Author Topic: Discussion on motive  (Read 10034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2020, 12:32:PM »
He did pay her and she still dobbed him 😂

what the small sum for the holiday ? Not much in the scheme of things was it?


Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2020, 01:11:PM »
He was on the other side of a rifle.





Same would apply to Sheila ?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32549
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2020, 02:21:PM »
what the small sum for the holiday ? Not much in the scheme of things was it?

Given she was a student having to work to fund her degree, plus we're going back to the 1980s, I imagine it to have been a considerable sum.

guest7363

  • Guest
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2020, 02:24:PM »
Given she was a student having to work to fund her degree, plus we're going back to the 1980s, I imagine it to have been a considerable sum.
He gave her more than that Jane 👍

Offline arthur

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2020, 12:39:AM »
It doesn't matter what motive Bamber had or didn't have. It should come down to the fundamental legal principle of UK criminal Law that one is considered innocent till proven guilty.

I think Bamber is guilty but I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt and going by this website and all the evidence, neither can anyone else. The legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution. Their would seem to be reasonable doubt and if I were on the Jury I think I would've said I don't think the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37653
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2020, 12:52:AM »
It doesn't matter what motive Bamber had or didn't have. It should come down to the fundamental legal principle of UK criminal Law that one is considered innocent till proven guilty.

I think Bamber is guilty but I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt and going by this website and all the evidence, neither can anyone else. The legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution. Their would seem to be reasonable doubt and if I were on the Jury I think I would've said I don't think the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

There is one alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity and no alibi.

There are over 60 pieces of forensic evidence from the Court of Appeal that show it was not Sheila. There is too much circumstantial evidence to list.

There is an excellent witness - Julie Mugford. Who wouldn't dare perjure herself so seriously because she was 'jilted'.

Not sure what else can be supplied.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline arthur

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2020, 01:02:AM »
There is one alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity and no alibi.

There are over 60 pieces of forensic evidence from the Court of Appeal that show it was not Sheila. There is too much circumstantial evidence to list.

There is an excellent witness - Julie Mugford. Who wouldn't dare perjure herself so seriously because she was 'jilted'.

Not sure what else can be supplied.

That's not very much. Ms Mugford evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber committed the crimes. He might have been planning the murders but Sheila beat him to it. He might've been expressing frustration or even hatred or he might not have said anything of the kind to Ms Mugford...No the prosecution needed more than that in my view.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2020, 02:13:AM »
It doesn't matter what motive Bamber had or didn't have. It should come down to the fundamental legal principle of UK criminal Law that one is considered innocent till proven guilty.

I think Bamber is guilty but I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt and going by this website and all the evidence, neither can anyone else. The legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution. Their would seem to be reasonable doubt and if I were on the Jury I think I would've said I don't think the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Well said arthur, I agree.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37653
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2020, 06:57:AM »
That's not very much. Ms Mugford evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber committed the crimes. He might have been planning the murders but Sheila beat him to it. He might've been expressing frustration or even hatred or he might not have said anything of the kind to Ms Mugford...No the prosecution needed more than that in my view.

What more would you want than -

One alive suspect.

A mountain of forensic evidence.

A mountain of circumstantial evidence.

A big witness.

Several motives.

An opportunity.

No alibi.

-------------

It has been suggested that a forensic industrial frame department was set up. Not sure why EP would do this. If they did, this could not include the circumstantial evidence, no alibi, one alive suspect, motives & opportunity. These were already in place. 

« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 01:38:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #54 on: February 27, 2020, 01:55:PM »
That's not very much. Ms Mugford evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber committed the crimes. He might have been planning the murders but Sheila beat him to it. He might've been expressing frustration or even hatred or he might not have said anything of the kind to Ms Mugford...No the prosecution needed more than that in my view.

Thank you Arther
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline arthur

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #55 on: February 27, 2020, 11:42:PM »
What more would you want than -

One alive suspect.

A mountain of forensic evidence.

A mountain of circumstantial evidence.

