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 May 28, 2018, 10:18:15 AM
-
Jeremy's supporters are very determined. Creating the OS, CT Youtube videos and fund raising campaigns.
Away from official support, supporters on the forums are just as determined, Mike posting his theories, Lookout saying 'Jeremy is innocent' & Nigel managing his threads. David monitors the Blue forum 24/7, ready to attack any guilty posters. All unpaid.
Nigel said 'he would put his life on Jeremy being innocent', while Trudie is more cautious saying she 'believes' Jeremy is innocent.
With a unbreached 33 year old conviction, one alive suspect with motives, an opportunity and no alibi, there must be big doubts from all supporters. All the forensic & circumstantial evidence points to Jeremy.
David is a hardcore supporter & only poster who used to be a hardcore guilter. Nugs claimed he used to be a guilter after I brought up David's stance change, although he's never said why & has always been a conspiracy theorist poster. Mike said he believed Jeremy was guilty before he met him. These posters have serious doubts on Jeremy's innocence, which they are not making public.
All supporters promote things to make Jeremy look innocent & defend or ignore things that make him look guilty. But they will all have a lot of major doubts. What are these doubts ?
-
I imagine it might be very much more difficult for supporters to give voice to any doubts than for those of us who believe him guilty -I'm certain we all agree it would be THE most appalling MoJ if an innocent man had been convicted- the problem is that once they give voice to any doubts that may have been in their heads, those doubts become reality and might not go away. It becomes increasingly difficult to believe -especially when we're treated to Walt Disney type fantasies allegedly proving him innocent- that they're truly convinced he's innocent.
-
I imagine it might be very much more difficult for supporters to give voice to any doubts than for those of us who believe him guilty -I'm certain we all agree it would be THE most appalling MoJ if an innocent man had been convicted- the problem is that once they give voice to any doubts that may have been in their heads, those doubts become reality and might not go away. It becomes increasingly difficult to believe -especially when we're treated to Walt Disney type fantasies allegedly proving him innocent- that they're truly convinced he's innocent.
Good post April, I think we were all drawn to the case because of doubts? Having the ability to see the untruths and not rely on gut instinct helps.
-
I came into the case with an open mind. Basically had no choice as knew nothing about it.
The internet & Youtube is very 50/50 & Wilkes's book is unbiased. As all posters will testify, once I read up on the case, I have never had any doubts of guilt -
Julie lying - No.
Relatives fabricating the silencer - No.
Police fabricating evidence - No.
Nevill ringing Jeremy - No.
Credible Sheila scenario - No.
Important missing evidence - No.
Sheila still alive - No.
----------
Supporters will passionately support each posibility. However when I suggested an Industrial frame no one supported it & Mike got quite upset.
-
I imagine it might be very much more difficult for supporters to give voice to any doubts than for those of us who believe him guilty -I'm certain we all agree it would be THE most appalling MoJ if an innocent man had been convicted- the problem is that once they give voice to any doubts that may have been in their heads, those doubts become reality and might not go away. It becomes increasingly difficult to believe -especially when we're treated to Walt Disney type fantasies allegedly proving him innocent- that they're truly convinced he's innocent.
What were you're doubts when you were a supporter ? How did you deal with them ?
-
What were you're doubts when you were a supporter ? How did you deal with them ?
Well, there was no Epiphany. At times it was a struggle. Thoughts, that I never voiced, had been running around in my head for some time. You have to understand that my reasons for believing him innocent were entirely emotional -our upbringings were as close as makes no difference- naively, I couldn't accept it possible that someone who was adopted would be 'ungrateful' enough to do such a thing. It was something which, at the time, my own circumstances wouldn't allow me to separate from. There is also the point -at the time it occurred- that Julie's portrayal by the media, indeed, her own actions- muddied the waters. Of the two, it was generally felt that she was the worst. It may have served to make him appear 'more' innocent.
Anyway, once the emotional veil started to lift, it was clear that he was subject to the same psychologies as the rest of us and strangely, it made him MORE -rather than- less human. It allowed for sibling rivalry. It allowed for resentment. It allowed for greed. It allowed for him feeling trapped by a life he felt compelled to lead. Once this understanding dawned, his actions -on the night- took on a different complexion. His behaviours throughout his adult life were entirely at odds with the person he tried to present himself as being. There was never any ONE thing...................but that alleged phone call -and his casual arrogance in saying he didn't think calling 999 would have got the police there faster- probably sealed it for me.
-
Well, there was no Epiphany. At times it was a struggle. Thoughts, that I never voiced, had been running around in my head for some time. You have to understand that my reasons for believing him innocent were entirely emotional -our upbringings were as close as makes no difference- naively, I couldn't accept it possible that someone who was adopted would be 'ungrateful' enough to do such a thing. It was something which, at the time, my own circumstances wouldn't allow me to separate from. There is also the point -at the time it occurred- that Julie's portrayal by the media, indeed, her own actions- muddied the waters. Of the two, it was generally felt that she was the worst. It may have served to make him appear 'more' innocent.
Anyway, once the emotional veil started to lift, it was clear that he was subject to the same psychologies as the rest of us and strangely, it made him MORE -rather than- less human. It allowed for sibling rivalry. It allowed for resentment. It allowed for greed. It allowed for him feeling trapped by a life he felt compelled to lead. Once this understanding dawned, his actions -on the night- took on a different complexion. His behaviours throughout his adult life were entirely at odds with the person he tried to present himself as being. There was never any ONE thing...................but that alleged phone call -and his casual arrogance in saying he didn't think calling 999 would have got the police there faster- probably sealed it for me.
Joining the Blue forum in 2012 would have helped nullified any doubts at the time. It was very pro Jeremy then.
-
I've previously accused David of attempting a quiet stance change, so he could use his images to goad guilters. Knowing he couldn't goad supporters as some are moderators who are also fiercely protective of Lookout, Buddy & Roch. He brown nosed a moderator with his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' & there was always a slim chance he would get into Bamber's inner circle.
However if he really changed stance from hardcore guilter because he 'realised the relatives could have fabricated the silencer without police assistance', he must still have dozens of doubts. The other things that made him so strongly believe Bamber was guilty, can't just disappear.
Hopefully he will be man enough to say what his doubts are.
-
Jeremy's supporters are very determined. Creating the OS, CT Youtube videos and fund raising campaigns.
Away from official support, supporters on the forums are just as determined, Mike posting his theories, Lookout saying 'Jeremy is innocent' & Nigel managing his threads. David monitors the Blue forum 24/7, ready to attack any guilty posters. All unpaid.
Nigel said 'he would put his life on Jeremy being innocent', while Trudie is more cautious saying she 'believes' Jeremy is innocent.
With a unbreached 33 year old conviction, one alive suspect with motives, an opportunity and no alibi, there must be big doubts from all supporters. All the forensic & circumstantial evidence points to Jeremy.
David is a hardcore supporter & only poster who used to be a hardcore guilter. Nugs claimed he used to be a guilter after I brought up David's stance change, although he's never said why & has always been a conspiracy theorist poster. Mike said he believed Jeremy was guilty before he met him. These posters have serious doubts on Jeremy's innocence, which they are not making public.
All supporters promote things to make Jeremy look innocent & defend or ignore things that make him look guilty. But they will all have a lot of major doubts. What are these doubts ?
No one on injustice anywhere posts any more suggesting he is guilty, I suggest you read the thread.
On the facts we have it is impossible Bamber did this crime, so the corollary is as it appears, the relatives have stolen his life and his inheritance.
Adam you simply have not studied other cases to see this one is an exact mirror of several, including Mark Lundy, Amanda Knox, Russ Faria, Kirsten Lobato.
This sort of injustice is rare on a statistical basis, but surprisingly commonplace over the world population.
