Tuesday, 17 May 2011

"What Bob Woffinden didn't consider"

Those of you who read Bob Woffinden’s article yesterday might want to consider the following:

How does a telephone found by a witness during September over a month after the killings counteract the following evidence which he did not assess when making his judgements:

•It doesn’t illustrate that Sheila was not alive in the house
•It does not counteract the testimony of officers calling to her as they heard her moving around
•Why doesn’t his investigation show that Sheila was not found downstairs in the kitchen
•What of the numerous independent logs stating that the body of a man and a women were found in the kitchen is he proposing that a woman dead for over seven and a half hours moved herself upstairs from the kitchen?
•How does it counteract the conversation with someone inside the farm?
•What about the police outside for almost four hours with a megaphone?
•And of the movement in the window seen by Bews?
•How does he explain the ‘siege’ situation?
•How does the phone explain a dead woman bleeding for over seven hours photographed with her blood still wet?
•And what about the hour missing from the radio logs at the scene why would that be?
•What about the handwritten statements and pocket books from the scene which remain undisclosed?
•How does a telephone in the 2002 appeal ruling have any bearing on evidence released since 2004?

And of course finally why doesn't Bob address the sound moderator which was found tampered with and all of the documents backdated. How can one sound moderator be in two places at once?

Remember Bob did not present a piece based on balanced research, he did not have access to the comprehensive number of Defence documents, despite us offering them to him several times.

To find out the truth based on the evidence about the phones at WHF click here

Jeremy Bamber

Jeremy Bamber
Innocent Jeremy Bamber