UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: adam on June 08, 2016, 10:35:48 AM
-
One thing I've noticed is Trudie's, Mike's and Lookout's theories will not persuade supporters to change stance.
Current and former supporters are fiercely loyal to Bamber. Partly because they want to believe he is innocent, partly because they do not want to admit being wrong over a long period. Hard incriminating evidence needs to be presented, which will be ferociously attacked over a long period with excuses made.
David is similar to Mike in that he knows about the case and provides sources when debating with Scipio. Both have made claims which have not had sources - Mike's 'Sheila on the bed' and Davids self titled 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
David's recent claims that Julie should have been wired up after she had split up with Bamber, & that Julie secretly read AE's and RB's diaries, or colluded with them while still with Bamber are very outlandish. Hopefully future claims won't reach Mike's proportions of outlandishness.
54
-
David is similar to Mike in that he knows about the case and provides sources when debating with Scipio. Both have made claims which have not had sources - Mike's 'Sheila on the bed' and Davids self titled 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
My "Forensic Breakthrough" does have valid sources to support it. NGBs endorsement and Jeremy's letter
The material sent to me by David1819 is in the form of a report, which includes images and diagrams as well as text. It is well written and well presented. It analyses an important part of the evidence in the case, using methods not applied previously. Although he accepts that he is not an expert in the relevant field, he has researched published works by experts in the field, quoting relevant extracts in support of his conclusions. He has also studied relevant photographs and made calculations and measurements using techniques which to me seem appropriate.
David1819's conclusions support the defence case on this issue and specifically counter conclusions reached on this by the Court of Appeal in the 2002 appeal.
I am not an expert in the field involved and clearly for this to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions David1819's report and conclusions would have to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert. However, I can see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached and have given david1819 my view in more detail.
(http://s31.postimg.org/58hbmjizf/sportcoachcert036.jpg)
David's recent claims that Julie should have been wired up after she had split up with Bamber, & that Julie secretly read AE's and RB's diaries, or colluded with them while still with Bamber are very outlandish. Hopefully future claims won't reach Mike's proportions of outlandishness.
I didn't say she secretly read their diary's. What I was trying to point out is that Jeremy's "Confessions" do not corroborate the crime scene and that all her information can be traced back to sources other than Jeremy.
-
You're correct, there is a slight difference.
Mike makes specific claims such as Sheila on the bed, or Sheila having an accomplice. Of which he has no source. You made a claim and have used NGB and Bamber as a source to show you're claim exists. But refused to say what the claim is.
A lot of what Julie says does match the crime scene and would not have been in the newspapers. Thread available. I doubt she bothered reading about the case in the newspapers, in the short period it was in the news anyway.
-
You're correct, there is a slight difference.
Mike makes specific claims such as Sheila on the bed, or Sheila having an accomplice. Of which he has no source. You made a claim and have used NGB and Bamber as a source to show you're claim exists. But refused to say what the claim is.
As for Mikes claim of a photo of Shelia on the bed I have noticed he has changed his story several times on how he "lost" it and thus cannot produce it. This leads me to believe the claim is fictional all together
-
You're correct, there is a slight difference.
Mike makes specific claims such as Sheila on the bed, or Sheila having an accomplice. Of which he has no source. You made a claim and have used NGB and Bamber as a source to show you're claim exists. But refused to say what the claim is.
A lot of what Julie says does match the crime scene and would not have been in the newspapers. Thread available. I doubt she bothered reading about the case in the newspapers, in the short period it was in the news anyway.
As is normal in these cases and unless we have access to the CCTV of the interview like we had in the Prout case, there is much which goes on behind the scenes which never sees the light of day. This is true whether it be Amaral and the McCann case or Jones and the Bamber case. When an investigator spends days with a witness like DS Jones did with Julie Mugford, he would have quickly seen her limitations and established her Achilles heel. He would have found out very quickly had she been spinning tales.
On that basis alone I have no doubt that what Julie related was for the most part truthful.
-
As for Mikes claim of a photo of Shelia on the bed I have noticed he has changed his story several times on how he "lost" it and thus cannot produce it. This leads me to believe the claim is fictional all together
Absolutely without a doubt, there never was any photo of Sheila on the bed with ONE BULLET HOLE IN HER NECK.
-
My "Forensic Breakthrough" does have valid sources to support it. NGBs endorsement and Jeremy's letter
The material sent to me by David1819 is in the form of a report, which includes images and diagrams as well as text. It is well written and well presented. It analyses an important part of the evidence in the case, using methods not applied previously. Although he accepts that he is not an expert in the relevant field, he has researched published works by experts in the field, quoting relevant extracts in support of his conclusions. He has also studied relevant photographs and made calculations and measurements using techniques which to me seem appropriate.
David1819's conclusions support the defence case on this issue and specifically counter conclusions reached on this by the Court of Appeal in the 2002 appeal.
I am not an expert in the field involved and clearly for this to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions David1819's report and conclusions would have to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert. However, I can see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached and have given david1819 my view in more detail.
(http://s31.postimg.org/58hbmjizf/sportcoachcert036.jpg)
NGB is so biased he ridiculously said that he finds Mike's claims of police moving Sheila's body from the kitchen credible. Holding him out as proof that you theory is valid is a complete waste of time.