Until you broaden your research methods you and your friends here are doomed to holding a position that is completely impossible at all levels.
Sorry mate.
-
No one on injustice anywhere posts any more suggesting he is guilty, I suggest you read the thread.
On the facts we have it is impossible Bamber did this crime, so the corollary is as it appears, the relatives have stolen his life and his inheritance.
Adam you simply have not studied other cases to see this one is an exact mirror of several, including Mark Lundy, Amanda Knox, Russ Faria, Kirsten Lobato.
This sort of injustice is rare on a statistical basis, but surprisingly commonplace over the world population.
Until you broaden your research methods you and your friends here are doomed to holding a position that is completely impossible at all levels.
Sorry mate.
Because no one over there knows the case (Holly aside) so they rely on the rubbish posted by Zelots (again - Holly aside).
-
Because no one over there knows the case (Holly aside) so they rely on the rubbish posted by Zelots (again - Holly aside).
What doubts did you have when a supporter. How did you deal with them ?
-
What doubts did you have when a supporter. How did you deal with them ?
I was never comfortable with the idea of the phone call, not dialling 999 etc. It just never sat right. It was writing to Jeremy himself though that convinced me. His habit of avoiding particular questions. Like "did you try and sell explicit pictures of Sheila?". And of course the wallet.
-
I was never comfortable with the idea of the phone call, not dialling 999 etc. It just never sat right. It was writing to Jeremy himself though that convinced me. His habit of avoiding particular questions. Like "did you try and sell explicit pictures of Sheila?". And of course the wallet.
The OS says The Sun contacted him -
'For Jeremy Bamber, media intrusion continued and a tabloid journalist invited Jeremy to tell his story to the paper. Brett Collins had advised Jeremy to go along to meet with the journalist who was offering money.'
---------
Michael Fielder says Brett contacted him. Nugs's theory is Jeremy offerred The Sun his story for free, but The Sun rejected this to print a false story about photos instead. What did Jeremy tell you ?
-
No one on injustice anywhere posts any more suggesting he is guilty, I suggest you read the thread.
On the facts we have it is impossible Bamber did this crime, so the corollary is as it appears, the relatives have stolen his life and his inheritance.
Adam you simply have not studied other cases to see this one is an exact mirror of several, including Mark Lundy, Amanda Knox, Russ Faria, Kirsten Lobato.
This sort of injustice is rare on a statistical basis, but surprisingly commonplace over the world population.
Until you broaden your research methods you and your friends here are doomed to holding a position that is completely impossible at all levels.
Sorry mate.
I looked at the 'Injustice Anywhere' site.
I knew Luminous Wanderer had cried onto it after I pulled apart his Sheila scenario. But didn't know TomG was there as well. He used to deny posting something whenever I questioned him. Then go silent when I quoted his post.
The sight is called 'Injustice Anywhere', so safety in numbers with everyone pulling in the same direction.
-
The OS says The Sun contacted him -
'For Jeremy Bamber, media intrusion continued and a tabloid journalist invited Jeremy to tell his story to the paper. Brett Collins had advised Jeremy to go along to meet with the journalist who was offering money.'
---------
Michael Fielder says Brett contacted him. Nugs's theory is Jeremy offerred The Sun his story for free, but The Sun rejected this to print a false story about photos instead. What did Jeremy tell you ?
That's BS, how would they know such pictures existed if Bamber hadn't told them? He used the same words to Fielder as he has with Colin.
He didn't tell me anything, he simply ignored the question.
-
That's BS, how would they know such pictures existed if Bamber hadn't told them? He used the same words to Fielder as he has with Colin.
He didn't tell me anything, he simply ignored the question.
Bamber would have told the OS. And said the journalists brought the photos up.
Should not read too much into Bamber not answering questions on this. He can easily say he was approached by The Sun who wanted to know if any pictures of Sheila existed. When he said 'no' they printed a false story.
Much more likely is Bamber approached The Sun & offerred his life story and photos.
-
Did CC say he saw the aledged photos ? Fielder said he never saw the photos.
It may be that no worthwhile photos existed. However Bamber wanted to get Fielder & The Sun interested & committed to a second meeting. So made them up. At the next meeting, he would just offer his life story.
-
Did CC say he saw the aledged photos ? Fielder said he never saw the photos.
It may be that no worthwhile photos existed. However Bamber wanted to get Fielder & The Sun interested & committed to a second meeting. So made them up. At the next meeting, he would just offer his life story.
Colin saw some of them - they did exist.
-
Colin saw some of them - they did exist.
I thought so. That negates the OS's theory & Nugs's theory that Bamber had no photo's & offerred his life story for free.
-
It seems no current supporters are prepared to say what their doubts are.
I knew David wouldn't as he didn't even have the courage to admit he had changed stance. However even Holly hasn't. The only response is from Samson who referred me to a pro Bamber board.
My only doubt was there was an unprecedented intricate industrial frame involving dozens of inter relating divisions and hundreds of people. No supporters agreed with this.
It can only be assumed that supporters believe Bamber is guilty but want to support the 'Campaign for Freedom'.
-
Memo:
A reminder to all posters to keep comments constructive and amicable. Attack opinion by all means but please do not make personal comments towards fellow members. This forum prides itself in allowing all shades of opinion so please bear this in mind when responding. TY and have a pleasant weekend.
-
It seems no current supporters are prepared to say what their doubts are.
I knew David wouldn't as he didn't even have the courage to admit he had changed stance. However even Holly hasn't. The only response is from Samson who referred me to a pro Bamber board.
My only doubt was there was an unprecedented intricate industrial frame involving dozens of inter relating divisions and hundreds of people. No supporters agreed with this.
It can only be assumed that supporters believe Bamber is guilty but want to support the 'Campaign for Freedom'.
I referred you to a board where people analyse any crime.
The general principal seems to be to ignore the behavioural material and analyse the crime scene.
Here is a related example from New Zealand
"An extreme low point was reached the other day in New Zealand when Nigel Latta, a man with this career highlight
Latta was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2012 Queen's Birthday Honours, for his services as a psychologist
declared after the reconviction that Lundy certainly planned to kill his daughter also, and take a 20 year old as a new romantic partner with whom to share his vineyard."
A psychologist, like Caroline, ignoring the crime scene and arguing backwards.
Now we know Lundy is innocent, and there is a pending appeal decision bound to release him. I highlight this because the crime scene is not so different, the coming and going to the scene without trace is problematic, or commonly, a damn good alibi. Also, the plan to murder to raise cash is flawed, there are safer and more tried and true methods. In both cases we find motives are established that show other parties. In Lundy's case he was in between a bad debtor and a creditor, where he was peripherally implicated, and collectors visited his home when he was out of town, and his mother and daughter became victims when they resisted the intrusion.
In the Bamber case, Sheila was about to lose control of her children for reasons she would not buy into, and was a certified psycho coming into the scene of the crime. Unlike Bamber.
Why not consider all this, then look at the crime scene?
Consider Caroline saying a phone call and a few photographs are more important than a remarkable alibi and a motive, then consider the impossibility of predicting human manoeuvres in a massacre plan, where they must all line up to look like a murder suicide. Consider that the suicide actually was bullet trajectory consistent.
-
Throwing out the claim that Sheila was about to lose control of her children doesn't make it fact, though. You have no evidence of it being said, other than from Jeremy. There is no evidence of ANYTHING which occurred in the farmhouse that night which hasn't come from Jeremy. You have the temerity to come on this forum, spout off about a case you appear to have scant knowledge of and refer to one of the victims as "a certified psycho"!!! You haven't a CLUE. Yes, she was mentally ill, but she was suitably medicated with a drug she was receiving by injection. During the last fortnight of her life she was so lacking in mental energy, she could barely wash herself, let alone summon the strength to murder. But let's not worry about such trivialities, eh?
