Author Topic: If...someone has new evidence...  (Read 3619 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2017, 03:56:29 PM »
In the case of Charlie Gard a further court hearing is currently underway.  In the absence of social media this would not have happened.  It might not deliver the result Charlie's parents are looking for nevertheless it's evidence of the power garnered by social media: expert opinion from across the globe and high profile figures getting involved putting pressure on the powers that be.   

Personally I think anyone who has strong new evidence re JB's case would be best getting the info out into the public domain.  It could hardly be held against JB/his lawyers if a lay person goes off and does his/her own thing with any new evidence. 

David1819 said he was advised by AH to keep mum as it would give the prosecution more time to prepare.  Well I disagree entirely.  If the evidence is strong time will not assist the prosecution.

It seems clear to me that in the US JB's case is viewed very differently eg US posters on IA forum and also the various radio discussions hosted in US. I think the reason for this is the fact that firearms are a feature of everyday life for many US citizens unlike here in the UK.  Scipio is obviously the exception!   

I maintain expert opinion at trial and court hearings since was very poor with regard to ballistics, blood stain analysis and pathology of gunshot wounds.  These are all aspects of forensic science the US excels in due to widespread ownership of firearms and correspondingly high incidents of gun crime.       

I am acquainted with a member of Judges for Justice from the US so maybe they could assist with any new evidence.  Judges for Justice assisted in the case of Amanda Knox. 

http://www.judgesforjustice.org/index.htm
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline Samson

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2017, 05:29:05 PM »
In the case of Charlie Gard a further court hearing is currently underway.  In the absence of social media this would not have happened.  It might not deliver the result Charlie's parents are looking for nevertheless it's evidence of the power garnered by social media: expert opinion from across the globe and high profile figures getting involved putting pressure on the powers that be.   

Personally I think anyone who has strong new evidence re JB's case would be best getting the info out into the public domain.  It could hardly be held against JB/his lawyers if a lay person goes off and does his/her own thing with any new evidence. 

David1819 said he was advised by AH to keep mum as it would give the prosecution more time to prepare.  Well I disagree entirely.  If the evidence is strong time will not assist the prosecution.

It seems clear to me that in the US JB's case is viewed very differently eg US posters on IA forum and also the various radio discussions hosted in US. I think the reason for this is the fact that firearms are a feature of everyday life for many US citizens unlike here in the UK.  Scipio is obviously the exception!   

I maintain expert opinion at trial and court hearings since was very poor with regard to ballistics, blood stain analysis and pathology of gunshot wounds.  These are all aspects of forensic science the US excels in due to widespread ownership of firearms and correspondingly high incidents of gun crime.       

I am acquainted with a member of Judges for Justice from the US so maybe they could assist with any new evidence.  Judges for Justice assisted in the case of Amanda Knox. 

http://www.judgesforjustice.org/index.htm
The website has not been updated. Chris Tapp is now out of jail after a lot of hard work by judge Heavey

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=223&t=2887

This is the way forward in many cases, powerful activism and advocacy.
Charlie Wilkes, a member here was involved.
Charlie of course understands Bamber is innocent.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2017, 06:19:31 PM »
The website has not been updated. Chris Tapp is now out of jail after a lot of hard work by judge Heavey

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=223&t=2887

This is the way forward in many cases, powerful activism and advocacy.
Charlie Wilkes, a member here was involved.
Charlie of course understands Bamber is innocent.

Well done to judge Heavey.  (And well done to Johanna Konta and Andy Murray for getting through to 1/4 finals at Wimbledon).

Yep I agree and we live in very different times with social media and www.

I think I am right in saying 'Judges for Justice' so far has only pursued domestic cases so it remains to be seen whether they're up for global reach  ?>)()< 

JB's case certainly has the potential for global media coverage with the right sort of evidence.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2017, 04:35:43 PM »
Let's be honest. In cases like this 99.999% of what people claim is new evidence is simply a different interpretation of existing evidence than the lawyers interpreted it years prior.