Jeremy has a vested interest in advancing any nonsense he can think of and has done so in the past. That he said to forward it to his lawyer in no way means the theory is valid.
Your story of why you refused to release it constantly changed, you can't even post the real answer which is you are scared of your theory being rapidly disproved by people who are objective.
You claimed to me in a PM that you feared your theory would be proved wrong and yet the campaign team still deciding to use it for propaganda purposes and that this is why you didn't want it publicly released. You said you would not allow me to review it because you feared I would leak it publicly and could not trust my assurances I wouldn't.
I assured you I would not leak it but that if it is invalid I will not hold back and tear the crap out of it. That's the real reason you won't allow an objective review your ego can't take having it easily dismantled in the same way I dismantled your bogus claims about the moderator label having a case number not yet in use at the time of the creation of the label. The case number on the tag was in use since September 7, 1985 and the label was created after this so there was no problem at all except in your mind. No doubt the same ignorance tha led you to believe the label was flawed is behind your theory.
I didn't say she secretly read their diary's. What I was trying to point out is that Jeremy's "Confessions" do not corroborate the crime scene and that all her information can be traced back to sources other than Jeremy.
1) You started a thread suggesting that police should have wiretapped Jeremy's phone and made Julie call to try to get him to implicate himself or to wire her and have her meet him and try to get her to implicate himself and that the failure of them to do so suggests they knew she was lying. Your suggestions were ridiculous. Jeremy didn't even admit he personally carried out the murders when he was with Julie, why would anyone expect him to admit he personally killed them after? There was no viable way for her to contact him out of the blue in September and bring up the murders in a way that would prevent him from becoming suspicious let alone to admit he personally carried out the murders. They chose to interrogate his hitman and learned he lied about hiring MM as a hitman. What would be the purpose in wiring her to try to get him to admit on tape that he hired a hitman given he made the claim up?
2) You made the bogus claim that Julie definitely took items from Boutflour's diary and made up a fairytale around them. You claimed you proved this by virtue of not all her details being totally unique though this in reality proves nothing that you claimed. You have a very bad habit of claiming things prove things that they actually don't.
You also made up the absurd standard that only if every single detail were not new but rather totally unique could her account be trusted. For instance if Jeremy alone knew the kitchen window could be used to enter the premises then her account that Jeremy told her such before the murders could be trusted but since people other in addition to Jeremy were aware of this it means that Julie could have obtained this information from others and thus it must be discounted.
This standard you made up is one intended to prevent any of Julie's account from being used against Jeremy. Such a standard bears no relation to reality. Just because multiple people are aware of a fact that doesn't disprove one's claim that a particular person told it to her. The trier of fact must evaluate whether to believe such person.
You don't believe her solely because you are in the tank for Jeremy and thus would not accept anything short of a videotape of him committing the murders and even then might claim it was doctored.
The bottom line is that your claim that you proved Julie lied and adopted claims from Boutflour is false. You proved no such thing except in your own mind.
-
Well I for one look forward to reading David's forensic breakthrough, it's only a pity he doesn't have the confidence in it to offer it for scrutiny right now so as to save those poor lawyers any unnecessary work and expense. As for NGB's endorsement, well, as scipio already pointed out, a pinch of salt.
If it is genuine and holds water I will be the first to say so but if it fails scrutiny I will also be the first to condemn it.
Over to you David.
-
You claimed to me in a PM that you feared your theory would be proved wrong and yet the campaign team still deciding to use it for propaganda purposes and that this is why you didn't want it publicly released.
That was my initial thoughts before I ever showed anyone else. Its not a theory but more of a discovery, At first I was overly cautious about it. the term (too good to be true) stayed in my mind until I showed my Dad.
-
That was my initial thoughts before I ever showed anyone else. Its not a theory but more of a discovery, At first I was overly cautious about it. the term (too good to be true) stayed in my mind until I showed my Dad.
Good old dad.
-
Well I for one look forward to reading David's forensic breakthrough, it's only a pity he doesn't have the confidence in it to offer it for scrutiny right now so as to save those poor lawyers any unnecessary work and expense. As for NGB's endorsement, well, as scipio already pointed out, a pinch of salt.
If it is genuine and holds water I will be the first to say so but if it fails scrutiny I will also be the first to condemn it.
Over to you David.
I have complete confidence in it. However I have been told by AH not go public with it and NGB agrees also. I have given the info to JBs Barrister we will have to wait and see it out my hands now.
I am not to sure why but someone more familiar with how the appeals system in this country works may understand why its best the information is not public. I guess one reason would be giving the courts least time possible to come up with counter arguments.
If you discover something serious in a criminal case who would just upload it to the internet for all to see? Its rather reckless don't you think? you should approach some authority figure involved in that particular case.
My Dad said I should show it to the police LOL
-
I have complete confidence in it. However I have been told by AH not go public with it and NGB agrees also. I have given the info to JBs Barrister we will have to wait and see it out my hands now.
I am not to sure why but someone more familiar with how the appeals system in this country works may understand why its best the information is not public. I guess one reason would be giving the courts least time possible to come up with counter arguments.