-
Throwing out the claim that Sheila was about to lose control of her children doesn't make it fact, though. You have no evidence of it being said, other than from Jeremy. There is no evidence of ANYTHING which occurred in the farmhouse that night which hasn't come from Jeremy. You have the temerity to come on this forum, spout off about a case you appear to have scant knowledge of and refer to one of the victims as "a certified psycho"!!! You haven't a CLUE. Yes, she was mentally ill, but she was suitably medicated with a drug she was receiving by injection. During the last fortnight of her life she was so lacking in mental energy, she could barely wash herself, let alone summon the strength to murder. But let's not worry about such trivialities, eh?
How anyone could believe for a moment the bizarre claim that Sheila carried out the murders and physdically fought her father over the kitchen table without receiving a single scrape or bruise is quite ludicrous imo.
This entire story was a fabrication from the outset, invented by Jeremy Bamber and played through to the end. This was his undoing however since if Sheila is innocent then by default he is certainly guilty.
-
How anyone could believe for a moment the bizarre claim that Sheila carried out the murders and physdically fought her father over the kitchen table without receiving a single scrape or bruise is quite ludicrous imo.
This entire story was a fabrication from the outset, invented by Jeremy Bamber and played through to the end. This was his undoing however since if Sheila is innocent then by default he is certainly guilty.
There are so, so many glaring faults with Bamber's invented scenario (all explored on here) that I could actually get quite cross with Holly, if I didn't like her so much. She's the only Bamber supporter who hasn't got galloping mental health issues. I think she's painted herself into a corner.
8(8-))
-
I referred you to a board where people analyse any crime.
The general principal seems to be to ignore the behavioural material and analyse the crime scene.
Here is a related example from New Zealand
"An extreme low point was reached the other day in New Zealand when Nigel Latta, a man with this career highlight
Latta was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2012 Queen's Birthday Honours, for his services as a psychologist
declared after the reconviction that Lundy certainly planned to kill his daughter also, and take a 20 year old as a new romantic partner with whom to share his vineyard."
A psychologist, like Caroline, ignoring the crime scene and arguing backwards.
Now we know Lundy is innocent, and there is a pending appeal decision bound to release him. I highlight this because the crime scene is not so different, the coming and going to the scene without trace is problematic, or commonly, a damn good alibi. Also, the plan to murder to raise cash is flawed, there are safer and more tried and true methods. In both cases we find motives are established that show other parties. In Lundy's case he was in between a bad debtor and a creditor, where he was peripherally implicated, and collectors visited his home when he was out of town, and his mother and daughter became victims when they resisted the intrusion.
In the Bamber case, Sheila was about to lose control of her children for reasons she would not buy into, and was a certified psycho coming into the scene of the crime. Unlike Bamber.
Why not consider all this, then look at the crime scene?
Consider Caroline saying a phone call and a few photographs are more important than a remarkable alibi and a motive, then consider the impossibility of predicting human manoeuvres in a massacre plan, where they must all line up to look like a murder suicide. Consider that the suicide actually was bullet trajectory consistent.
Consider Samson who knows very little about this case ignoring the very beginning of the of the entire event? The very thing that makes the crime either Jeremy or Sheila. Consider Samson dropping the word 'trajectory' at varying degrees into his posts to make it sound as though he might know what he is talking about.
Indeed, we can look at the crime scene and see it is clearly staged to make it look like Sheila went crazy with a gun - Jeremy's words that relate to a phone call that didn't happen. But the call isn't important and perhaps is best ignored.
Also don't look at the behaviour of a suspect in the days and weeks after the event, ignore the fact that he tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister. He wasn't in bits trying to work out where it all went wrong, he was piling clothes onto a trailer and burning them in the farm fire pit, while also raking in a few bucks from the sale of family heir looms.
However, lets not look at any of that, lets look and a grainy old picture and pretend we know where people were standing when shot, in fact, lets make a 3D version so everyone will think how clever we are. Lets slip in a few 'trajectories' along the way and ignore the facts - in fact lets just make up our own.
By the way Samson! Sheila didn't have custody of her children, Colin did, so the theory that she was about to lose them is moot! Guess where that came from? Yep, Bamber himself, but lets ignore that - it's not important!
-
I referred you to a board where people analyse any crime.
The general principal seems to be to ignore the behavioural material and analyse the crime scene.
Here is a related example from New Zealand
"An extreme low point was reached the other day in New Zealand when Nigel Latta, a man with this career highlight
Latta was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2012 Queen's Birthday Honours, for his services as a psychologist
declared after the reconviction that Lundy certainly planned to kill his daughter also, and take a 20 year old as a new romantic partner with whom to share his vineyard."
A psychologist, like Caroline, ignoring the crime scene and arguing backwards.
Now we know Lundy is innocent, and there is a pending appeal decision bound to release him. I highlight this because the crime scene is not so different, the coming and going to the scene without trace is problematic, or commonly, a damn good alibi. Also, the plan to murder to raise cash is flawed, there are safer and more tried and true methods. In both cases we find motives are established that show other parties. In Lundy's case he was in between a bad debtor and a creditor, where he was peripherally implicated, and collectors visited his home when he was out of town, and his mother and daughter became victims when they resisted the intrusion.
In the Bamber case, Sheila was about to lose control of her children for reasons she would not buy into, and was a certified psycho coming into the scene of the crime. Unlike Bamber.
Why not consider all this, then look at the crime scene?
Consider Caroline saying a phone call and a few photographs are more important than a remarkable alibi and a motive, then consider the impossibility of predicting human manoeuvres in a massacre plan, where they must all line up to look like a murder suicide. Consider that the suicide actually was bullet trajectory consistent.
Samson, apparently I have a reputation for rudeness, not sure why, but you do come across as a bit of a d..k. And we certainly DO NOT know that Lundy is innocent. Be careful what you wish for, I'm going to have a squiz at the case. I already know bits, and I have many questions. MANY pertinent questions. If I can be arsed. So brace yourself.
-
There are so, so many glaring faults with Bamber's invented scenario (all explored on here) that I could actually get quite cross with Holly, if I didn't like her so much. She's the only Bamber supporter who hasn't got galloping mental health issues. I think she's painted herself into a corner.
8(8-))
I agree wholeheartedly Puglove yet only DS Stan Jones had the balls to do something about it unlike his namesake. Had DCI Taff Jones got his way Bamber would never have faced a trial and Sheila would have forever been wrongly blamed for the massacre. How these policemen ever get promoted to such heady positions is beyond me.
-
No one on injustice anywhere posts any more suggesting he is guilty, I suggest you read the thread.
On the facts we have it is impossible Bamber did this crime, so the corollary is as it appears, the relatives have stolen his life and his inheritance.
Adam you simply have not studied other cases to see this one is an exact mirror of several, including Mark Lundy, Amanda Knox, Russ Faria, Kirsten Lobato.
This sort of injustice is rare on a statistical basis, but surprisingly commonplace over the world population.
Until you broaden your research methods you and your friends here are doomed to holding a position that is completely impossible at all levels.
Sorry mate.
No-one on IA posts anymore because all the sane ones who believe him guilty have left, and therefore see it as pointless and fruitless arguing with the blinkered. You still haven't got it into your head that greedy good-for-nothings, life insurance chasers, and spoilt little rich boys will commit heinous crimes to get their paws on wads of money. Only Lundy (another hefty insurance payout seeker) in your list is relevant to the Bamber case - you should read up more on the Menendez brothers, the Newalls, and Stephen Seddon.
Sorry to you too mate... there is no doubt in my mind of Jeremy Bamber's guilt.