An example of this is the recent article about how the campaign team found proof a 999 call was made from WHF around 6am.

In fact the document is discussing how police were monitoring the WHF phone line at 6am.  It doesn't state a phone call was made to 999 at 6am. We know that in fact they had broken into the line earlier than this and were listening even earlier so it was not even possible for t he phone to make a call.  An attempt to use the phone would have resulted in getting the cop who was monitoring the line at that particular moment.   

Reinterpretations consist of wild speculation and in cases like the above even outright deception because the campaign team well knows the phone could not be used to dial out.  They knew the line was broken into and a direct connection made between WHF and the control room and being monitored.

This is exactly the same as when they misrepresented that someone in the house was communicating with police based on writing that the police were issuing challenges to the house and communicating with those inside the house. It never stated anywhere that anyone in the house responded. Police didn't know they were speaking to dead people until they entered and found them dead.

The only actual way knew evidence can be found in a case like this is if someone who was a participant comes forward with a new story and the story is able to be established as credible as opposed to memory issues because of the passage of time. People forget a lot of things over time. Dreams of finding documents stating police did something wrong is fantasy.  Even if they had done something wrong they would not be stupid enough tot document it and Avery's lawyers would have found such years ago had police been stupid enough to document  it.

 
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

david1819

  • Guest
Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2017, 11:24:10 AM »
Let's be honest. In cases like this 99.999% of what people claim is new evidence is simply a different interpretation of existing evidence than the lawyers interpreted it years prior.

An example of this is the recent article about how the campaign team found proof a 999 call was made from WHF around 6am.

In fact the document is discussing how police were monitoring the WHF phone line at 6am.  It doesn't state a phone call was made to 999 at 6am. We know that in fact they had broken into the line earlier than this and were listening even earlier so it was not even possible for t he phone to make a call.  An attempt to use the phone would have resulted in getting the cop who was monitoring the line at that particular moment.   

Reinterpretations consist of wild speculation and in cases like the above even outright deception because the campaign team well knows the phone could not be used to dial out.  They knew the line was broken into and a direct connection made between WHF and the control room and being monitored.


Good to see you Scip!

Reinterpretation? more like idiocy.

The BT operator/s were listening in and reporting back to the police. Then later the police wanted it directed to them so they could listen themselves. This alleged call from Sheila at 6.09 is actually the operator putting the WHF phone through to the police HQ.





[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline John

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2017, 01:02:19 PM »
I don't think JB's case is capable of delivering irrefutable evidence of innocence.  It might be possible to produce evidence that undermines the prosecution case against JB to the extent that his conviction is quashed.

The 'unsafe conviction' term being what is usually rolled out but I can't see it in this case, there's just too much damning evidence against Jeremy Bamber from so many quarters.

Scipio makes a good point above, this so-called 'new evidence' is nothing more than someone's extremely biased interpretation of existing evidence 32 years after the event.  In reality the case comes down to two very simple points.

1. There are only two suspects, Jeremy Bamber and Sheila Caffell.
2. The forensics rules Sheila Caffell out.

Mike Teskowski has spent years trying to find that elusive single piece of evidence which would shatter the conviction but all he has ever come up with are theories and false dawns.  If he truly believes that Bamber is innocent then he too like many others over the years has been hoodwinked.

We were contacted by a lawyer recently who once acted for Bamber and he made it very clear that he no longer wanted to be associated with him publicly.  Now what does that tell you?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 02:03:04 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Samson

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2017, 09:00:15 PM »
The 'unsafe conviction' term being what is usually rolled out but I can't see it in this case, there's just too much damning evidence against Jeremy Bamber from so many quarters.

Scipio makes a good point above, this so-called 'new evidence' is nothing more than someone's extremely biased interpretation of existing evidence 32 years after the event.  In reality the case comes down to two very simple points.

