Author Topic: Introduction and new podcast  (Read 553 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2021, 05:05:39 PM »
Yup he is. He worked on a huge case in the US. It'll be a while before that one goes out yet. But I also have a blood expert who's going to chat with me about general blood forensics.

One is looking at blood patterns and case-specific (case-specific) and the other is more general.

Was the case a celebrity?  8(0(*

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2021, 05:32:10 PM »
It's taken me over a year to finalise everything because I wanted it to be thorough and during the process I've interviewed a number of people. These have included Brett Collins, Chris Bews, Terry Mullins, Andy from Gunfire Grafiti, the campaign team, and other leading experts.

I really want to ensure that long-standing followers of the case are also including and so at some point, I will be hoping to offer some more involvement on that front.

I’ve noticed on your webpage in answer to the question, ‘Why did you start this podcast?’

You’ve written,

I’ve always been interested in true crime but in particular, I’ve always found myself wanting to know more about cases where there remains any kind of ambiguity or doubt. Either this case is a truly tragic story with a miscarriage of justice or it’s one of Britain’s worst murders.

If as you say ‘it’s one of Britain’s worst murders’ - what does that make Jeremy Bamber’s false and public claims of innocence over all these years?

And are you familiar with innocence fraud?
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2021, 05:37:08 PM »
It's taken me over a year to finalise everything because I wanted it to be thorough and during the process I've interviewed a number of people. These have included Brett Collins, Chris Bews, Terry Mullins, Andy from Gunfire Grafiti, the campaign team, and other leading experts.

I don’t consider any of the campaign team to be ‘leading experts’ in relation to the Bamber case btw


« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 05:48:58 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2021, 05:41:21 PM »
One is looking at blood patterns and case-specific (case-specific) and the other is more general.

Where did you source the photo in your photo gallery http://kay-page.com/whf-image-gallery/ re the blood from SC’s wounds?

I’m thinking about potentially ‘faked’ photos ⬇️


BAMBER LIE 3: The blood from Sheila's wounds were fresh and wet when the police entered the building, therefore she must have died whilst Bamber was outside the house with the police.
   
TRUTH: Whilst the blood from the actual wounds does look fresh and wet, the rest of the blood from the same wounds that had dripped onto Sheila's nightdress, is dark and dry.  These crime scene photos were publicly published during a time (early 2000's) when Bamber was legally represented by Giovanni De Stefano, who is a career criminal currently serving 21 years in prison for a number of frauds committed whilst pretending to be a lawyer. Only Bamber's legal representation can release documents to the public, so it looks like he had the images doctored, and then published them, possibly at Bamber's request. Carol Ann Lee, the author, has confirmed that the wet blood photos have been 'doctored', and has confirmed that the original crime scene photos show dry, cracked blood. 



I know that the above 3 points have been done to death in the past, but they haven't been done to death by the newbies, or casual observers.  So I think they are critical points to make.

There is a 15 minute video made by the Guardian newspaper, and that video contains all of the faked evidence that is very easy to disprove (including the points outlined above), but also, the points covered, creates the most confusion to newbies.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 05:51:38 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline KayPage1990

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2021, 05:57:10 PM »
I showed him all images I had access too, not all of them are on the gallery.

The blood expert is just going to talk about blood forensics in general. The other forensic expert will look at the blood spatter images and then offer an opinion on those :) I've spoken to the police and obviously, I have limited access. So I can only offer what I can get my hands on :)

Off the top of my head I'm not sure where those one's came from, they're the one's I uploaded at the start of the podcast but I now have other images. And when my new website is up and running, all the sources will be on there. I do have a document with EVERYTHING I've used but I have to list them all and I don't have that to hand right now.

I stated it would make Jeremy one of Britain's worst murderers because of his continued protestations if he is guilty.

And no. When I said other 'leading' experts, I was not referring to the campaign team. I was referencing the blood expert, the miscarriage of justice expert, the psychological expert, the crime scene staging expert and a few other academic experts that I've interviewed. I have interviewed the campaign team but I was specifically referring to neutral outsiders when I made that comment.