Hoots, shoots and leaves.
-
It seems no current supporters are prepared to say what their doubts are.
I knew David wouldn't as he didn't even have the courage to admit he had changed stance. However even Holly hasn't. The only response is from Samson who referred me to a pro Bamber board.
My only doubt was there was an unprecedented intricate industrial frame involving dozens of inter relating divisions and hundreds of people. No supporters agreed with this.
It can only be assumed that supporters believe Bamber is guilty but want to support the 'Campaign for Freedom'.
Hmmm why would it be expected that 'supporters' have doubts but not those that believe JB guilty? When I first looked at the case I had a few doubts but not any longer. I firmly believe JB nnocent and that his conviction will be quashed.
-
No-one on IA posts anymore because all the sane ones who believe him guilty have left, and therefore see it as pointless and fruitless arguing with the blinkered. You still haven't got it into your head that greedy good-for-nothings, life insurance chasers, and spoilt little rich boys will commit heinous crimes to get their paws on wads of money. Only Lundy (another hefty insurance payout seeker) in your list is relevant to the Bamber case - you should read up more on the Menendez brothers, the Newalls, and Stephen Seddon.
Sorry to you too mate... there is no doubt in my mind of Jeremy Bamber's guilt.
Hoots, shoots and leaves.
The Newall bros. were eventually caught by Roderick confessing to his uncle who subsequently reported the matter to the police who then bugged a room and in effect secured a taped confession. This could very easily have been achieved in the Bamber case with the police securing a taped confession via JM:
- JM claims she parted on amicable terms with JB.
- JM claims JB continued to talk about the murders until they parted
- JM claims JB asked if she wanted anything from the house and she said the bike. JB was due to drop this off to her but it never happened.
- Why didn't EP set up a meet to hand over the bike with JM raising the murders and EP listen in, record, arrest and charge?
-
Hmmm why would it be expected that 'supporters' have doubts but not those that believe JB guilty? When I first looked at the case I had a few doubts but not any longer. I firmly believe JB nnocent and that his conviction will be quashed.
My thread posts says why all supporters will have doubts. Some supporters such as David believe Bamber is guilty but want to support him.
What were you're doubts when you first looked into the case ?
-
No-one on IA posts anymore because all the sane ones who believe him guilty have left, and therefore see it as pointless and fruitless arguing with the blinkered. You still haven't got it into your head that greedy good-for-nothings, life insurance chasers, and spoilt little rich boys will commit heinous crimes to get their paws on wads of money. Only Lundy (another hefty insurance payout seeker) in your list is relevant to the Bamber case - you should read up more on the Menendez brothers, the Newalls, and Stephen Seddon.
Sorry to you too mate... there is no doubt in my mind of Jeremy Bamber's guilt.
Hoots, shoots and leaves.
I would think people are more likely to post on IA because there are no guilters. The Blue forum was still popular when it was just supporters.
Both TomG & Luminous Wanderer left the Blue forum after I pulled apart their theories. While David has joined IA hopeing people will agree with his theories, knowing no one on the Blue & Red forums does.
I suspect it's quiet because Luminous Wanderers posts are long & other supporters either post on other forums or work for the CT instead.
-
My thread posts says why all supporters will have doubts. Some supporters such as David believe Bamber is guilty but want to support him.
What were you're doubts when you first looked into the case ?
Afaik David genuinely believes JB innocent.
-
My thread posts says why all supporters will have doubts. Some supporters such as David believe Bamber is guilty but want to support him.
What were you're doubts when you first looked into the case ?
When I joined Blue 'supporters' would theorise about the location of SC's clothes believing they must have been blood stained with burning in the Aga a favourite. This didn't sit comfortably with me as there was no evidence of such. When I looked into the ballistics and pathology I appreciated the nature of victims' wounds and the type of firearm used would not produce back spatter or medium velocity spatter from the "blunt instrument".
-
When I joined Blue 'supporters' would theorise about the location of SC's clothes believing they must have been blood stained with burning in the Aga a favourite. This didn't sit comfortably with me as there was no evidence of such. When I looked into the ballistics and pathology I appreciated the nature of victims' wounds and the type of firearm used would not produce back spatter or medium velocity spatter from the "blunt instrument".
Only Sheila's blood being on her has never been a major thing for guilters. Maybe Nevill's blood may have fallen on Sheila during the kitchen fight. Maybe not.
However Sheila being in her exact sleeping clothes which were undamaged, with no gun shot residue or oil on, confirms Sheila's innocence.
-
Afaik David genuinely believes JB innocent.
I disagree with that.
David posted as a hardcore guilter for a long time. He attempted a quiet stance change as he didn't have an evidence reason for the change.
When exposed he eventually said he changed because he realised the relatives could have fabricated the silencer without police assistance. Not sure how that instantly makes Bamber innocent & negates all his guilty reasons.
Even you said his big 'forensic evidence breakthrough' was nothing.
But he's still entitled to support Bamber & entitled to not say what his doubts are on this thread.
-
I would think people are more likely to post on IA because there are no guilters. The Blue forum was still popular when it was just supporters.
Both TomG & Luminous Wanderer left the Blue forum after I pulled apart their theories. While David has joined IA hopeing people will agree with his theories, knowing no one on the Blue & Red forums does.
I suspect it's quiet because Luminous Wanderers posts are long & other supporters either post on other forums or work for the CT instead.
Consider an analyst like Charlie Wilkes on IA.
He started just 4 threads in the last couple of years, concerning people in jail. All have been subsequently released because of course it was decided by the authorities they were innocent. This is not a liberal mindless pursuit, it shows intense targeting. He knows perfectly well like Holly and me that JB is innocent , and states why showing his working. If you are tired of me lecturing go read a consummate master. Join the forum and shoot him down, that is how to demonstrate your theory of how JB pulled this off. But you won't and can't.
-
Consider an analyst like Charlie Wilkes on IA.
He started just 4 threads in the last couple of years, concerning people in jail. All have been subsequently released because of course it was decided by the authorities they were innocent. This is not a liberal mindless pursuit, it shows intense targeting. He knows perfectly well like Holly and me that JB is innocent , and states why showing his working. If you are tired of me lecturing go read a consummate master. Join the forum and shoot him down, that is how to demonstrate your theory of how JB pulled this off. But you won't and can't.
We did and we errrrr ....... did! Charlie stopped posting while I and a few others were debating over there - and why do you call him an analyst? I found Charlie's video of how Sheila could have shot herself most amusing. Perhaps you could post that here?
-
Charlie Wilkes didn't create the Bamber thread on IA and doesn't post much on it. Suspect Samson is bigging him up as he's a poster there I've never engaged with.
I've already engaged with Luminous Wanderer & TomG. Both crying off to IA as they didn't like me pulling apart their theories. While I engaged with David only yesterday, requesting a source from him on Blue, which I am still waiting for.
-
Charlie Wilkes didn't create the Bamber thread on IA and doesn't post much on it. Suspect Samson is bigging him up as he's a poster there I've never engaged with.
I've already engaged with Luminous Wanderer & TomG. Both crying off to IA as they didn't like me pulling apart their theories. While I engaged with David only yesterday, requesting a source from him on Blue, which I am still waiting for.
Charlie has a record of starting threads for innocent prisoners.
He would never waste time on Bamber if he was not obviously innocent.
You lot are persecuting an innocent man, and that is disgraceful.
-
Charlie has a record of starting threads for innocent prisoners.
He would never waste time on Bamber if he was not obviously innocent.
You lot are persecuting an innocent man, and that is disgraceful.
Good ole' Charlie. Sounds like Charlie decides who's going to be innocent and everyone says "Hail, Charlie" with you, as number one fan, saying it loudest.