If you discover something serious in a criminal case who would just upload it to the internet for all to see? Its rather reckless don't you think? you should approach some authority figure involved in that particular case.
My Dad said I should show it to the police LOL
I guess there are two arguments as to how any new evidence could be put to best use. One is doing what you've done. Second is taking it to the foreign press. 31 years of officialdom and no joy I would probably go for the second option.
I dont get the argument about the prosecution having more time to prepare a counter argument.
-
I have complete confidence in it. However I have been told by AH not go public with it and NGB agrees also. I have given the info to JBs Barrister we will have to wait and see it out my hands now.
I am not to sure why but someone more familiar with how the appeals system in this country works may understand why its best the information is not public. I guess one reason would be giving the courts least time possible to come up with counter arguments.
If you discover something serious in a criminal case who would just upload it to the internet for all to see? Its rather reckless don't you think? you should approach some authority figure involved in that particular case.
My Dad said I should show it to the police LOL
You didn't have complete confidence when you told me in PM that you were scared it would be proven wrong.
Now suddenly you claim to have complete confidence but are not going to post it because it will give the government more time to refute it.
Your position makes no sense at all.
If you actually care about whether your theory is actually accurate then you will want opponents to have as much time as possible to test it.
Trying to deny access so there is as little time as possible for anyone to try to refute it simply demonstrates both a lack in interest in the actual truth coming out and also little confidence in it.
If you have complete confidence and your theory is actually true then no time in the world will be enough time ot refute it.
Claiming that you are obeying NGB and the defense is simply a cop-out. You have no need to listen to them and someone actually interested int he truth would not listen to them. Only someone who fears his theory will be disproved and hopes that it will be disproved after Jeremy gets out of jail would support keeping it a secret as long as possible.
I'm 100% confident that your supposed breakthrough is just as flawed as your claim that the case number SC/786/85 did not yet exist on the date when this tag was purportedly filled out and thus proves it was created later:
-
If Bamber was innocent, you would think that supporters would be assisting the crown. By revealing alleged information whenever discovered.
Withholding things to give the crown 'less time to prepare' suggests Bamber is trying to sneak a release through the back door. It also suggests the crown is biased and Bamber's case is weak.
-
You didn't have complete confidence when you told me in PM that you were scared it would be proven wrong.
Now suddenly you claim to have complete confidence but are not going to post it because it will give the government more time to refute it.
Your position makes no sense at all.
If you actually care about whether your theory is actually accurate then you will want opponents to have as much time as possible to test it.
Trying to deny access so there is as little time as possible for anyone to try to refute it simply demonstrates both a lack in interest in the actual truth coming out and also little confidence in it.
If you have complete confidence and your theory is actually true then no time in the world will be enough time ot refute it.
Claiming that you are obeying NGB and the defense is simply a cop-out. You have no need to listen to them and someone actually interested int he truth would not listen to them. Only someone who fears his theory will be disproved and hopes that it will be disproved after Jeremy gets out of jail would support keeping it a secret as long as possible.
I'm 100% confident that your supposed breakthrough is just as flawed as your claim that the case number SC/786/85 did not yet exist on the date when this tag was purportedly filled out and thus proves it was created later:
What David has, does NOT show Bamber to be innocent.
-
If Bamber was innocent, you would think that supporters would be assisting the crown. By revealing alleged information whenever discovered.
Withholding things to give the crown 'less time to prepare' suggests Bamber is trying to sneak a release through the back door. It also suggests the crown is biased and Bamber's case is weak.
I have conversed with one of Bamber's more recent legal representatives and can confirm he is hoping to be released on a technicality rather than be proven not guilty.
-
What David has, does NOT show Bamber to be innocent.
Are you certain David has revealed his full hand? &%+((£
-
Are you certain David has revealed his full hand? &%+((£
No... only Sheila Caffell's right hand. 8((()*/
-
If Bamber was innocent, you would think that supporters would be assisting the crown. By revealing alleged information whenever discovered.
Withholding things to give the crown 'less time to prepare' suggests Bamber is trying to sneak a release through the back door. It also suggests the crown is biased and Bamber's case is weak.
This is all a lot of nonsense imo. Any new evidence etc needs to go to CCRC in the first instance. I believe a fast-track to CoA is possible via DPP where new evidence is very compelling. Either way as far as I'm aware the prosecution will have all the time they require to put forward counter arguments.
-
I have conversed with one of Bamber's more recent legal representatives and can confirm he is hoping to be released on a technicality rather than be proven not guilty.
Is this the same lawyer who asked you to remove all traces of his involvement with Bamber because his children were complaining, uncomfortable and aghast that he should be supportive of a five-times murderer?
-
Are you certain David has revealed his full hand? &%+((£
Are you really going to take her word for it?
-
Are you really going to take her word for it?
Take her word for what?
-
This is all a lot of nonsense imo. Any new evidence etc needs to go to CCRC in the first instance. I believe a fast-track to CoA is possible via DPP where new evidence is very compelling. Either way as far as I'm aware the prosecution will have all the time they require to put forward counter arguments.
AH urged me not to reveal anything and if I did it will assist the prosecution. I have a copy of the email from AH if no one believes me.
