance, much of which would have come to you in any event in the fullness of time."

The judge gave Bamber five life sentences and said he found it difficult to "foresee whether it will ever be safe to release into the community someone who can shoot and kill five members of his own family, including two little boys asleep in their beds."

Just below the back page of the sentencing story, was another article all about the police investigation.

It describes how Bamber set the scene of the murders to look like Sheila had killed her family and then herself.

At the trial, the judge criticised the police's lack of care when searching the farmhouse, and accused them of jumping to conclusions.

https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/real-story-jeremy-bamber-white-3739641
« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 10:36:10 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1030 on: April 24, 2020, 10:59:27 AM »
Here  https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/white-house-farm-murder-statements-21483584

Emma Parker for the Daily Star refers to Bamber as ‘Jeffrey’ with the same spelling as given to ‘Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer’



“The official coroner’s report of the 1985 White House Farm murders suggest Sheila Caffell’s wound “appeared to have been made by her own hand,” inconceivably proving Jeremy Bamber’s innocence, his lawyers have claimed.

Bamber is currently serving a whole life sentence for killing his entire adoptive family in a bloody murder that was originally treated as a murder-suicide.

His sister Sheila Caffell, who died alongside her twin sons, was initially the prime suspect, but police then turned their attention to Bamber after stating she could not have taken her own life because she had two bullet wounds to the neck.

However, statements made by two Essex Police Officers, DS Jones and DI Miller, suggest Caffell only had one gunshot wound.

The findings are backed up by PC Wright, the coroner's officer who provided information for the official coroner's report, who said the appearance of the would "suggested in the case of Sheila Caffell, the wound had been inflicted by her own hand".

Lawyers for Bamber found the evidence in archives of statements made by senior officers and the police surgeon at the time of the murders.

The statements show that before Essex Police began taking crime scene photographs, cops made witness statements suggesting Caffell had only one gunshot wound.

At 8.13am Chief Superintendent Harris and Chief Inspector Gibbons saw Caffell's body in the main room.

Harris stated: "A .22 rifle was lying along Mrs Caffell’s body, the barrel of which was resting just below an entry wound beneath her chin.” Gibbons said he saw “a younger female with a wound to her throat”.

At 8.25am police surgeon Dr Ian Craig entered the house and recorded in a witness statement that "there was what appeared to be an entry wound in the throat".

He confirmed this in 1986 during the Dickinson inquiry into Essex police’s handling of the case, Craig said: “I only saw one gunshot wound at that stage.”

Further statements show DS Jones and DI Miller entered White House Farm together at 9.15am, and recorded in a report dated 15 August: "The wound appeared to have been made by her own hand."

PC Wright , the coroner’s officer who provided information for the official coroner’s report dated 9 August, stated: “The appearance suggested in the case of Sheila Caffell the wound had been inflicted by her own hand".

Controversially, it has been recorded scene crime officers were unable to gain access to the house 45 minutes.

The examination is believed to of began at approximately 10am and the Essex police photographer did not start capturing the scene until 10.20am on August 7.

Pictures taken by the photographer show Caffell had sustained two gunshot wounds, which Bamber’s lawyers do not dispute, but suggest the case is prejudiced as the prosecution did not make the jury aware of the statements.

One theory the Jeffrey Bamber campaign has is that a gun went off accidentally as numerous police officers entered the farmhouse.

Mark Newby, a solicitor advocate at Quality Solicitors Jordans, told the Guardian: “The jury only heard of the two shots, which was relied upon by the crown to support their case, but this wasn’t the whole picture. It represents yet another significant aspect to this case which supports Jeremy Bamber and undermines this conviction.”

Daily Star Online has reached out to Essex Police for comment.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 11:03:00 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1031 on: April 24, 2020, 11:29:55 AM »

No-one saw Sheila at the window, though — and no-one heard a gunshot, which they wold have done.

Hadd Sheila gone berserk, as Jeremy falsely claimed, Sheila would have probably shot herself for them all to see. Why would she care if she’d gone crazy?

But the REAL TRUTH is, there was no-one at the window.

The police said it was a trick of the light, and they even “made” the same shadowy illusion by tilting their heads as they looked at he window afterwards.

This nonsense has been repeated continuously for 30 years now! The police have STATED that they saw NO person at the window. Why keep repeating the same thing, again and again and again, when everyone knows Sheila was already dead?



I genuinely beg to differ!

If there was a cover up, which I believe, emphatically, these are concerns that the police would address.

It's all heresay. There is no evidence whatsoever and therefore is 'not beyond reasonable doubt!'


Aunt Agatha why didn’t Bamber ever tell Brett Collins what he’s told you and others?



”But Brett today demolishes the idea that Bamber can prove he has an alibi which means he could not have been responsible for the massacre.

He insisted:

“He didn’t ever bring up someone being inside or being seen at the window when the police were there with him to me. It’s just bulls**t
.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bambers-best-pal-believed-21459285

« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 11:48:20 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1032 on: April 24, 2020, 12:33:17 PM »
Who did Bamber introduce Aunt Agatha to, Robert Maudsley?