-
Charlie has a record of starting threads for innocent prisoners.
He would never waste time on Bamber if he was not obviously innocent.
You lot are persecuting an innocent man, and that is disgraceful.
I see, Bamber is innocent because Charlie Wilkes thinks so? They should try submitting THAT to the CCRC. ^*&&
-
Good ole' Charlie. Sounds like Charlie decides who's going to be innocent and everyone says "Hail, Charlie" with you, as number one fan, saying it loudest.
He won't waste his time posting here, but an example of his thinking is this, maybe you can help parse it, explain how to persuade Sheila to lie down beside her mother's bullet ridden body, and be shot.
"Heh. Common sense was not in its infancy in 1986. The crown suppressed its application, because it didn't support their accusation. Instead they composed this absurd litany, which the defense accepted as the terms of the contest. No one seriously addressed the problem of how someone could have faked the suicide found at this crime scene.
I have seen "bloodstain pattern analysis" abused to the point where it has become yet another field of junk science applied by both prosecutors and defense lawyers to mislead courts. That is the progress we have made since 1986.
BUT, bloodstains sometimes have obvious implications, for those who are capable of grasping the obvious. Vanezis is no expert in the field, nor am I, and yet he saw the same thing we do. Which is why the crown had to get him to revise his original findings."
-
He won't waste his time posting here, but an example of his thinking is this, maybe you can help parse it, explain how to persuade Sheila to lie down beside her mother's bullet ridden body, and be shot.
"Heh. Common sense was not in its infancy in 1986. The crown suppressed its application, because it didn't support their accusation. Instead they composed this absurd litany, which the defense accepted as the terms of the contest. No one seriously addressed the problem of how someone could have faked the suicide found at this crime scene.
I have seen "bloodstain pattern analysis" abused to the point where it has become yet another field of junk science applied by both prosecutors and defense lawyers to mislead courts. That is the progress we have made since 1986.
BUT, bloodstains sometimes have obvious implications, for those who are capable of grasping the obvious. Vanezis is no expert in the field, nor am I, and yet he saw the same thing we do. Which is why the crown had to get him to revise his original findings."
And we won't waste our time posting there - tried it and it's just full of people who don't know the case, talking about other cases. However, for anyone interested, I found the post made by your hero which contains a link to the video which is supposed to clear up how Sheila shot herself. Lets see what others think?
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=2931&start=4100#p180605
-
Supporters often say Sheila wouldn't just lie down to be shot. Basically she would. Bamber would have believed this after he saw her alive just 5 hours earlier.
Sheila would be half asleep, under sedation, physically weak & uncordinated, not know what was happening & not know other people were in danger/dead.
If any of that was not the case, Bamber could use his vastly superior strenght and the gun he was holding. He only had to get her a few yards & then on the floor.
He had certainly just shot June and Nevill 15 times, had a ferocious kitchen fight & perhaps already killed two 6 year old boys. Sheila was not going to make him give up over half way through.
-
Bamber had the option of injuring Sheila prior to getting her into his chosen position. It would not incriminate him as he could just suggest Nevill injured Sheila.
Nevill would have certainly injured Sheila or damaged her nightie pre bullet firing or during the kitchen fight. But didn't.
Sheila & her nightie being undamaged shows how easy it was for Bamber to position and shoot her.
-
Bamber had the option of injuring Sheila prior to getting her into his chosen position. It would not incriminate him as he could just suggest Nevill injured Sheila.
Nevill would have certainly injured Sheila or damaged her nightie pre bullet firing or during the kitchen fight. But didn't.
Sheila & her nightie being undamaged shows how easy it was for Bamber to position and shoot her.
In these two last posts you are arguing backwards, particularly by declaring it was easy to make her comply because her nightie was undamaged.
Another argument is to say it was undamaged because she shot June, then Neville in the mouth and elbow and shoulder, thus disabling them both. None of these shots damage the nightie, nor does the bludgeoning of Neville before she reloaded and finished him with the head shots.
-
In these two last posts you are arguing backwards, particularly by declaring it was easy to make her comply because her nightie was undamaged.
Another argument is to say it was undamaged because she shot June, then Neville in the mouth and elbow and shoulder, thus disabling them both. None of these shots damage the nightie, nor does the bludgeoning of Neville before she reloaded and finished him with the head shots.
It seems you do not believe that Sheila showered and changed after killing everyone. Which is a popular theory from supporters.
Nevill had the chance to injure Sheila when fully fit. With or without the help of another adult, June. To get control of the rifle. But rang Bamber instead !
Nevill was shot 4 times upstairs. The two head shots would not have restricted the use of his arms and legs. The two body shots did not disable him as he got downstairs, where the crime scene evidence shows there was a huge fight.
Sheila & her nightie being mark free simultandously shows she was not involved in the kitchen fight & how easy it was for Bamber to control her.
-
It seems you do not believe that Sheila showered and changed after killing everyone. Which is a popular theory from supporters.
Nevill had the chance to injure Sheila when fully fit. With or without the help of another adult, June. To get control of the rifle. But rang Bamber instead !
Nevill was shot 4 times upstairs. The two head shots would not have restricted the use of his arms and legs. The two body shots did not disable him as he got downstairs, where the crime scene evidence shows there was a huge fight.
Sheila & her nightie being mark free simultandously shows she was not involved in the kitchen fight & how easy it was for Bamber to control her.
Sheila never needed to touch another human being. She shot them and bludgeoned Neville.
Parse that sentence and show where there is an irrevocable data point that shows she must have been in contact with a victim if she killed them all.
-
In these two last posts you are arguing backwards, particularly by declaring it was easy to make her comply because her nightie was undamaged.
Another argument is to say it was undamaged because she shot June, then Neville in the mouth and elbow and shoulder, thus disabling them both. None of these shots damage the nightie, nor does the bludgeoning of Neville before she reloaded and finished him with the head shots.
It would be remarkable indeed if she managed to do all that and not have signs on her nightdress.
-
In these two last posts you are arguing backwards, particularly by declaring it was easy to make her comply because her nightie was undamaged.
Another argument is to say it was undamaged because she shot June, then Neville in the mouth and elbow and shoulder, thus disabling them both. None of these shots damage the nightie, nor does the bludgeoning of Neville before she reloaded and finished him with the head shots.
D'ya know, it's impossible to get my head round Sheila being able to hit him hard enough to -sorry for this- expose part of his brain without getting some of it on her.
-
Sheila never needed to touch another human being. She shot them and bludgeoned Neville.
Parse that sentence and show where there is an irrevocable data point that shows she must have been in contact with a victim if she killed them all.
Well she would have wrestled with Nevill for the rifle. Resulting in the ceiling light smashing, aga scratching & upturned/smashed items. So their bodies were very close or touching each other for several seconds.
Agree Nevill did not use his 9 inch height & 8 stone weight advantage to punch or jump on Sheila, which would have left evidence on her nightie. Although that would have been his easiest way to negate her, either pre or post rifle shots.
-
It would be remarkable indeed if she managed to do all that and not have signs on her nightdress.
The ballistic and pathological evidence would suggest otherwise. And if small traces of victims' blood existed on SC's person/nightdress no one would be any the wiser since testing wasn't carried out and even if it had been blood serology type testing was unable to type small stains.
Only 2 blood stained areas of SC's nightdress were tested: under the armpit and one of the marks which appears to resemble a finger. These stains were consistent with her own blood groups.
