Hello, new member here!

[Cambridgecutie]

Hello, I am new, and interested in the Jeremy Bamber case, and have lurked here quite a while.

I'd never heard of the case until the ITV drama was shown in 2020, and got interested because of the online stuff saying he was innocent.

I found the evidence of his innocence (from his supporters) both very compelling and very confusing at the same time.  His guilt seemed obvious (to me), but the evidence that had been published in national newspapers over the last few decades did, on the surface, give the impression that he might be innocent.

And then further research led me to conclude that he was in fact guilty, which has been my stance ever since.

And so I know that some people will now be rolling their eyes at another 'guilter', but, a forum of this nature will stay active and lively as long as there are differences of opinion.

If everyone agreed with each other, then there would be no discussion.

The red forum has gone quiet on Bamber because most people agree with each other, and so there is nothing to discuss.

I did join the red forum and the blue forum well over a year ago, but my membership wasn't accepted here, but I applied again recently and found that I can now log on.

On the red forum I have been posting as Colsville, if you want to have a look at what I've written.

It's unlikely that I'll be starting new threads, as there are plenty of new threads that get written, but I will be contributing to existing discussions from time to time.

[guest29835]

You will no doubt have seen the problems on the Forum.

As long as you don't adopt the same 'debating' tactics as certain other pro-guilt people on here, you are more than welcome and I hope you will be afforded every courtesy and treated with respect, patience and fairness.

For your information, and in case it is not already clear, not all of us who reject the pro-guilt stance believe Jeremy Bamber to be innocent.  There are in fact three major possible stances to take in this case.  It doesn't have to be a binary argument - and in my view, the less binary things are, the better.

[Roch]

Hello, I am new, and interested in the Jeremy Bamber case, and have lurked here quite a while.

I'd never heard of the case until the ITV drama was shown in 2020, and got interested because of the online stuff saying he was innocent.

I found the evidence of his innocence (from his supporters) both very compelling and very confusing at the same time.  His guilt seemed obvious (to me), but the evidence that had been published in national newspapers over the last few decades did, on the surface, give the impression that he might be innocent.

And then further research led me to conclude that he was in fact guilty, which has been my stance ever since.

And so I know that some people will now be rolling their eyes at another 'guilter', but, a forum of this nature will stay active and lively as long as there are differences of opinion.

If everyone agreed with each other, then there would be no discussion.

The red forum has gone quiet on Bamber because most people agree with each other, and so there is nothing to discuss.

I did join the red forum and the blue forum well over a year ago, but my membership wasn't accepted here, but I applied again recently and found that I can now log on.

On the red forum I have been posting as Colsville, if you want to have a look at what I've written.

It's unlikely that I'll be starting new threads, as there are plenty of new threads that get written, but I will be contributing to existing discussions from time to time.

Welcome to the forum. Are you able to elaborate on the above in bold?

[snow66!]

Hello, I am new, and interested in the Jeremy Bamber case, and have lurked here quite a while.

I'd never heard of the case until the ITV drama was shown in 2020, and got interested because of the online stuff saying he was innocent.

I found the evidence of his innocence (from his supporters) both very compelling and very confusing at the same time.  His guilt seemed obvious (to me), but the evidence that had been published in national newspapers over the last few decades did, on the surface, give the impression that he might be innocent.

And then further research led me to conclude that he was in fact guilty, which has been my stance ever since.

And so I know that some people will now be rolling their eyes at another 'guilter', but, a forum of this nature will stay active and lively as long as there are differences of opinion.

If everyone agreed with each other, then there would be no discussion.

The red forum has gone quiet on Bamber because most people agree with each other, and so there is nothing to discuss.

I did join the red forum and the blue forum well over a year ago, but my membership wasn't accepted here, but I applied again recently and found that I can now log on.

On the red forum I have been posting as Colsville, if you want to have a look at what I've written.

It's unlikely that I'll be starting new threads, as there are plenty of new threads that get written, but I will be contributing to existing discussions from time to time.

Hiya Killingeve,I am quite new to the forum as well,The TV series sparked my interest too.I have reasonable doubt.

[Rob_]

And then further research led me to conclude that he was in fact guilty, which has been my stance ever since.

Welcome to the forum Killingeve if you have any research that convinces you of guilt please create new threads!

[Cambridgecutie]

Welcome to the forum. Are you able to elaborate on the above in bold?

There are maybe a couple of hundred pieces of evidence that in some  small or big way, point to Bamber being guilty.

It's that totality of evidence that when considered as a whole, leads me to the conclusion that Bamber is guilty.

There is also the applications from Bamber to the CCRC. In 2012 the CCRC declared that Bambers application consisted only of 'pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations.'

I didn't need the CCRC to tell me that.  I can see the flaws in Bamber's 'new evidence' myself. It just isn't strong enough to cast doubt on the 1986 trial. 

Even if he were innocent, his new evidence is very weak, and couldn't change anything.

