Interesting comment:

[Adam]

In the comments section:

----------

Jeremy Bamber and the Duplicitous Invocation of Doubt

Doubt is part of our survival instinct, evolved through natural selection. We needed to be cautious at the seemingly peaceful waterhole, watch out for appetising berries. Such things are so deep and so old that we may have no control over them. Hence doubt has featured throughout civilisation as a religious, philosophical, epistemological matter.

Our instinct for doubt is what makes us receptive to self evident lies even when we are 100% certain of the truth.

Bamber's motive for murdering his family was money but more importantly the lifestyle that goes with it. He thought that would make him somebody. That was his real, deep seated desire. To be somebody.

In a twisted way, though conviction denied him the money, the murders have still ended up satisfying that underlying desire. He is now somebody. Trouble is nobody wants to be somebody because they have murdered two little kids. Hence the endless headlines about new evidence, cast iron alibis etc.

To be somebody he has to keep the case in people's view without his fame being based solely on his repulsive murderous deeds. Continuously making it look like he is about to be found innocent even though he is 100% guilty is a cunning, calculated attempt to do this.

None of the evidence is new. Where it might be new only in the sense that it was available but not subject to the microscopic scrutiny of Bamber and his legal team it always relates to something that has been dealt with already (two phone calls, person at the window, woman's body in the kitchen, no silencer, two silencers ...)

Moreover it's never managed to challenge the fundamental basis for his guilt (a basis that he himself engineered as a calculated risk): it could only have been him or Sheila. A cursory 5 minutes investigation is enough to convince anyone that there is no way it could have been Sheila and every way it had to be him.

He's so guilty not even the incompetence of the police force in an era of systemic police corruption has been enough to get him off the hook.

It's a perversely subtle cruelty of Bamber's, imposed on us all: asking questions based on evidential anomalies to which only he knows the answers, he passes a current through the 'doubt' synaptic channel. And so we doubt reflexively, as our leg jerks when the doctor hits our knee.

And then the cruelty increases - as it must with this most cruel of men. We are forced to remember Bamber and recount the facts of the murders to remind ourselves again why he is 100% guilty, how impossible it is that it was Sheila. No matter. Let us steel ourselves to that, whenever we need to. As we do again now.

https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19336553.jeremy-bamber-supporters-say-new-alibi-evidence-see-freed/

[Adam]

Inheritance killers will be motivated by greed, resentment and dislike. But also to be a somebody.

Bamber inheriting in a blaze of publicity & then openly starting to flaunt it, he obviously felt he was somebody.

After conviction but pre internet,  it is doubtful he would have believed he would still be a somebody today. 

[Adam]

With the mountain of evidence the police gathered Bamber still protested his innocence. As a lot of guilty people do.

It makes them a somebody during a long trial. There is also the possible a skilled legal team will find a technicality.

Criminals so resolutely protest their innocence, they may even start to believe it. They may also feel justified in their actions due to the raw deal life has dealt them.

[guest29835]

I agree with much of what the commenter says, but not all.

For instance, I disagree with the assertion that the evidence shows with certainty that Sheila could not be the killer. 

Unfortunately, this case falls into the 'black box' category, and there is reasonable doubt.  I don't like it as it  means that a probable mass murderer - a double child killer to boot - can continue pleading innocence, but I don't get to say what the evidence is. 

It is what it is.  I'm just being honest and objective about it.  I would have to vote Not Guilty, if I were on a trial jury hearing this.  Sorry.

[Rob_]

With the mountain of evidence the police gathered Bamber still protested his innocence. As a lot of guilty people do.

It makes them a somebody during a long trial. There is also the possible a skilled legal team will find a technicality.

Criminals so resolutely protest their innocence, they may even start to believe it. They may also feel justified in their actions due to the raw deal life has dealt them.

Mountain of evidence? sorry but I have not seen anything that proves to me JB did it.

Despite all the misinformation and lies fed to the court it was still only a 10 : 2 verdict.

How many men have been executed in the USA then afterwards the verdict found to be unsafe? over 100 I believe.

A trial should be fair for both sides, not one side showing only evidence that helps them and withholding everything else.

The word of a policeman should be above reproach, how many police in this case have lied?

So on the evidence I have seen I would say not guilty, show me some evidence I may have not seen and I might change my mind but I don't think you have any.

[David1819]

Mountain of evidence? sorry but I have not seen anything that proves to me JB did it.

The "Mountain of evidence" is a load of BS Adam makes up.

[Adam]

Mountain of evidence? sorry but I have not seen anything that proves to me JB did it.

Despite all the misinformation and lies fed to the court it was still only a 10 : 2 verdict.

How many men have been executed in the USA then afterwards the verdict found to be unsafe? over 100 I believe.

A trial should be fair for both sides, not one side showing only evidence that helps them and withholding everything else.

The word of a policeman should be above reproach, how many police in this case have lied?

So on the evidence I have seen I would say not guilty, show me some evidence I may have not seen and I might change my mind but I don't think you have any.

1.

Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA


2.

One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA


3.

Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila.  Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.


4.

Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


5.

No broken nails - Not disputed COA.


6.

Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.


7.

No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.


8.

No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.


9.

No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.


10.

No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.


11.

Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.


12.

No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


13.

No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA


14.

Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.


15.

Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.


16.

Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.


17.

No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.


18.

No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.


19.

Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.


20.

No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.


21.

No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.


22.

No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.


23.

No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.


24.

Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.


25.

Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


26.

Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.


27.

Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.


28.

Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.


29.

Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.


30.

Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.


31.

Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.


32.

Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.


33.

No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.


34.

Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.


35.

Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.


36.

A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.


37.

Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.


38.

Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.


39.

Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.


40.

Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.


41.

Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.


42.

Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.


43.

No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.


44.

Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.


45.

Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.


46.

Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.


47.

June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.


48.

Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.


49.

2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.


50.

The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.


51.

Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.


52.

Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.


53.

Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.


54.

No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.


55.

Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.


56.

Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.


57.

Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.


58.

Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.


59.

Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.


60.

Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.


61.

Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.


62.

Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.


63.

Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER


64.

Housekeeper evidence of items around the kitchen sink being moved on massacre night - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK


65.

Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.


66.

Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.


67.

Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.


68.

Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.


69.

Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA

70.

Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June and Nevill's. Meaning the silencer was used. Not disputed. COA.


71:

Nevill having the oppportunity to restrain Sheila while fully fit prior to her firing shots. Not disputed. AGREED BY ALL PARTIES.

[Adam]

Mountain of evidence? sorry but I have not seen anything that proves to me JB did it.

Despite all the misinformation and lies fed to the court it was still only a 10 : 2 verdict.

How many men have been executed in the USA then afterwards the verdict found to be unsafe? over 100 I believe.

A trial should be fair for both sides, not one side showing only evidence that helps them and withholding everything else.

The word of a policeman should be above reproach, how many police in this case have lied?

So on the evidence I have seen I would say not guilty, show me some evidence I may have not seen and I might change my mind but I don't think you have any.

How do believe Sheila committed the massacre. Based on the crime scene? 

You are aware of the bullet locations, body locations, time of massacre, kitchen fight & aledged phone call/s.

[Rob_]

I do not know how SC committed the massacre but I don't see anything that shows me she could not have done it.

To me the crime scene fits with someone flying into a sudden rage rather that a planned attack.

I am happy that two calls were made that night, and I would say the massacre started down in the kitchen NB calling for help before any shots had been fired, hence no blood on the phone.

If JB did it then he never left a trace apart from the moderator, he commits the perfect crime but leaves the moderator for everyone to find proving his guilt - the word planted comes to mind.

[guest29835]

...
 

Intellect and emotion are not opposites.  I think it is more that they interact and depend on each other.  This is a hard-wired feature of human nature.  It brings both fortunate and unfortunate results.

One of the unfortunate results is that it is very difficult for some people to receive arguments. I have shown Adam, I think several times now, that there is no evidence Sheila was actually sedated and the whole question is much more complicated than he allows. 

Even if the 2002 appeal judges did say that Sheila was sedated, it doesn't mean they are right.  Being an appellate judge doesn't make you right about everything.  In fact, the judges did not say that Sheila was definitely sedated and the judges rely on no evidence that she was actually in a sedated or in a sedative state.  When this is raised, Adam's intellectual response is not to think for himself, but to obstinately continue to misquote and selectively quote the 2002 appeal judgment in support of an interpretation he finds emotionally-appealing.

[Adam]

I do not know how SC committed the massacre but I don't see anything that shows me she could not have done it.

To me the crime scene fits with someone flying into a sudden rage rather that a planned attack.

I am happy that two calls were made that night, and I would say the massacre started down in the kitchen NB calling for help before any shots had been fired, hence no blood on the phone.

If JB did it then he never left a trace apart from the moderator, he commits the perfect crime but leaves the moderator for everyone to find proving his guilt - the word planted comes to mind.

Disappointing response. No ones knows. But easy to create a scenario when the crime scene evidence is available.

What do you think Sheila was doing when Nevill called the police and Bamber?

Do you believe June & the twins slept through this?

Why were Nevill & Sheila bare footed & without dressing gowns?

Why did Nevill let Sheila put the rifle a few inches from his face in the main bedroom?

[Adam]

Intellect and emotion are not opposites.  I think it is more that they interact and depend on each other.  This is a hard-wired feature of human nature.  It brings both fortunate and unfortunate results.

One of the unfortunate results is that it is very difficult for some people to receive arguments. I have shown Adam, I think several times now, that there is no evidence Sheila was actually sedated and the whole question is much more complicated than he allows. 

Even if the 2002 appeal judges did say that Sheila was sedated, it doesn't mean they are right.  Being an appellate judge doesn't make you right about everything.  In fact, the judges did not say that Sheila was definitely sedated and the judges rely on no evidence that she was actually in a sedated or in a sedative state.  When this is raised, Adam's intellectual response is not to think for himself, but to obstinately continue to misquote and selectively quote the 2002 appeal judgment in support of an interpretation he finds emotionally-appealing.

Obviously Sheila was heavily sedated. Haloperidal does that.

Bamber had checked on her during his supper reconnissance. 

[Adam]

Bamber said himself Sheila was non responsive at supper.  And that was when Nevill & June had apparently brought up fostering suggestions!

[guest29835]

Obviously Sheila was heavily sedated. Haloperidal does that.

Bamber had checked on her during his supper reconnissance.

I'm conversing with a brick wall. 

[Adam]

I'm conversing with a brick wall.

What are you talking about?

Prat.