Summary non-gunshot injuries sustained by NB most likely location being the kitchen:
- Fractures to skull
- Bruising to both eyes not solely associated with fractures to skull but blows from blunt object
- Laceration to right side of nose, 1 blow in association with injury to right eye above
- Bruising and grazing to bridge of nose. Same blow as laceration to right side of nose
- Bruising forehead 1 each side
- Bruising right cheek and temple
- Bruising and abrasions left cheek and temple
- *Laceration right parietal region "severe superficial skin injury"
- Laceration left parietal region 1/4"
- Bruising ulna right forearm
* Pathologist said he was unable to gauge the force used other than for this wound which he described as being inflicted with "considerable force" albeit it caused a laceration wound.
The above non-gunshot wounds were probably not capable of generating medium velocity blood spatter. The pathologist described the instrument used to cause these wounds as "blunt" which in all probability was the rifle. The rifle contained so little blood it was not even possible to group unlike the 1/4" blood flake found in the silencer!
Aside the fractures to the skull the other wounds amounted to bruises and lacerations.
-
It seems you do not believe that Sheila showered and changed after killing everyone. Which is a popular theory from supporters.
Nevill had the chance to injure Sheila when fully fit. With or without the help of another adult, June. To get control of the rifle. But rang Bamber instead !
Nevill was shot 4 times upstairs. The two head shots would not have restricted the use of his arms and legs. The two body shots did not disable him as he got downstairs, where the crime scene evidence shows there was a huge fight.
Sheila & her nightie being mark free simultandously shows she was not involved in the kitchen fight & how easy it was for Bamber to control her.
Imo 'supporters' make the fatal mistake of relying on JB's grossly incompetent and negligent lawyers at trial and appeal. Eg prosecution claim SC was clean. So instead of the defence arguing SC's found state was entirely consistent with SC as perp they argue all sorts of bizarre things:
- a ritual cleanse
- changing of clothes
- pathologist and police committing perjury by covering up SC's hands and feet were blood stained
- non-disclosed images of SC's feet which supporters claim represent SC's blood stained feet
This is all wrong imo. There was no ritual cleanse or changing of clothes and the pathologist/police didn't commit perjury nor do images exist of SC's blood stained feet. SC's found state as per pathologist and police was entirely consistent with SC as perp.
-
Supporters often say Sheila wouldn't just lie down to be shot. Basically she would. Bamber would have believed this after he saw her alive just 5 hours earlier.
Sheila would be half asleep, under sedation, physically weak & uncordinated, not know what was happening & not know other people were in danger/dead.
If any of that was not the case, Bamber could use his vastly superior strenght and the gun he was holding. He only had to get her a few yards & then on the floor.
He had certainly just shot June and Nevill 15 times, had a ferocious kitchen fight & perhaps already killed two 6 year old boys. Sheila was not going to make him give up over half way through.
There's no evidence SC was half asleep, sedated, physically weak and uncoordinated. Toxicology reports show levels of Haloperidol in SC's system just within the moderate range.
If JB was responsible he had to pin SC to the floor in such a way she would not fight back eg limbs flailing and at the same time position the rifle with silencer, some 50" in length, under her chin to enable him to pull the trigger.
No evidence of a "ferocious kitchen fight".
-
Charlie Wilkes didn't create the Bamber thread on IA and doesn't post much on it. Suspect Samson is bigging him up as he's a poster there I've never engaged with.
I've already engaged with Luminous Wanderer & TomG. Both crying off to IA as they didn't like me pulling apart their theories. While I engaged with David only yesterday, requesting a source from him on Blue, which I am still waiting for.
Charlie Wilkes will not waste time going over the same ground as many of us do myself included. He's the only 'supporter' I agree with. Here's one of his posts from IA:
What I see with a lot of people is that they don't follow crime stories or look at many cases, so they don't realize what kind of crime they are looking at (which can be misleading, but not often), and they don't recognize the difference between good evidence and bad/inconclusive/contrived evidence.
The section in bold is imo where 'supporters' let JB down as much of what they advocate is bad/inconclusive/ contrived evidence. To those who believe JB guilty this simply reinforces their views. Also bad/inconclusive/contrived evidence isn't in a million years going to assist JB overturn his conviction.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=194843#p194843
-
Sheila never needed to touch another human being. She shot them and bludgeoned Neville.
Parse that sentence and show where there is an irrevocable data point that shows she must have been in contact with a victim if she killed them all.
I notice you avoid the scuffle over the kitchen table?
Even if we consider for a moment that Sheila had the rifle I don't think Nevill would have had any difficulty disarming her. The shots were all on target except one which would have been a remarkable achievement for anyone familiar with the weapon but for Sheila? I don't think so.
-
The ballistic and pathological evidence would suggest otherwise. And if small traces of victims' blood existed on SC's person/nightdress no one would be any the wiser since testing wasn't carried out and even if it had been blood serology type testing was unable to type small stains.
Only 2 blood stained areas of SC's nightdress were tested: under the armpit and one of the marks which appears to resemble a finger. These stains were consistent with her own blood groups.
Summary non-gunshot injuries sustained by NB most likely location being the kitchen:
- Fractures to skull
- Bruising to both eyes not solely associated with fractures to skull but blows from blunt object
- Laceration to right side of nose, 1 blow in association with injury to right eye above
- Bruising and grazing to bridge of nose. Same blow as laceration to right side of nose
- Bruising forehead 1 each side
- Bruising right cheek and temple
- Bruising and abrasions left cheek and temple
- *Laceration right parietal region "severe superficial skin injury"
- Laceration left parietal region 1/4"
- Bruising ulna right forearm
* Pathologist said he was unable to gauge the force used other than for this wound which he described as being inflicted with "considerable force" albeit it caused a laceration wound.
The above non-gunshot wounds were probably not capable of generating medium velocity blood spatter. The pathologist described the instrument used to cause these wounds as "blunt" which in all probability was the rifle. The rifle contained so little blood it was not even possible to group unlike the 1/4" blood flake found in the silencer!
Aside the fractures to the skull the other wounds amounted to bruises and lacerations.
'Probably' isn't scientific Holly however, blunt instruments are capable of generating medium and high velocity spatter. Smack a water melon with a baseball bat if you don't believe it! They didn't test the rest of the nightdress because there was nothing to see, had she battered Nevil, there would have been. No probably maybe about it. It's irrelevant how much blood was on the rifle, given that it would have been transferred to the individual carrying it - think about the way you hold a rifle? It's held close to the body and under the arm. Any blood would end up on the clothing of the person carrying it - leaving smears behind. No one would hold the rifle at arms length. We know that no one else's blood was found on Sheila but we don't know that the same could be said about Jeremy.
-
'Probably' isn't scientific Holly however, blunt instruments are capable of generating medium and high velocity spatter. Smack a water melon with a baseball bat if you don't believe it! They didn't test the rest of the nightdress because there was nothing to see, had she battered Nevil, there would have been. No probably maybe about it. It's irrelevant how much blood was on the rifle, given that it would have been transferred to the individual carrying it - think about the way you hold a rifle? It's held close to the body and under the arm. Any blood would end up on the clothing of the person carrying it - leaving smears behind. No one would hold the rifle at arms length. We know that no one else's blood was found on Sheila but we don't know that the same could be said about Jeremy.
Yes I appreciate 'probably' isn't scientific but it was something JB's defence at trial could argue against. Spatter is dependent on velocity ie speed in which one objects hits another object eg bullet/victim, "blunt instrument"/ victim or baseball bat/melon. Baseball bats are much lighter than the rifle and a melon more pliable and less resistant than poor NB. Therefore the velocity with a baseball bat and melon would potentially be greater with the potential for spatter greater.
If NB's non-gunshot wounds generated blood spatter then more must have transferred to the rifle than the perp as the rifle was coming into direct contact with NB and the victim wasn't ie the length of the rifle in part separated NB and his perp. If this was the case then why didn't bloodstains found on the rifle transfer to SC's nightdress given it was found resting across her body?