I am sure AH know better than I do on this matter. I have no idea how the DPP CoA does things
-
AH urged me not to reveal anything and if I did it will assist the prosecution. I have a copy of the email from AH if no one believes me.
I am sure AH know better than I do on this matter. I have no idea how the DPP CoA does things
You've sent the info to JB's lawyers.
Imo JB and many of those that surround him have some quite bizarre ideas but they probably think the same about me 8)><(
-
You've sent the info to JB's lawyers.
Imo JB and many of those that surround him have some quite bizarre ideas but they probably think the same about me 8)><(
Jeremy's lawyers have largely acted out of desperation. They have routinely put forth unsupported opinions where experts freely admitted they had no ability to test their theories and thus had not done so. The wise course would have been to try to get tests done and only act if and when tests that could be used as confirmation had been found. They either decided they would never have the money to fund someone to do such testing and then support their position or that the tests would not actually support them so they better not complete them and better use a Hail Mary and hope a miracle.
Jeremy's lawyers do have some duties of candor etc to the court and thus even though they will play fast and loose they can't get away with what Jeremy and the campaign team can.
The campaign team is simply a propaganda body that is out to claim anything it can to convince people to support Jeremy. They believe the ends justify the means and that distortion is free game. They will use ignorance to their advantage. Thus they will claim things clearly wrong and that make no sense to people fully informed who act in a logical fashion.
A Bernie Sanders supporter from New Jersey was interviewed for a television program. When asked what he thought of policy issues such as taxes he was opposed to raising taxes. When it was pointed out that his the positions he favored were the complete opposite of Sanders' positions he said well whatever Bernie thinks is best so go with him. What this shows is that he didn't even know what Bernie stood for and yet thinks Bernie is great. He was too lazy to research what Bernie stood for and try to evaluate on his own what positions are best and then to try to look for a candidate who supports such. He didn't want to think for himself and simply said whatever Bernie likes I like. He also said something about the Illuminati ruling the World.
This is the kind of person that propagandists seek out figuring they will fall for any wild crap or conspiracy claim that could be dreamed up. Scary as it may seam there are a large number of people like this guy out there. Still this will have no legal impact unless the courts are full of such people.
Why do the Jeremy propagandists act then?
1) They hope that they will find and convince a large enough segment of people like this guy in hopes that judges will ignore reality and feel pressure to act as these agitators desire. This is really a pipe dream and I doubt even they are foolish enough to honestly believe this will happen.
2) I believe their primary motivation is to benefit themselves. They like the attention and being part of a cause, it helps their ego. Mike could not be more obvious in his cries for attention and desire for people to bow to him and feel he is important.
-
My thnking exactly Scripio!!
I also think that David is testing you out with his new forensic evidence posts re the silencer etc just to see if it does indeed stand up to your scrutiny...or others. The letter from JB is held up as....look I'm believed by JB!! What he doesn't realise is that JB's letter is a spratt to catch a mackrel.... I bet everyone who writes to JB or his 'campaigners' receives a letter encouraging them into his fold.
Just looking at the photo of Sheila with the gun one can see this has been staged! Easy now of course, but when the police entered the bedroom after JB had sown the seeds of her suicide in there minds...not so easy! JB is brilliant at twisting facts...look at his police statement. It would take a lot more than a 'letter' from JB to convince me of his innocence!
I have however wondered if JB set up the murders for someone else to carry out? JB was so brazen and convinced the police wouldn't suspect him, it also makes sense of him never admitting to the murders because in his mind he didn't do it. The problem with this is JB wouldn't have spent 30 year's in prison without squealing on whoever he paid.. or was to pay. Could this be because it would also confirm his guilt over the murders?
-
I have conversed with one of Bamber's more recent legal representatives and can confirm he is hoping to be released on a technicality rather than be proven not guilty.
How would that work ?
Julie or the police won't admit to a frame.
So he can just look for one piece of evidence that he can claim is unreliable. But would one piece outweigh all the other incriminating evidence and ensure a release on a technicality ?
-
Are you certain David has revealed his full hand? &%+((£
Yup! A rather 'ironic' question though!
-
This is all a lot of nonsense imo. Any new evidence etc needs to go to CCRC in the first instance. I believe a fast-track to CoA is possible via DPP where new evidence is very compelling. Either way as far as I'm aware the prosecution will have all the time they require to put forward counter arguments.
Of course they will.
-
I just went back to my E-mails from AH from when I first made contact with him.
Please may I urge you not to go public with your discovery until Bamber's legal team gives the go-ahead. It would be disastrous if your discovery in any way impeded the approach which his QC is currently exploring.
Makes sense I guess
-
I just went back to my E-mails from AH from when I first made contact with him.
Please may I urge you not to go public with your discovery until Bamber's legal team gives the go-ahead. It would be disastrous if your discovery in any way impeded the approach which his QC is currently exploring.
Makes sense I guess
It is possible to reveal the topic and general considerations without revealing in full your analysis.