Robert Maudsley, known as ‘Hannibal the Cannibal’ or the ‘Brain Eater’ https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1234599/white-house-farm-murders-jeremy-bamber-prison-itv-drama-true-crime-spt

What prison did she visit him in?

Was Bamber ‘friendly’ with David Harker, Ian Huntley, Sidney Cooke?

Harker killed and dismembered mother-of-four Julie Paterson, and admitted eating parts of her flesh with pasta. In 1999 he was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years in prison after admitting manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Alan Taylor, the partner of Harker’s victim later committed murder saying he wanted to be jailed at Wakefield so he could attack Harker.

Nicknamed Hissing Sid, Cooke is a notorious paedophile who is serving two life sentences for a campaign of sexual abuse against two young boys. He’d previously been jailed for the manslaughter of 14-year-old Jason Swift. It’s been reported that in Wakefield prison he’s befriended a fellow inmate known as Britain’s Joseph Fritzl.

https://www.lifedeathprizes.com/real-life-crime/monster-mansion-hm-prison-wakefield-uks-notorious-jail-64494


Worth a listen

‘Damien Echols Chilld Killers Say the Darndest Things!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYOie0tbCVI&feature=youtu.be

Echols is also an activist working on behalf of others wrongly convicted. In 2016, he became involved in the case of Steven Avery, subject of the popular Netflix documentary series, Making a Murderer. Avery is currently serving a life sentence in the murder of 25-year-old Manitowoc County, Wisconsin resident Teresa Halbach. Like the West Memphis Three, Avery has a large group of supporters who believe he is innocent.

“But even today, the wider public remains divided on the case. Many believe the men were innocent, while many others remain skeptical. There are claims that the many documentaries cherry-picked information, leaving out the most damning.
Complicating the story, the men used an unusual legal strategy to escape prison called the Alford plea. In an Alford plea, the defendant asserts he is innocent, but admits the state has enough evidence to convict him. So while they are free, the West Memphis Three are still legally guilty.
So now for the burning question: where are the West Memphis Three now?

https://the-line-up.com/west-memphis-three-where-are-they-now
« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 12:40:42 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Common sense

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1033 on: April 25, 2020, 01:52:30 AM »
SL also muddies the water enormously in his book by going along with the defence strategy at trial which was to suggest SC used the silencer to murder the her parents and children and then returned it to the gun cupboard before shooting herself.  This scenario is based on the blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer originating from an intimate mix of June and NB's blood which is so far fetched its the stuff of lala land.

I belive JB has a poor understanding of his case because he's innocent and probably didn't take it seriously pre trial naively believing he would be found not guilty because he didn't commit what he was found guilty of.  Post trial he lacks the resources to manage his case properly eg no access to forensic textbooks, electronic data management systems and the Internet.  Psychologically its inevitable his long incarceration and fighting a 35 year battle he still hasn't won will have taken an enormous toll. He's also had all manner of people dipping in and out of his case including  cranks and bogus lawyers.

Hi Holly,

I generally hold Scott Lomax in low regard but he does get the silencer evidence right. JB had two excellent, experienced QCs and Roger Wilkes wrote of how they steered him away from conspiracy theories for a very good reason. ( I believe JBs "it's dangerous to speculate" comment with regards to RBs motives was a phrase they drummed into him)

The blood flake wasn't supposedly found, it was found and grouped to match Sheila's blood type.The remote possibility of an intimate mix was just that, remote, but Bamber had hobsons choice to take it or else allege a dastardly fabrication which would have made him appear more than desperate. Arlidge would have made mincemeat of him.

How could he have been so sure the silencer was not on the gun that night if he wasn't there? How could he know that SC hadn't found the moderator and attached it before returning it to the cupboard? How could he be sure of this when the evidence of the forensic experts had identified human blood inside of it, mimicking back spatter? The cross examination would have been devastating.

He simply could not dispute the expert evidence then or now, and as I believe you have posted before, the moderator remains the single most damaging piece of evidence to his claims of innocence IMO.

Offline Common sense

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1034 on: April 25, 2020, 02:22:49 AM »

Aunt Agatha why didn’t Bamber ever tell Brett Collins what he’s told you and others?



”But Brett today demolishes the idea that Bamber can prove he has an alibi which means he could not have been responsible for the massacre.

He insisted:

“He didn’t ever bring up someone being inside or being seen at the window when the police were there with him to me. It’s just bulls**t
.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bambers-best-pal-believed-21459285

He didn't bring it up in any of his witness statements either, nor did he mention it when he was arrested - "You can't be serious, all three of us saw someone moving in the house, that's why we ran away"

He only mentioned it at the trial when he became desperate. It was either Rivlin or Lawson that suggested the phrase "a trick of the light" to PC Bews in cross exam. JB is still furious about it.

The CT and supporters still claim that they all saw "a figure" but all PC Myall saw was possible "movement" out the corner of his eye which they quickly dismissed.

The question I really want answering is this; Do the CT really believe the guff they post or are they deliberately committing innocence fraud?