-
Yes I appreciate 'probably' isn't scientific but it was something JB's defence at trial could argue against. Spatter is dependent on velocity ie speed in which one objects hits another object eg bullet/victim, "blunt instrument"/ victim or baseball bat/melon. Baseball bats are much lighter than the rifle and a melon more pliable and less resistant than poor NB. Therefore the velocity with a baseball bat and melon would potentially be greater with the potential for spatter greater.
If NB's non-gunshot wounds generated blood spatter then more must have transferred to the rifle than the perp as the rifle was coming into direct contact with NB and the victim wasn't ie the length of the rifle in part separated NB and his perp. If this was the case then why didn't bloodstains found on the rifle transfer to SC's nightdress given it was found resting across her body?
Because the rifle was placed on her by her killer. Had she used that rifle her hands and fingers would have been covered in blood and so would her nightdress. Clearly the only blood on Sheila was her own imo.
(http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
-
Because the rifle was placed on her by her killer. Had she used that rifle her hands and fingers would have been covered in blood and so would her nightdress.
But small blood stains were found on the rifle so why didn't these transfer to SC's nightdress given it was found resting across her person/nightdress? It seems most likely NB sustained the non-gunshot injuries from the rifle and yet the rifle only contained small blood stains here and there so why would SC's hands, fingers and nightdress be covered in blood?
The blood stains found on the rifle were so small it was not even possible to group them.
-
But small blood stains were found on the rifle so why didn't these transfer to SC's nightdress given it was found resting across her person/nightdress? It seems most likely NB sustained the non-gunshot injuries from the rifle and yet the rifle only contained small blood stains here and there so why would SC's hands, fingers and nightdress be covered in blood?
The blood stains found on the rifle were so small it was not even possible to group them.
A gunman wearing gloves would have the same effect as wiping the rifle with a cloth. That's why IMO so few decipherable fingerprints were found on it.
-
Yes I appreciate 'probably' isn't scientific but it was something JB's defence at trial could argue against. Spatter is dependent on velocity ie speed in which one objects hits another object eg bullet/victim, "blunt instrument"/ victim or baseball bat/melon. Baseball bats are much lighter than the rifle and a melon more pliable and less resistant than poor NB. Therefore the velocity with a baseball bat and melon would potentially be greater with the potential for spatter greater.
If NB's non-gunshot wounds generated blood spatter then more must have transferred to the rifle than the perp as the rifle was coming into direct contact with NB and the victim wasn't ie the length of the rifle in part separated NB and his perp. If this was the case then why didn't bloodstains found on the rifle transfer to SC's nightdress given it was found resting across her body?
I have already answered this Holly, blood would have transferred from the rifle to the gunman by the very nature of how the rifle is carried.
-
A gunman wearing gloves would have the same effect as wiping the rifle with a cloth. That's why IMO so few decipherable fingerprints were found on it.
Gloves and sleeves would have soaked up ans wiped off the blood, leaving little behind. We know that blood didn't end up on Sheila but we don't know about Jeremy.
-
Because the rifle was placed on her by her killer. Had she used that rifle her hands and fingers would have been covered in blood and so would her nightdress. Clearly the only blood on Sheila was her own imo.
(http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
The rifle contained numerous small blood stains so why didn't these transfer to SC's nightdress regardless of whether it came to be on SC's person when she self-inflicted the 2 gsw's or JB inflicted them?
I'm not sure why SC's hands/fingers and nightdress would be covered in blood when the rifle wasn't?
-
A gunman wearing gloves would have the same effect as wiping the rifle with a cloth. That's why IMO so few decipherable fingerprints were found on it.
Firearms are difficult to recover fingerprints from due to the coating known as 'bluing'. One fingerprint from JB is consistent with his historical use and one fingerprint from SC consistent with SC as perp.
-
I have already answered this Holly, blood would have transferred from the rifle to the gunman by the very nature of how the rifle is carried.
This being the case why did blood not transfer to SC's nightdress when the rifle came to rest on it?
-
This being the case why did blood not transfer to SC's nightdress when the rifle came to rest on it?
Because they then, it would have dried.
-
Because they then, it would have dried.
How long does blood take to dry on a non porous object?
-
How long does blood take to dry on a non porous object?
Well, I did this test if you remember and it's dry in 5 or 10 minutes.
-
Well, I did this test if you remember and it's dry in 5 or 10 minutes.
No I don't recall your test but according to David I suffer from alcohol related Alzheimer's so this might explain it *%87
I carried out a test a few days ago. I was shaving my legs with a Gillette swivel and nicked around my ankle. I quickly reached for a tissue to prevent blood dripping and then thought it would be a good opportunity to see how long it would take blood to absorb/dry on carpet. I went to the airing cupboard which is carpeted and let the blood drip on the carpet. I stood on it immediately and blood transferred to my bare foot. I then waited 5 mins before standing on it again and nothing transferred as I guess the blood quickly absorbed into the carpet thus preventing transfer. Afterwards I got down on all 4's with a bowl of water and 1001 carpet shampoo to remove the blood - wouldn't want anyone to think I'm s...ky ?{)(** So based on my experiment this explains why SC was found on carpet which contained numerous blood drips from June but her feet were described as "spotlessly clean". Dr Vanezis said as much in his interview with CAL but I bet he didn't test his hypothesis!
-
No I don't recall your test but according to David I suffer from alcohol related Alzheimer's so this might explain it *%87
I carried out a test a few days ago. I was shaving my legs with a Gillette swivel and nicked around my ankle. I quickly reached for a tissue to prevent blood dripping and then thought it would be a good opportunity to see how long it would take blood to absorb/dry on carpet. I went to the airing cupboard which is carpeted and let the blood drip on the carpet. I stood on it immediately and blood transferred to my bare foot. I then waited 5 mins before standing on it again and nothing transferred as I guess the blood quickly absorbed into the carpet thus preventing transfer. Afterwards I got down on all 4's with a bowl of water and 1001 carpet shampoo to remove the blood - wouldn't want anyone to think I'm s...ky ?{)(** So based on my experiment this explains why SC was found on carpet which contained numerous blood drips from June but her feet were described as "spotlessly clean". Dr Vanezis said as much in his interview with CAL but I bet he didn't test his hypothesis!
OK, you tested on absorbent surfaces and I tested on non-absorbent. Bottom line, it dries quickly.
-
Reminder to all members!
Forum Rules
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not always actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, please realize that they may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.
You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.
You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason. We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.
After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clear and accurate information. Any information the forum owner or staff determines to be inaccurate or vulgar in nature will be removed, with or without prior notice. Appropriate sanctions may be applicable.
Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.
Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.
Please treat all members with respect and accept gracefully that other users may not necessarily share your point of view. Debates should be structured and constructive, they should not be used as a mechanism to disrupt or goad or provoke other users. In the event that a breach of these rules occurs, moderators can invoke sanctions which can include pre authorisation of posts and a temporary ban.
These rules will be amended periodically as the need arises.
ADMIN
-
I'm trying to recall all the facts of this case as it's been some years since I read books on this and I also have emailed Jeremy a few times with questions he has always responded and always has an answer for any question I had. I will say that he has steadfastly and unreservedly maintained his innocence , he is therefore either innocent or totally deluded imo . He won't give up the fight to clear his name.
-
I'm trying to recall all the facts of this case as it's been some years since I read books on this and I also have emailed Jeremy a few times with questions he has always responded and always has an answer for any question I had. I will say that he has steadfastly and unreservedly maintained his innocence , he is therefore either innocent or totally deluded imo . He won't give up the fight to clear his name.
What have you asked him? And why would he give up? It's not in his best interests and there is nothing else to do in there.
-
How much internet access does Bamber have? I imagined none.