It is quite obvious that Caroline is right and that only in your mind does your breakthrough exonerate Jeremy. I don't believe your claim that you are the first to think up the idea either. There is no doubt in my mind experts involved int he case already considered and rejected the idea. Your 100% confidence in its accuracy has me convinced it is simply speculation on your part which would be easy to discount as nothing more than speculation though it could even possible it could be seriously refuted. In the past you said it would be a waste of time to tell me it because I will just discount it. Perhaps the reason you know this is because I already have. Your new idea might not be new at all. Since you are keeping it a secret that allows you to claim it is new and we will have no way to know whether it actually is or isn't.
I seriously doubt the defense will even try to use it once all is said and done let alone that it would actually help free Jeremy. I posted to you the kinds of things that would be needed to vacate his conviction and it is clear you have nothing even close.
-
It is possible to reveal the topic and general considerations without revealing in full your analysis.
It is quite obvious that Caroline is right and that only in your mind does your breakthrough exonerate Jeremy. I don't believe your claim that you are the first to think up the idea either. There is no doubt in my mind experts involved int he case already considered and rejected the idea. Your 100% confidence in its accuracy has me convinced it is simply speculation on your part which would be easy to discount as nothing more than speculation though it could even possible it could be seriously refuted. In the past you said it would be a waste of time to tell me it because I will just discount it. Perhaps the reason you know this is because I already have. Your new idea might not be new at all. Since you are keeping it a secret that allows you to claim it is new and we will have no way to know whether it actually is or isn't.
I seriously doubt the defense will even try to use it once all is said and done let alone that it would actually help free Jeremy. I posted to you the kinds of things that would be needed to vacate his conviction and it is clear you have nothing even close.
Its not just in my mind
NGB has given his views on the matter. That should be enough for you to keep an open mind about it. NGB would not have got involved if it was just dishonest speculation. If it was Mike I got the endorsement from then I would understand your unwillingness to consider this significant.
-
Its not just in my mind
NGB has given his views on the matter. That should be enough for you to keep an open mind about it. NGB would not have got involved if it was just dishonest speculation. If it was Mike I got the endorsement from then I would understand your unwillingness to consider this significant.
NGB will entertain anything no matter how ludicrous he won't even call mike on his lie of stealing a photo on the bed. I don't think his judgment is worth anything. The only time he actually had the guts to debate me was on the offtopic board when he said he was so happy when the North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam because it put the US in its place. He is so delusional he did't even realize the US stopped fighting in 1973 when the Peace Accords were signed and that the fighting in 1975 only harmed those in South Vietnam.
Since I know the law on appeals and about the facts of the conviction I KNOW what would be required to get a new trial and articulated such. I can tell that what you think you have doesn't approach it.
I spend all day evaluating what legal implication facts can have. You told me that what you have proves Jeremy can't have staged the scene. As I told you there is only one thing that could establish Jeremy didn't stage the scene and that would be evidence that proves he was somewhere else so could not have been there. I can tell you don't purport to have evidence proving such so I will not give it a second thought.
People spend all day lying to me, clients, adversaries...I believe things when I see it. Talk is cheap and promises rarely kept. I will stick with my gut it is uncanny.
-
NGB will entertain anything no matter how ludicrous he won't even call mike on his lie of stealing a photo on the bed. I don't think his judgment is worth anything. The only time he actually had the guts to debate me was on the offtopic board when he said he was so happy when the North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam because it put the US in its place. He is so delusional he did't even realize the US stopped fighting in 1973 when the Peace Accords were signed and that the fighting in 1975 only harmed those in South Vietnam.
Since I know the law on appeals and about the facts of the conviction I KNOW what would be required to get a new trial and articulated such. I can tell that what you think you have doesn't approach it.
I spend all day evaluating what legal implication facts can have. You told me that what you have proves Jeremy can't have staged the scene. As I told you there is only one thing that could establish Jeremy didn't stage the scene and that would be evidence that proves he was somewhere else so could not have been there. I can tell you don't purport to have evidence proving such so I will not give it a second thought.
People spend all day lying to me, clients, adversaries...I believe things when I see it. Talk is cheap and promises rarely kept. I will stick with my gut it is uncanny.
To be fair, I think NGB did something he was asked to do and was careful how he worded his post - there was no endorsement.
If David made the claim that what he has proves Jeremy could not have staged the scene, then he isn't being truthful - it doesn't prove that at all.
-
To be fair, I think NGB did something he was asked to do and was careful how he worded his post - there was no endorsement.
If David made the claim that what he has proves Jeremy could not have staged the scene, then he isn't being truthful - it doesn't prove that at all.
That NGB failed to say it would not be of any use is what David holds out to suggest it has merit. NGB is an advocate who is willing to try to entertain anything favorable to Jeremy so it means little.
If something has potential merit I will say so but if it is worthless or wrong I will not be diplomatic I will just come out and say it quite bluntly as you well know. If NGB were like me then maybe his willingness to entertain it would be worth more.
It doesn't take too much to recognize that the only way Jeremy would ever have his conviction vacated would be if someone admits to planting blood evidence or Julie were to admit she lied. We all know this will never happen. Some people who are in the tank for Jeremy don't want to accept such and so badly want him freed they delude themselves into thinking that something else will do and even delude themselves into thinking they found that something else.
-
To be fair, I think NGB did something he was asked to do and was careful how he worded his post - there was no endorsement.