And yes, I am familiar with innocence fraud. It's another episode of the podcast :)

In total, the podcast will be 36 images haha.

I'm sorry if I'm slow replying 😄I have client work that I try to manage alongside my podcast and side business haha. But I will reply, even if it takes me a while.


Offline Myster

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2021, 06:24:56 PM »
Even dried blood gives off a sheen when reflecting light from a camera's flash gun. An original unsaturated image of SC's neck wounds...

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2021, 06:33:47 PM »
I showed him all images I had access too, not all of them are on the gallery.

The blood expert is just going to talk about blood forensics in general. The other forensic expert will look at the blood spatter images and then offer an opinion on those :) I've spoken to the police and obviously, I have limited access. So I can only offer what I can get my hands on :)

Off the top of my head I'm not sure where those one's came from, they're the one's I uploaded at the start of the podcast but I now have other images. And when my new website is up and running, all the sources will be on there. I do have a document with EVERYTHING I've used but I have to list them all and I don't have that to hand right now.

No probs Kay - I was just reminded of the ‘De Stefano saga
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2021, 06:35:27 PM »
And yes, I am familiar with innocence fraud. It's another episode of the podcast :)

 8@??)(

I look forward to it  8((()*/
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Caroline

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2021, 06:36:13 PM »
Even dried blood gives off a sheen when reflecting light from a camera's flash gun. An original unsaturated image of SC's neck wounds...

This is a photograph many supporters don't like because they can't explain it. Whoever cropped it for the 'saturated' image, did so because they didn't want the dried blackened blood around Sheila's mouth to be seen.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2021, 06:43:45 PM »
When I said other 'leading' experts, I was not referring to the campaign team. I was referencing the blood expert, the miscarriage of justice expert

I’m not convinced there are any ‘experts’ on miscarriages of justice cases in the UK at least

Many of the cases I’ve studied are clear examples of innocence fraud

The term miscarriages of justice for me is misleading - as is how some of these cases are presented or portrayed - especially by most journalists on the subject

Have you noticed how those people who consider themselves so called experts or are referred to as ‘experts’ don’t appear to want to address whether or not the ‘miscarriage of justice’ individual is actually, factually innocent

There are very few cases in the UK where actual factual innocence has been determined

Off topic but one case which stands out for me is that of the so called Cardiff Newsagent 3 = Darren Hall, Ellis Sherwood and Michael O’Brien - all 3 were convicted of murdering Philip Saunders

O’Brien received a letter from the then Chief constable of South Wales police. In his letter it said O’Brien was ‘a victim of a miscarriage of justice’

And O’Brien appears to wave this around to many of his unsuspecting followers as though it’s a finding of factual innocence - which it most definitely is not!

In fact the last set of judges who were privy to Michael O’Briens case files actually pointed out,

the possibility of pauses in the alleged conversation making it easier for Mr Lewis to record what was said was “fatal” to Mr O’Brien’s position, and they dismissed the application for judicial review’

The judgement stated,

Although O’Brien was a young man with no convictions, his activities that evening were a pursuit of crime in the company of Sherwood, and he was forced to admit he had told a sequence of lies. The lack of evidential support for O’Brien’s account meant that, setting aside the expert evidence, the prospects of successful prosecution were very poor.”

Of the expert evidence, the judgement said:

Neither of the experts was prepared to say the note was fabricated, or that their expert evidence amounted to a basis for such a conclusion. The prosecutor was right to emphasise that Prof Coulthard’s conclusion in his second report restated that of his first: ‘There are no serious linguistic objections that can be raised to the majority of the utterances in the note’.

“We consider it very likely that a jury would be unsure whether Lewis had claimed from the beginning his note was word for word accurate. Although the term ‘verbatim’ was used by the judge in the summing up, no doubt accurately based on Lewis’ evidence, in the light of the subsequent series of statements and accounts from him, particularly in reference to the confusion between ‘verbatim’ and ‘contemporaneous’, it is unlikely that a reasonable jury could be sure he meant ‘word for word’ accurate. The evidence that recorders of speech are over confident of their own accuracy would sound with the jury.”