A big witness.

Several motives.

An opportunity.

No alibi.

-------------

It has been suggested that a forensic industrial frame department was set up. Not sure why EP would do this. If they did, this could not include the circumstantial evidence, no alibi, one alive suspect, motives & opportunity. These were already in place.

On the forensic evidence, what is it that places Bamber in WHF at the time of the murders. There is a mountain of suggested forensic evidence, but again, does any of it prove that Bamber was the shooter.

Ms Mugford isn't a witness to the crime, she is a witness to Bamber's alleged statements, threatening to kill his family, but none of her evidence has been corroborated.

Alibi,motive, opportunity all are irrelevent if you haven't enough proof to convict somebody. Circumstantial evidence is subjective to say the least.
Bamber was a suspect, but is it right that he should be found guilty because he had the motive, no alibi and the opportunity and that he fits the profile but yet there is no hard core evidence to prove his guilt.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37653
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2020, 12:23:AM »
On the forensic evidence, what is it that places Bamber in WHF at the time of the murders. There is a mountain of suggested forensic evidence, but again, does any of it prove that Bamber was the shooter.

Ms Mugford isn't a witness to the crime, she is a witness to Bamber's alleged statements, threatening to kill his family, but none of her evidence has been corroborated.

Alibi,motive, opportunity all are irrelevent if you haven't enough proof to convict somebody. Circumstantial evidence is subjective to say the least.
Bamber was a suspect, but is it right that he should be found guilty because he had the motive, no alibi and the opportunity and that he fits the profile but yet there is no hard core evidence to prove his guilt.


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10209.0.html


Reply 8 has evidence that it was not Sheila. From an independent source - Court of Appeal. Obviously if it was not Sheila, it was then Jeremy.

You are correct that Julie did not witness Bamber carry out the massacre.


« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 12:26:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17935
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2020, 12:28:AM »
On the forensic evidence, what is it that places Bamber in WHF at the time of the murders. There is a mountain of suggested forensic evidence, but again, does any of it prove that Bamber was the shooter.

Ms Mugford isn't a witness to the crime, she is a witness to Bamber's alleged statements, threatening to kill his family, but none of her evidence has been corroborated.

Alibi,motive, opportunity all are irrelevent if you haven't enough proof to convict somebody. Circumstantial evidence is subjective to say the least.
Bamber was a suspect, but is it right that he should be found guilty because he had the motive, no alibi and the opportunity and that he fits the profile but yet there is no hard core evidence to prove his guilt.
None of us were in the courtroom to look Bamber and other witnesses in the eye. The "that is what you have to establish" remark is the Freudian slip, along with his demeanour previously under police interrogation, seemingly uncaring about the victims and nonchalant about wishing to seek the truth.

Offline arthur

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2020, 06:07:AM »
None of us were in the courtroom to look Bamber and other witnesses in the eye. The "that is what you have to establish" remark is the Freudian slip, along with his demeanour previously under police interrogation, seemingly uncaring about the victims and nonchalant about wishing to seek the truth.

Surely his demeanour after the murders proves nothing and only drives speculation. Any "It was definitely him"..or "he has guilt written all over him" again is pure speculation. Him saying "That is what you have to establish" has to be taken in context and may have been said under duress but in fact that remark is correct in that the prosecution have not "established" who the murderer is.Opinion isn't proof.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 06:13:AM by arthur »

Offline arthur

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: Discussion on motive
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2020, 06:33:AM »

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10209.0.html


Reply 8 has evidence that it was not Sheila. From an independent source - Court of Appeal. Obviously if it was not Sheila, it was then Jeremy.

You are correct that Julie did not witness Bamber carry out the massacre.

Well all of reply 8 doesn't prove Bamber is guilty.There is obviously plenty of suggested proof but nothing concrete. Inductive reasoning or generalisation based on probability can't be accepted as proof.

Just to clarify. I am only a casual observer of this case and I would like nothing better than a "smoking gun" fact to emerge. But so far it hasn't.