If David made the claim that what he has proves Jeremy could not have staged the scene, then he isn't being truthful - it doesn't prove that at all.
That is exactly how I interpreted his response.
-
Yup! A rather 'ironic' question though!
Pleased the irony wasn't lost!
Maybe it's worth remembering Maradonas 'Hand of God' in the 1986 world cup! Meaning...
-
To be fair, I think NGB did something he was asked to do and was careful how he worded his post - there was no endorsement.
Yes because we all know NGB does anything I tell him for I am his puppet master. (https://board.omd.gameforge.com/wcf/images/smilies/rolleyes.png)
Not bad for a pigeon
-
If NGB were like me then maybe his willingness to entertain it would be worth more.
Oh Dear.. Talk about delusions of superiority.
-
Yes because we all know NGB does anything I tell him for I am his puppet master. (https://board.omd.gameforge.com/wcf/images/smilies/rolleyes.png)
Not bad for a pigeon
He made it clear that it is not something he knows about but that on it's own, it wouldn't be enough for an appeal. I agree with him because it doesn't in any way point to Jeremy being innocent.
-
Oh Dear.. Talk about delusions of superiority.
Jeez! You can talk!! @)(++(*
-
He made it clear that it is not something he knows about but that on it's own, it wouldn't be enough for an appeal. I agree with him because it doesn't in any way point to Jeremy being innocent.
You are distorting and cherry picking what he has said. No Lawyer would submit this alone when there are other grounds to be included. that would almost be malpractice
David1819 then agreed that I could post my overall opinion of his work, without at this stage disclosing the details. I am happy to do that and I agree with David1819's firm view,backed by the advice of Andrew Hunter, that Jeremy Bamber's legal team should review it and it should only be made public subject to their approval.
If the report is validated the question is whether it could form the basis for the CCRC to refer the case. For various reasons, hard to explain without giving more information than I am able to here, I believe it does satisfy the requirement that it is new evidence, not available at trial. The key question is whether it is on its own sufficient to enable the convictions to be overturned. I am very cautious about this as I believe the CCRC have now set a very high bar in this case. Certainly this would form a valid ground of appeal, but ideally it should be joined with other grounds. I am no longer in the loop as far as Jeremy Bamber's legal team are concerned, and have not been since Simon McKay ceased acting, but I do know of grounds not included in previous submissions which would have been included had the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the last application.
-
Jeez! You can talk!! @)(++(*
I can? well I must be a parrot then and not a pigeon afterall (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/Smileys/custom/c014_thumbs_up.gif)
-
Is this the same lawyer who asked you to remove all traces of his involvement with Bamber because his children were complaining, uncomfortable and aghast that he should be supportive of a five-times murderer?
It is, he wanted all references to his involvement with Bamber expunged.
-
You are distorting and cherry picking what he has said. No Lawyer would submit this alone when there are other grounds to be included. that would almost be malpractice
David1819 then agreed that I could post my overall opinion of his work, without at this stage disclosing the details. I am happy to do that and I agree with David1819's firm view,backed by the advice of Andrew Hunter, that Jeremy Bamber's legal team should review it and it should only be made public subject to their approval.
If the report is validated the question is whether it could form the basis for the CCRC to refer the case. For various reasons, hard to explain without giving more information than I am able to here, I believe it does satisfy the requirement that it is new evidence, not available at trial. The key question is whether it is on its own sufficient to enable the convictions to be overturned. I am very cautious about this as I believe the CCRC have now set a very high bar in this case. Certainly this would form a valid ground of appeal, but ideally it should be joined with other grounds. I am no longer in the loop as far as Jeremy Bamber's legal team are concerned, and have not been since Simon McKay ceased acting, but I do know of grounds not included in previous submissions which would have been included had the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the last application.
I don't think NGB will appreciate you using him in this manner. He made it perfectly clear that neither he nor you are experts and that on it's own, it WOULD NOT be enough for an appeal. Keep trying to build yourself up though - a palm print on the bible DOES NOT prove Jeremy innocent.
-
Are you really going to take her word for it?
As opposed to your word? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
My thnking exactly Scripio!!
I also think that David is testing you out with his new forensic evidence posts re the silencer etc just to see if it does indeed stand up to your scrutiny...or others. The letter from JB is held up as....look I'm believed by JB!! What he doesn't realise is that JB's letter is a spratt to catch a mackrel.... I bet everyone who writes to JB or his 'campaigners' receives a letter encouraging them into his fold.
Just looking at the photo of Sheila with the gun one can see this has been staged! Easy now of course, but when the police entered the bedroom after JB had sown the seeds of her suicide in there minds...not so easy! JB is brilliant at twisting facts...look at his police statement. It would take a lot more than a 'letter' from JB to convince me of his innocence!
I have however wondered if JB set up the murders for someone else to carry out? JB was so brazen and convinced the police wouldn't suspect him, it also makes sense of him never admitting to the murders because in his mind he didn't do it. The problem with this is JB wouldn't have spent 30 year's in prison without squealing on whoever he paid.. or was to pay. Could this be because it would also confirm his guilt over the murders?