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/michael-obrien-man-wrongly-convicted-6350640

Perjury charges were dropped in/around Sept 2011
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-15129956

To date Michael O’Brien has failed to show the police fabricated evidence in his case

He’s most definitely not proved he, Sherwood and Ellis were actually, factually innocent of murdering Mr Saunders
« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 07:47:07 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2021, 06:21:12 PM »
But I thought that I would pop in to introduce myself and to tell you a bit about the podcast itself.

I'm Kay, I'm from the valleys in South Wales and I have been interested in Jeremy Bamber's case for years. I started the podcast following the ITV drama because I've always believed he was innocent and I, in essence, wanted to show my search for validation of that.

It's taken me over a year to finalise everything because I wanted it to be thorough and during the process I've interviewed a number of people. These have included Brett Collins, Chris Bews, Terry Mullins, Andy from Gunfire Grafiti, the campaign team, and other leading experts.

Have you previously released other podcasts prior to the one with Brett Collins and if so where can they be listened to?


‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2021, 09:13:25 PM »
Didn’t know where to put this - but well worth a listen - it’s relevant to Bamber’s campaign

‘Is The Wrongful Conviction Movement Unstoppable?’

with Roberta Glass feat: Devon Tracey aka "Atheism is Unstoppable"   

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=laujRg3W5C4&ab_channel=RobertaGlassTrueCrimeReport
« Last Edit: April 25, 2021, 10:42:03 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline colsville

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2021, 11:26:19 AM »
Even dried blood gives off a sheen when reflecting light from a camera's flash gun. An original unsaturated image of SC's neck wounds...

You can't trust any of these images.   They all have to be dismissed as fake.

Carol ann lee is very clear in her HBO podcast that in the actual original photos, the blood is dark and visibly cracked.

In the Sky3 documentary around 2004, Giovanni Di Stefano talks about the fake blood images (He was the first 'lawyer' to publish these images, therefore he is probably responsible for faking them)....What he says is that the jury, during the original court case in 1986, was shown 'faked images'  showing the blood to be dark and dry.

So CAL and GDS are saying similar things, that there are two sets of images for SC's neck wounds.

So the only way to resolve this is to see the original negatives on a lightbox showing the original.   Failing that, you would need to see both print versions that both CAL and GDS confirm exists.

Until then, all images of wet looking blood have to be assumed to be fake.

The other way to resolve this is to look at the reputations of CAL and GDS.

GDS is a career criminal who has spent decades going around the world pretending to be a lawyer.  He literally, lies for a living.  It would be very easy for him to have had the photos doctored in order to create the false narrative that his client demanded.

CAL is a respected author with no history of criminality.

GDS says that the original dark, cracked blood images are the fake images, but there was no technology in 1985/1986 to fake images like that to any degree of believability.    The police would have to have gone to a Hollywood standard studio to get the work done.  In other words, it didn't happen.

Photoshop didn't come out until 1990, and it wasn't sophisticated enough to turn wet blood images into dried, cracked blood images (in order to fool the jury, which GDS claims).  You are looking at a good 4 or 5 years before Photoshop could do that easily (but even then, only with a highly skilled photoshopper, and a lot of time).

Therefore all wet blood (the ones without the cracking) images are fake.   Yes they look very real, but that is what photoshop does.  I've been creating composite landscape images in Photoshop for over 15 years (as a hobby) and I know the software like the back of my hand.

In 2005 you could easily, with a skilled photoshopper, fake images like these so that no human on earth could look at it and tell the difference.

Offline Caroline

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2021, 03:54:06 PM »
You can't trust any of these images.   They all have to be dismissed as fake.

Carol ann lee is very clear in her HBO podcast that in the actual original photos, the blood is dark and visibly cracked.

In the Sky3 documentary around 2004, Giovanni Di Stefano talks about the fake blood images (He was the first 'lawyer' to publish these images, therefore he is probably responsible for faking them)....What he says is that the jury, during the original court case in 1986, was shown 'faked images'  showing the blood to be dark and dry.