1. There are only two suspects, Jeremy Bamber and Sheila Caffell.
2. The forensics rules Sheila Caffell out.

Mike Teskowski has spent years trying to find that elusive single piece of evidence which would shatter the conviction but all he has ever come up with are theories and false dawns.  If he truly believes that Bamber is innocent then he too like many others over the years has been hoodwinked.

We were contacted by a lawyer recently who once acted for Bamber and he made it very clear that he no longer wanted to be associated with him publicly.  Now what does that tell you?
Zilch. Michael Guest similarly abandoned David Bain and Judith Collins used this against him in de nying compensation. She is a lawyer too.
I have learned that layers do not understand science. We are dealing with it continually in Lundy, it is a source of major frustration and perpetuation of misinformation.
Forensics actually rule out Jeremy Bamber, not Sheila.

Offline puglove

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2017, 10:31:16 PM »
The 'unsafe conviction' term being what is usually rolled out but I can't see it in this case, there's just too much damning evidence against Jeremy Bamber from so many quarters.

Scipio makes a good point above, this so-called 'new evidence' is nothing more than someone's extremely biased interpretation of existing evidence 32 years after the event.  In reality the case comes down to two very simple points.

1. There are only two suspects, Jeremy Bamber and Sheila Caffell.
2. The forensics rules Sheila Caffell out.

Mike Teskowski has spent years trying to find that elusive single piece of evidence which would shatter the conviction but all he has ever come up with are theories and false dawns.  If he truly believes that Bamber is innocent then he too like many others over the years has been hoodwinked.

We were contacted by a lawyer recently who once acted for Bamber and he made it very clear that he no longer wanted to be associated with him publicly.  Now what does that tell you?

Bimey, Nelly's got himself a little secret now (squeal!!) It must be a VERY exciting one to turn him into such a Chatty Cathy!

One can only hope that it will prove more fruitful than Roch's disappointing dangler which was, quite frankly, a....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6jAdv14W-M


Wirral Globe Stop Press - Nonagenarian makes crumble, then eats it. Wallasey celebrates.

Offline puglove

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2017, 11:57:54 PM »
Good to see you Scip!

Reinterpretation? more like idiocy.

The BT operator/s were listening in and reporting back to the police. Then later the police wanted it directed to them so they could listen themselves. This alleged call from Sheila at 6.09 is actually the operator putting the WHF phone through to the police HQ.



I will never understand the blue forum. (Especially as the nug nug and susan "jokes" have worn mighty thin.) Grasping at ridiculous straws like this is bad enough, but when the resident "highly qualified barista" (Nelly) decides to haunt Julie, he's just blaming her for covering for Bamber.

As my old man would say, you can't have the penny and the bun. Or, in Nelly's case, the gold sovereign and the chocolate brioche. If Julie sold her story, it's because she had a story to sell.
Wirral Globe Stop Press - Nonagenarian makes crumble, then eats it. Wallasey celebrates.

Offline John

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2017, 02:02:53 AM »
Zilch. Michael Guest similarly abandoned David Bain and Judith Collins used this against him in de nying compensation. She is a lawyer too.
I have learned that layers do not understand science. We are dealing with it continually in Lundy, it is a source of major frustration and perpetuation of misinformation.
Forensics actually rule out Jeremy Bamber, not Sheila.

How exactly?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 02:58:47 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline adam

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2017, 08:36:30 AM »
Bimey, Nelly's got himself a little secret now (squeal!!) It must be a VERY exciting one to turn him into such a Chatty Cathy!

One can only hope that it will prove more fruitful than Roch's disappointing dangler which was, quite frankly, a....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6jAdv14W-M

The 360 is reviewing 'all evidence'. Which will take years to do. So more money donation requests will be made.

In the meantime there is no harm in other supporters trying different things. Mike is going to put up more Youtube videos & JackieD has new secret evidence & wants to make a 6 part documentary.

Bill & Roch have managed to find new evidence. Roch can't reveal his. Bill can say it's 28 scratches underneath Sheila's nightdress but can't post the photos. The scratches apparently inflicted by June.