A good post Opal. I too have considered your last point. Jeremy could very well have assisted a third party to get access to the farmhouse but in doing so he would be guilty as a joint enterprise participant. That said, I think even he would have had great difficulty in finding a hitman to shoot two children. In any event, Bamber was effectively skint most of the time so would vhave been unable to pay such a hit in advance.
-
If David's alleged forensic breakthrough is based on facts and evidence already in the public domain there is no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't reveal it to scrutiny. It will save a lot of time at the end of the day because if it doesn't pass our scrutiny here it is hardly going to impress the CCRC let alone the Appeal Court.
Over to you David!
-
I don't think NGB will appreciate you using him in this manner. He made it perfectly clear that neither he nor you are experts and that on it's own, it WOULD NOT be enough for an appeal. Keep trying to build yourself up though - a palm print on the bible DOES NOT prove Jeremy innocent.
So his breakthrough claim was that the Bible had a palm print? That is what was suspected from the outset though he denied it to the hilt. David insisted it was something no one broached before. Not only was the palm print possibility broached it was debated extensively. I took the lead in opposing it though Harters was my wingman and David also participated to a degree so feigning ignorance that it was discussed amounts to intentional deception. No wonder he knew I would reject it.
There are 3 issues in play as I see it:
1) David took an idea that was debated prior and pretended he came up with it himself. Whether or not he did additional exploration the idea itself was not his own as he insisted.
2) In so doing David not only took credit for an idea that he knew was made previously by others including you but that he knew already was established to be mere speculation.
3) By ignoring the prior debate David was able to ignore the arguments that cast doubt on this claim and declare that his theory was 100% accurate and unable to be challenged.
4) The legal ramifications of this speculation are quite clear- this is totally meaningless from a legal standpoint. From a legal standpoint it is meaningless not only because it is mere speculation but also because even if true it means nothing. Even if it were for the sake of argument a palm print this would not in any way refute the use of the moderator. David is so in the tank for Jeremy that he claims things prove things favorable to Jeremy that they do not objectively prove and also elevates speculation to proven fact. While that will suffice in his biased mind it means nothing int he real world. I prefer to stay in the real world and look at what must be established to objective reasonable triers of fact and to rational judges because there is no way to cherrypick judges who will wear goggles that will falsely make everything appear to exonerate Jeremy.
Clearly on its own this speculation possess no ability to exonerate Jeremy nor is there anything else which this speculation could potentially complement that in combination would exonerate Jeremy.
-
A palm print on a Bible has no significance since it can never be proven when it occurred and in what circumstances. Like so much so-called evidence it can be faked as were Sheila's fingerprints on the murder weapon.
-
I believe it's a palm print, Jim, but not as we know it. Either from June as she was trying to get up out of bed, or deliberately created by Bamber by pushing Sheila's bloodied palm onto the page.
-
So his breakthrough claim was that the Bible had a palm print? That is what was suspected from the outset though he denied it to the hilt. David insisted it was something no one broached before. Not only was the palm print possibility broached it was debated extensively. I took the lead in opposing it though Harters was my wingman and David also participated to a degree so feigning ignorance that it was discussed amounts to intentional deception. No wonder he knew I would reject it.
There are 3 issues in play as I see it:
1) David took an idea that was debated prior and pretended he came up with it himself. Whether or not he did additional exploration the idea itself was not his own as he insisted.
2) In so doing David not only took credit for an idea that he knew was made previously by others including you but that he knew already was established to be mere speculation.
3) By ignoring the prior debate David was able to ignore the arguments that cast doubt on this claim and declare that his theory was 100% accurate and unable to be challenged.
4) The legal ramifications of this speculation are quite clear- this is totally meaningless from a legal standpoint. From a legal standpoint it is meaningless not only because it is mere speculation but also because even if true it means nothing. Even if it were for the sake of argument a palm print this would not in any way refute the use of the moderator. David is so in the tank for Jeremy that he claims things prove things favorable to Jeremy that they do not objectively prove and also elevates speculation to proven fact. While that will suffice in his biased mind it means nothing int he real world. I prefer to stay in the real world and look at what must be established to objective reasonable triers of fact and to rational judges because there is no way to cherrypick judges who will wear goggles that will falsely make everything appear to exonerate Jeremy.
Clearly on its own this speculation possess no ability to exonerate Jeremy nor is there anything else which this speculation could potentially complement that in combination would exonerate Jeremy.
I never confirmed nor denied anything. It was already stated I would not reveal anything unless JB legal want to do it. So How can I give a straight answer to anything.
-
1) David took an idea that was debated prior and pretended he came up with it himself. Whether or not he did additional exploration the idea itself was not his own as he insisted.
2) In so doing David not only took credit for an idea that he knew was made previously by others including you but that he knew already was established to be mere speculation.