So CAL and GDS are saying similar things, that there are two sets of images for SC's neck wounds.

So the only way to resolve this is to see the original negatives on a lightbox showing the original.   Failing that, you would need to see both print versions that both CAL and GDS confirm exists.

Until then, all images of wet looking blood have to be assumed to be fake.

The other way to resolve this is to look at the reputations of CAL and GDS.

GDS is a career criminal who has spent decades going around the world pretending to be a lawyer.  He literally, lies for a living.  It would be very easy for him to have had the photos doctored in order to create the false narrative that his client demanded.

CAL is a respected author with no history of criminality.

GDS says that the original dark, cracked blood images are the fake images, but there was no technology in 1985/1986 to fake images like that to any degree of believability.    The police would have to have gone to a Hollywood standard studio to get the work done.  In other words, it didn't happen.

Photoshop didn't come out until 1990, and it wasn't sophisticated enough to turn wet blood images into dried, cracked blood images (in order to fool the jury, which GDS claims).  You are looking at a good 4 or 5 years before Photoshop could do that easily (but even then, only with a highly skilled photoshopper, and a lot of time).

Therefore all wet blood (the ones without the cracking) images are fake.   Yes they look very real, but that is what photoshop does.  I've been creating composite landscape images in Photoshop for over 15 years (as a hobby) and I know the software like the back of my hand.

In 2005 you could easily, with a skilled photoshopper, fake images like these so that no human on earth could look at it and tell the difference.

I agree, the dry cracked images are. not fake - I wouldn't believe anything the GDS says.

Offline Geordie

Re: Introduction and new podcast
« Reply #29 on: May 05, 2021, 10:40:46 AM »
You can't trust any of these images.   They all have to be dismissed as fake.

Carol ann lee is very clear in her HBO podcast that in the actual original photos, the blood is dark and visibly cracked.

In the Sky3 documentary around 2004, Giovanni Di Stefano talks about the fake blood images (He was the first 'lawyer' to publish these images, therefore he is probably responsible for faking them)....What he says is that the jury, during the original court case in 1986, was shown 'faked images'  showing the blood to be dark and dry.

So CAL and GDS are saying similar things, that there are two sets of images for SC's neck wounds.

So the only way to resolve this is to see the original negatives on a lightbox showing the original.   Failing that, you would need to see both print versions that both CAL and GDS confirm exists.

Until then, all images of wet looking blood have to be assumed to be fake.

The other way to resolve this is to look at the reputations of CAL and GDS.

GDS is a career criminal who has spent decades going around the world pretending to be a lawyer.  He literally, lies for a living.  It would be very easy for him to have had the photos doctored in order to create the false narrative that his client demanded.

CAL is a respected author with no history of criminality.

GDS says that the original dark, cracked blood images are the fake images, but there was no technology in 1985/1986 to fake images like that to any degree of believability.    The police would have to have gone to a Hollywood standard studio to get the work done.  In other words, it didn't happen.

Photoshop didn't come out until 1990, and it wasn't sophisticated enough to turn wet blood images into dried, cracked blood images (in order to fool the jury, which GDS claims).  You are looking at a good 4 or 5 years before Photoshop could do that easily (but even then, only with a highly skilled photoshopper, and a lot of time).

Therefore all wet blood (the ones without the cracking) images are fake.   Yes they look very real, but that is what photoshop does.  I've been creating composite landscape images in Photoshop for over 15 years (as a hobby) and I know the software like the back of my hand.

In 2005 you could easily, with a skilled photoshopper, fake images like these so that no human on earth could look at it and tell the difference.

Even on other platforms there was no image editing software available such as Deluxe Paint on the Amiga and Paint Shop Pro, until after the trial in 1986.

I don't think commercial scanners of sufficient quality became available until the later 1990s.

Also there is a difference between ink jet produced prints and those developed from negatives using actual photographic paper.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2021, 11:08:33 AM by Geordie »