Lest We Forget...................

[lookout]

How could you fine Julie for a crime Jeremy committed -and had nothing to do with the murders- but wasn't taken to court over?

Julie was at the scene when the office crime was committed. I wasn't talking about the murders.

[Jane]

Julie was at the scene when the office crime was committed. I wasn't talking about the murders.

But Jeremy wasn't charged with it! Jeremy wasn't sentenced for it? It wasn't included in the length of the murder sentence. Why should Julie have paid for his crime? However, my question was about the murders, and how you'd have liked to see her treated if, as you claim, she was an accessory?

[lookout]

But Jeremy wasn't charged with it! Jeremy wasn't sentenced for it? It wasn't included in the length of the murder sentence. Why should Julie have paid for his crime? However, my question was about the murders, and how you'd have liked to see her treated if, as you claim, she was an accessory?

Because, it would have seemed, she knew he was the murderer yet continued to sleep with him ? Would any other woman, knowing that ? He'd allegedly told her often enough over the months " his plans " but she never went near a police station nor did she tell anyone-----that all came out after he dumped her !
An accessory in this case because she'd known what his plans were and offered no protection to the family so yes, a sentence would have been in order the same as anyone else would have been sentenced.

[Jane]

Because, it would have seemed, she knew he was the murderer yet continued to sleep with him ? Would any other woman, knowing that ? He'd allegedly told her often enough over the months " his plans " but she never went near a police station nor did she tell anyone-----that all came out after he dumped her !
An accessory in this case because she'd known what his plans were and offered no protection to the family so yes, a sentence would have been in order the same as anyone else would have been sentenced.

But the murders are an entirely different matter. At least you're now saying that you'd have liked her to have been sentenced, even though, at the beginning you denied it. You wanted to see her fined for the part she played in the robbery -even though Jeremy was never charged with it so effectively he got off Scott free- so it stands to reason you'd want her charged. 

[lookout]

But the murders are an entirely different matter. At least you're now saying that you'd have liked her to have been sentenced, even though, at the beginning you denied it. You wanted to see her fined for the part she played in the robbery -even though Jeremy was never charged with it so effectively he got off Scott free- so it stands to reason you'd want her charged.

Jeremy would have had the robbery inadvertently added to the murders as an offence having been previously committed.

[Jane]

Jeremy would have had the robbery inadvertently added to the murders as an offence having been previously committed.

I don't recall anything being said about a robbery in the sentencing, and the term of the sentence said nothing about a concurrent sentence for the robbery.

[guest29835]

It couldn't be hard for Bamber to find out about human back splatter. Or that the rifle he intended to leave on Sheila, would be too long for her to reach the trigger with the silencer on.  He already knew about guns and it would just take a bit of reading.

He put the silencer away so certainly knew the rifle was too long for Sheila with the silencer on. Either beforehand or realising at the time. But did he know about back splatter beforehand ?

He had to use the silencer. As my video showed,  it greatly increased his chance to commit a silent, clinical and quick execution.

People say Bamber could have just left the silencer next to Sheila. But then that's leaving an open goal for the police. They would still get suspicious and would routinely check the silencer. Finding Sheila's blood on it, would mean Bamber would have no where to go.

He could have thrown away the silencer away from WHF. But to him, putting it in a box, underneath other boxes, dartboards and other guns,  at the back of the gun cupboard was virtually throwing it away. He didn't believe the police would check inside every box inside WHF. And they didn't.

The thing he didn't legislate for, was the relatives being very suspicious, getting access to WHF and carrying out a big search. This happened,  and the silencer was tested. As other forensic and circumstantial evidence emerged and Julie came forward, Bamber's 'watertight' plan started to leak.

Do other people believe Bamber knew about back splatter and the rifle being too long beforehand ?

Thanks Adam. 

I agree Jeremy probably knew about backspatter beforehand, which is why:

(i). He probably didn't use the silencer.
(ii). The possibility that the relatives planted blood in the silencer is plausible, since they had at least as much knowledge about guns as Jeremy did.

Thanks Adam.

[lookout]

I don't recall anything being said about a robbery in the sentencing, and the term of the sentence said nothing about a concurrent sentence for the robbery.

It would have been there with the list of offences.

[Jane]

It would have been there with the list of offences.

Then it would have been bought up in court as being what he was charged with.

[Caroline]

Thanks Adam. 

I agree Jeremy probably knew about backspatter beforehand, which is why:

(i). He probably didn't use the silencer.
(ii). The possibility that the relatives planted blood in the silencer is plausible, since they had at least as much knowledge about guns as Jeremy did.

Thanks Adam.

But still managed to kill five innocent people.

[guest29835]

But still managed to kill five innocent people.

You say, 100% certain you are too.  Impressive.   Just like you were once 100% certain he was innocent.

[Caroline]

You say, 100% certain you are too.  Impressive.   Just like you were once 100% certain he was innocent.

Yep, then I wrote to him and asked him questions for myself. I guess sitting on the fence is always a safe place - mind you don't get splinters!

[guest29835]

Yep, then I wrote to him and asked him questions for myself. I guess sitting on the fence is always a safe place - mind you don't get splinters!

Thanks Caroline.  That sounds like a good basis to switch from 100% innocent to 100% guilty.  Jeremy not answering your questions.  He must be guilty.  I can see why you're 100% sure.

[Caroline]

Thanks Caroline.  That sounds like a good basis to switch from 100% innocent to 100% guilty.  Jeremy not answering your questions.  He must be guilty.  I can see why you're 100% sure.

Oh, you're very welcome QC - anytime! Odd that you also think he's guilty but would be happy for him to walk. So kind of you, I am sure he appreciates it. Alway good to welcome a fence sitter that fights his corner!!

[guest29835]

Oh, you're very welcome QC - anytime! Odd that you also think he's guilty but would be happy for him to walk. So kind of you, I am sure he appreciates it. Alway good to welcome a fence sitter that fights his corner!!

Thanks Caroline.  Every time you post, you confirm my impression of you: as somebody who has a need to take a side, it doesn't matter which, as long as you can be a member of a tribe and hurl contempt and vitriol at the 'other side'.  You allow yourself one heterodoxy: that the silencer wasn't used, yet you still think he should stay in prison because, after all, you know he is guilty.  You are 100% sure.  How you can be so sure is a mystery. 

I'm not a 'fence sitter'.  That's just a term of abuse for somebody who thinks.  In this case, we don't know the truth.  Jeremy Bamber possibly does, but if he is innocent, then even he doesn't necessarily know.  That being the case, I start from the presumption of innocence.  I acknowledge that there is evidence pointing to Jeremy and I personally think him to be guilty, but the law requires the case to be proved - for a number of good reasons - and besides, I just don't know and I am humble enough to admit it.

It's honest and decent to admit that you don't know and look honestly and objectively at evidence, instead of going round pretending you know things you don't and sneering at people who are honest enough to accept their limitations and ask questions.