Nugs is keeping things ticking over by covering all angles. Recently asking if someone hid in the loft on the massacre night & why Bamber said 'tonights the night' after the massacre.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 08:41:26 AM by adam »

Offline puglove

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2017, 12:13:27 PM »
The 360 is reviewing 'all evidence'. Which will take years to do. So more money donation requests will be made.

In the meantime there is no harm in other supporters trying different things. Mike is going to put up more Youtube videos & JackieD has new secret evidence & wants to make a 6 part documentary.

Bill & Roch have managed to find new evidence. Roch can't reveal his. Bill can say it's 28 scratches underneath Sheila's nightdress but can't post the photos. The scratches apparently inflicted by June.

Nugs is keeping things ticking over by covering all angles. Recently asking if someone hid in the loft on the massacre night & why Bamber said 'tonights the night' after the massacre.

Thanks for bringing me up to speed, Ads.         8((()*/

I bet those 360 donations will be rolling in thick and fast!! 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKMJDP-G4gU










Wirral Globe Stop Press - Nonagenarian makes crumble, then eats it. Wallasey celebrates.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2017, 03:03:56 PM »
I will never understand the blue forum. (Especially as the nug nug and susan "jokes" have worn mighty thin.) Grasping at ridiculous straws like this is bad enough, but when the resident "highly qualified barista" (Nelly) decides to haunt Julie, he's just blaming her for covering for Bamber.

As my old man would say, you can't have the penny and the bun. Or, in Nelly's case, the gold sovereign and the chocolate brioche. If Julie sold her story, it's because she had a story to sell.

I don't really get the JM bashing even though I think she was a totally unreliable prosecution witness.  Unlikely her evidence had much impact on jurors.  It seems it was the blood/silencer that sent JB down.   

JM had literally just turned 21 yoa when she was interviewed by the police and subsequently holed up at the police training college, refused contact with the outside world including her mother and without legal representation. 

Many of the high profile MoJ's from the 70's and 80's involve forced confessions or the like.  Mature men cracked under the strain so why would anyone expect a young woman such as JM to stand up to the police using brutal tactics, if indeed this is what happened. 

Btw is the infamous image in the NoW article, post trial, definitely JM?  If it is she looks different?  And if it is her was it taken for the article or was it an old photo the NoW managed to drag up from somewhere to make the article more salacious?  I think the headline was something like I tamed Bamber the beast!   
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 03:08:28 PM by Holly Goodhead »
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline John

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2017, 03:10:53 PM »
Had Jeremy Bamber actually received a frantic telephone call from his father after 3am on the night in question he would have reacted instantly and not tried to phone his girlfriend who was asleep and miles away in London for a chat.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: If...someone has new evidence...
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2017, 04:31:33 PM »
Had Jeremy Bamber actually received a frantic telephone call from his father after 3am on the night in question he would have reacted instantly and not tried to phone his girlfriend who was asleep and miles away in London for a chat.

I really don't get the fixation with the phone call.  If NB made a call "Shelias gone crazy she has got a gun" to my mind I would be thinking...and...as in what do you want me to do?  JB claims he attempted further contact to establish what was required and when he was unable to do this he called JM to sound her out.  All sounds normal stuff to me.  JB may or may not have received a call.  In the absence of digital/satellite technology unfortunately it will always remain an unknown.   

I can think of numerous soft facts as to why NB would call JB:

- Needed a hand and thought JB could assist and all would be resolved eg SC may have locked herself in toilet/bathroom with rifle.  In this case NB may have thought he could knock door down and recover rifle but wanted another adult around if anything went wrong.  Why not June?  Well it seems her presence had a detrimental effect on SC and NB may well have been old school thinking climbing through windows and knocking down doors wasn't for females. 
- Uncomfortable discussing SC's mental illness with others outside immediate family
- Firearms not stored as they should be (and NB was a magistrate)
- NB had a low regard for local police (as per RWB's wit stat)
- Opium poppies growing at WHF which may or may not be relevant (as per wit stats of Dr Craig and Chief Sup Harris)
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.