Author Topic: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?  (Read 13414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2016, 12:14:21 PM »
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.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2016, 03:14:35 PM »
What David has, does NOT show Bamber to be innocent.

Are you certain David has revealed his full hand?   &%+((£
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Myster

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2016, 03:25:57 PM »
Are you certain David has revealed his full hand?   &%+((£
No... only Sheila Caffell's right hand.  8((()*/
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2016, 03:32:55 PM »
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. 



Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Myster

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2016, 03:37:19 PM »
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?
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

david1819

  • Guest
Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2016, 03:47:43 PM »
Are you certain David has revealed his full hand?   &%+((£

Are you really going to take her word for it?




Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2016, 04:04:26 PM »
Are you really going to take her word for it?

Take her word for what?
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

david1819

  • Guest
Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2016, 04:07:53 PM »
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

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2016, 04:31:42 PM »
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)><(
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2016, 05:12:58 PM »
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.

« Last Edit: June 09, 2016, 05:29:28 PM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Opal

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2016, 06:42:58 PM »
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?

Offline adam

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2016, 07:25:08 PM »
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 ?


Offline Caroline

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2016, 08:03:44 PM »
Are you certain David has revealed his full hand?   &%+((£

Yup! A rather 'ironic' question though!

Offline Caroline

Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2016, 08:04:36 PM »
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.

david1819

  • Guest
Re: David's claimed forensic breakthrough?
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2016, 08:29:41 PM »
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