-
I'm trying to recall all the facts of this case as it's been some years since I read books on this and I also have emailed Jeremy a few times with questions he has always responded and always has an answer for any question I had. I will say that he has steadfastly and unreservedly maintained his innocence , he is therefore either innocent or totally deluded imo . He won't give up the fight to clear his name.
"Totally deluded?"
Why do you say this?
And what is your understanding of psychopathy?
-
How much internet access does Bamber have? I imagined none.
You're right, he doesn't have any internet access, but there is a website where you can email a prisoner. I guess emails are printed off and handed to inmates. They would reply via ordinary post.
-
What have you asked him? And why would he give up? It's not in his best interests and there is nothing else to do in there.
I asked him a number of questions about the case , regarding the gun issues, possibility of Shelia being alive when the police arrived and his call from his dad , this was some years ago and although I still have his email I don't unfortunately have his emails still.
I've just checked his official web site and there is an "email a prisoner" email address, that isnt the one I have , the one I have is a personal email address , which i presume goes to his girlfriend? no idea but it does have his name in the address and as I said I always got a reply. Looking at his official site now looks like you can write or email him.
This was about 10 years ago and looking at his site he seems to have become more " popular" wow there is even a section to send him gifts and money on there and apparently it is now taking him at least 6 weeks to reply to queries &%%6 &%%6
-
How much internet access does Bamber have? I imagined none.
I recall that it was his girlfriend who asked him my questions and she passed on his written reply to me via the email address.
-
"Totally deluded?"
Why do you say this?
And what is your understanding of psychopathy?
I say this because if he is guilty then by protesting his innocence and genuinely believing that , as he appears to do , then he would be suffering from a delusion IMO
-
I say this because if he is guilty then by protesting his innocence and genuinely believing that , as he appears to do , then he would be suffering from a delusion IMO
But individuals with psychopathic tendencies do not suffer from delusions. Most certainly not in the way your appear to be expressing them anyway. Delusions of grandeur yes, but Bamber is most definitely not delusional when it comes to his guilt IMO. He appears to relish attention and duping and controlling others.
It sounds to me like you are basing your opinion on your personal understanding of human behaviour?
-
How much internet access does Bamber have? I imagined none.
Bamber uses his supporters to do his bidding.
If you look back over the years he's fallen out with numerous supporters and many of his past supporters no longer believe in his innocence.
He has left behind a trail of inconsistencies, which give clues to not only his personality but also his quite apparent guilt.
-
I recall that it was his girlfriend who asked him my questions and she passed on his written reply to me via the email address.
So you got the official response? I asked him several questions that he didn't answer. I asked more than once and he just avoided answering. I guess it depends on what is being asked on whether you get an answer. An innocent man would have no problem answering anything.
-
I recall that it was his girlfriend who asked him my questions and she passed on his written reply to me via the email address.
Is his girlfriend Lookout ?
-
I think he continues to protest his innocence because he has an overblown sense of self that will not allow him to acknowledge flaws in himself or reveal them to others. I think if he keeps telling himself how hard done by he is then he eventually believes it on some level. I really dont know if such traits are inherited or learned but his natural father also seems to have these characteristics, such as the granding up of his name on his marriage certificate and the refusal to acknowledge that JBs deficits might in any way stem from him or his actions.
-
I asked him a number of questions about the case , regarding the gun issues, possibility of Shelia being alive when the police arrived and his call from his dad , this was some years ago and although I still have his email I don't unfortunately have his emails still.
I've just checked his official web site and there is an "email a prisoner" email address, that isnt the one I have , the one I have is a personal email address , which i presume goes to his girlfriend? no idea but it does have his name in the address and as I said I always got a reply. Looking at his official site now looks like you can write or email him.
This was about 10 years ago and looking at his site he seems to have become more " popular" wow there is even a section to send him gifts and money on there and apparently it is now taking him at least 6 weeks to reply to queries &%%6 &%%6
Did he say anything interesting about the gun, Sheila being alive & Nevill's call ?
-
I think he continues to protest his innocence because he has an overblown sense of self that will not allow him to acknowledge flaws in himself or reveal them to others. I think if he keeps telling himself how hard done by he is then he eventually believes it on some level. I really dont know if such traits are inherited or learned but his natural father also seems to have these characteristics, such as the granding up of his name on his marriage certificate and the refusal to acknowledge that JBs deficits might in any way stem from him or his actions.
But he has revealed his flaws to others!?
His flaws were on display the moment he contacted the police following the murders he'd committed. His flaws are laid bare in his police interviews etc.
I don't believe for one minute he's in denial of his guilt. He gets a kick out of duping others; as is displayed in the transcripts of his police interviews and the reported comments he made during his trial of the murders.
He has showed overs these past 3 decades he lacks the capacity for self reflection. His grandiose sense of self is there for all to see.
-
What have you asked him? And why would he give up? It's not in his best interests and there is nothing else to do in there.
Caroline, this is one of the great myths ascribed to prisoners,
" the jails are full of innocent men..."
It is exceptionally rare for prisoners to maintain total innocence, and is effectively a strong indicator of innocence.
And they almost always take the stand as Jeremy did, even when defence urges otherwise.
-
I think you are missing one important point in respect of Bamber's big ego and confession and that is that he has been convicted (rightly) of the murder of two young children and has thus popped himself into a very undesirable category alongside Ian Huntley and others. If he confesses to it then he is admitting to being the very lowest of the low. You only have to look in the papers to see what the press do to someone like Karen Matthews who hasn't actually killed a child. Were he let out with that particular stigma? Well go figure why he's not owning up.
-
I think you are missing one important point in respect of Bamber's big ego and confession and that is that he has been convicted (rightly) of the murder of two young children and has thus popped himself into a very undesirable category alongside Ian Huntley and others. If he confesses to it then he is admitting to being the very lowest of the low. You only have to look in the papers to see what the press do to someone like Karen Matthews who hasn't actually killed a child. Were he let out with that particular stigma? Well go figure why he's not owning up.
I agree, Bamber would be in great danger if he admitted his guilt. Even in the protection unit he would be a target.
-
Did he say anything interesting about the gun, Sheila being alive & Nevill's call ?
hi im sorry i have searched again for the emails and cant locate them, i remember he had a "plausable" explanation but i cant remember the details unfortunately
-
Caroline, this is one of the great myths ascribed to prisoners,
" the jails are full of innocent men..."
It is exceptionally rare for prisoners to maintain total innocence, and is effectively a strong indicator of innocence.
And they almost always take the stand as Jeremy did, even when defence urges otherwise.
you make a valid point
-
you make a valid point
Really - you know the statistics? Do you imagine that out of the few that do maintain innocence, there aren't any who are actually guilty?
What advantage would Bamber get from a confession?
-
Really - you know the statistics? Do you imagine that out of the few that do maintain innocence, there aren't any who are actually guilty?
What advantage would Bamber get from a confession?
I think the question should be, what does Jeremy Bamber want more, to be freed or to be cleared?
-
I think the question should be, what does Jeremy Bamber want more, to be freed or to be cleared?
Freed and compensated.
-
I agree, he still wants life on his own terms and that means freedom but without the stigma of being a killer. He's smart enough to realise that freedom gained by confessing what he's done is probably no freedom. As Caroline has pointed out he is also hugely motivated by money - its why he's inside! So yes compensation would definitely tick all his boxes.
-
I agree, he still wants life on his own terms and that means freedom but without the stigma of being a killer. He's smart enough to realise that freedom gained by confessing what he's done is probably no freedom. As Caroline has pointed out he is also hugely motivated by money - its why he's inside! So yes compensation would definitely tick all his boxes.
He's certainly thought a lot about it. Talk about putting the cart before the horse!
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/search?q=compensation