I reject all such allegations
I haven't taken any ideas nor is my work speculation. I tried something no one else has yet done and it produced a positive factual result
-
I reject all such allegations
I haven't taken any ideas nor is my work speculation. I tried something no one else has yet done and it produced a positive factual result
David I wouldn't mind betting you stole the following 'intellectual property' from myself! 8()(((@#
-
David I wouldn't mind betting you stole the following 'intellectual property' from myself! 8()(((@#
lol I don't see your name on it ;)
-
I reject all such allegations
I haven't taken any ideas nor is my work speculation. I tried something no one else has yet done and it produced a positive factual result
You can reject what you like but can't deny the basis of your report is the palm print on the bible. Your work actually IS speculation as you're not an expert. It produced 'A' result however, nothing has been confirmed and it could all be just coincidental. Either way, a palm print on the bible doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
-
I reject all such allegations
I haven't taken any ideas nor is my work speculation. I tried something no one else has yet done and it produced a positive factual result
You don't seem to comprehend what speculation is. You also say that Fowler's claims were not speculation but proven fact even though the CCRC rejected it as speculation and the COA upheld the CCRC's dismissal on such basis.
I believe Caroline's assertion that it pertains to an alleged palm print in the Bible. You don't possess a copy of Sheila's palm prints to try to compare to the mark in the Bible. Nor do you have the technology to enhance such photo to the degree/clarity necessary to make a comparison to a palm print. I am 100% positive that your claims are speculation merely regardless of what you choose to characterize them as. How the CCRC/COA would characterize such is what matters not how you so choose. An effective lawyer will tailor claims to the CCRC/COA in accordance with how they will view things.
-
your work actually IS speculation as you're not an expert. It produced 'A' result however, nothing has been confirmed
really? nothing has been confirmed? who told you that?
assumptions are not good to go by
Either way, a palm print on the bible doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
I never made such a claim and I am open to possibilities, I have my own prosecution theories however outlandish
-
You don't seem to comprehend what speculation is. You also say that Fowler's claims were not speculation but proven fact even though the CCRC rejected it as speculation and the COA upheld the CCRC's dismissal on such basis.
I believe Caroline's assertion that it pertains to an alleged palm print in the Bible. You don't possess a copy of Sheila's palm prints to try to compare to the mark in the Bible. Nor do you have the technology to enhance such photo to the degree/clarity necessary to make a comparison to a palm print. I am 100% positive that your claims are speculation merely regardless of what you choose to characterize them as. How the CCRC/COA would characterize such is what matters not how you so choose. An effective lawyer will tailor claims to the CCRC/COA in accordance with how they will view things.
(http://i.quoteaddicts.com/media/q1/504559.png)
-
really? nothing has been confirmed? who told you that?
assumptions are not good to go by
I never made such a claim and I am open to possibilities, I have my own prosecution theories however outlandish
It hasn't David because you couldn't help but plaster it on the forum(s).
You did make that claim - you made it to me recently.
-
It hasn't David because you couldn't help but plaster it on the forum(s).
Now you have an assumption based on an assumption. even worse
You did make that claim - you made it to me recently.
No I didn't, I put forward a hypothetical circumstance. I never said anything of certainty, and I am open to alternatives as you know
-
Now you have an assumption based on an assumption. even worse
No I didn't, I put forward a hypothetical circumstance. I never said anything of certainty, and I am open to alternatives as you know
So you didn't say this "You know as well as I do that if Jeremy cannot have planted the blood stains he cannot have done the crime."?
-
Now you have an assumption based on an assumption. even worse
I think this describes your whole way of thinking - except you call them facts.
-
I don't know why a palm print on the bible is a 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
If it was Sheila's, Bamber may have just ensured Sheila touched the bible after he killed her. She was supposed to have read it after killing everyone else.
-
There is a thread on the bible. It badly incriminates Bamber.
Reading the bible would have been the last thing Sheila did before shooting herself. The bedroom light would have been on for her to read this. Why would she then bother turning the bedroom light off before shooting herself ?
-
NGB will entertain anything no matter how ludicrous he won't even call mike on his lie of stealing a photo on the bed. I don't think his judgment is worth anything. The only time he actually had the guts to debate me was on the offtopic board when he said he was so happy when the North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam because it put the US in its place. He is so delusional he did't even realize the US stopped fighting in 1973 when the Peace Accords were signed and that the fighting in 1975 only harmed those in South Vietnam.
Since I know the law on appeals and about the facts of the conviction I KNOW what would be required to get a new trial and articulated such. I can tell that what you think you have doesn't approach it.
I spend all day evaluating what legal implication facts can have. You told me that what you have proves Jeremy can't have staged the scene. As I told you there is only one thing that could establish Jeremy didn't stage the scene and that would be evidence that proves he was somewhere else so could not have been there. I can tell you don't purport to have evidence proving such so I will not give it a second thought.
People spend all day lying to me, clients, adversaries...I believe things when I see it. Talk is cheap and promises rarely kept. I will stick with my gut it is uncanny.
We'll see at 8pm GMT how Russia fare on the footy pitch against England to see how NGB's favoured political system fares ?>)()< They're ok when they can cheat eg Maria Sharapova.
Bread queuing numpties *&*%£
-
We'll see at 8pm GMT how Russia fare on the footy pitch against England to see how NGB's favoured political system fares ?>)()< They're ok when they can cheat eg Maria Sharapova.
Bread queuing numpties *&*%£
It sounds like something out of a novel:
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/the-russian-olympic-doping-scandal-explained-5-things-to-know-w206469
Is there any doubt their wonderful feats at prior Olympics were the result of doping?