So he either looks guilty, or based on his own 'new evidence', he doesn't look any more innocent.  In fact it looks like he is fabricating evidence from a number single, out of context documents, from which he creates a work of fiction.

So that's the summary of my personal verdict, based on several hundred pieces of evidence, but taken as a whole.

-----

But here are 3 pieces of evidence that when combined and taken into consideration as one big piece of evidence, is very conclusive.

I'll keep it short, because the full explanations would take a long while...


First piece of evidence:

Paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA. This is a forensic examination of some of the photos of Sheila Caffel.

It proves that Sheila was murdered and didn't commit suicide. 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html


Second piece of evidence:

If Sheila was murdered, then it was someone else going crazy with the gun, and not Sheila.

Therefore the phone call from Nevill to Jeremy couldn't have happened, because Sheila wasn't going crazy with the gun.  It was a work of fiction on Jeremy's part, in order to fabricate an alibi.  Jeremy is therefore the Murderer, or he hired someone.  Either way, he knows Sheila is innocent, and he was involved.


Third piece of evidence:

This is just my observation, but it is still evidence.

If Jeremy Bamber is innocent, how does he know so absolutely that his sister was the murderer?

An innocent person wouldn't know this, and wouldn't campaign for this.  An innocent person would beg the police to investigate the possibility that a third party was involved, like a burglar.

Bamber has always blamed Sheila, even though it is effectively proven beyond reasonable doubt (in the eyes of the CoA judges) that Sheila was murdered, and therefore did not commit the crimes.

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

The above is a very very short explanation of those three points, but paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA is a piece of forensic science that led the 3 CoA judges to say that this evidence on its own was strong enough for the Jury to find Jeremy Bamber guilty.

Michael Turner QC, Jeremy Bambers defence Counsel, declined to respond to the evidence, prompting the judges to say that Michael Turner QC must have agreed with the findings, because he declined in any way to attempt to contradict the evidence.

CCRC investigations always take into account all evidence from previous appeals.  The 3 CoA judges set a precedent when they drew their conclusion about the evidence in paragraph 518 that will be respected by all subsequent CCRC applications. 

Bamber keeps talking about silencers and movement inside the house, but there is at this moment, what amounts to 'beyond reasonable doubt' evidence that Sheila was murdered.  Bamber has made no attempt over the last 20 years to overcome this very large obstacle (As far as I know).

[guest29835]

Colsville:

I appreciate your contribution and I like the intelligent way you have put together a three-stage argument.  It's elegant and highly logical, however I must disagree with you. The Ismail evidence has been taken apart on here by myself.  Ismail was wrong.  If I come back to the Forum in the future, I will return to this and link back to the posts or re-post the arguments, but you can also use the search function and find the posts yourself.

Also, I understand the logic of the third point, but if Jeremy is innocent, he was not to know the details of the situation that unfolded that day and relied on the police to tell him; and even in hindsight, he does not have to accept Ismail's evidence as a substitute for what he was told and experienced first hand.  At the end of the day, if he is innocent, Jeremy received a phone call from Nevill in which Nevill told him Sheila had gone crazy with a gun, or words to that effect.  Later that morning, they were all found shot, with a rifle on Sheila's body.  There is a narrow possibility of a third party killer unrelated to Jeremy or Sheila, but this has also been discussed in detail and the possibility was considered to be at the lower end of plausibility for all sorts of reasons.

Not wishing to be rude, but you'll need to come up with something better than this and raise your game considerably to convince me.  Putting aside the issues with disruption and moderation, the standard of posting has been higher here than on the Red Forum.  That will not continue now, but I hope you can aspire to a higher standard and not be discouraged, because it would be refreshing to see an intelligent pro-guilt poster.

[David1819]

.

Michael Turner QC, Jeremy Bambers defence Counsel, declined to respond to the evidence, prompting the judges to say that Michael Turner QC must have agreed with the findings, because he declined in any way to attempt to contradict the evidence.
 

Ismails evidence was ruled inadmissible by the COA. Thus the defence had nothing to respond to and neither had to cross examine Ismail for reasons stated above.

Ismail contends Sheila's head was resting upwards after she was shot. Yet the blood running down Sheila's cheeks is only going in one direction - downwards. If Ismail was correct (which he isn't) there would be blood running down her chin and over her mouth. But there is not.

[Adam]

There are maybe a couple of hundred pieces of evidence that in some  small or big way, point to Bamber being guilty.

It's that totality of evidence that when considered as a whole, leads me to the conclusion that Bamber is guilty.

There is also the applications from Bamber to the CCRC. In 2012 the CCRC declared that Bambers application consisted only of 'pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations.'

I didn't need the CCRC to tell me that.  I can see the flaws in Bamber's 'new evidence' myself. It just isn't strong enough to cast doubt on the 1986 trial. 

Even if he were innocent, his new evidence is very weak, and couldn't change anything.

So he either looks guilty, or based on his own 'new evidence', he doesn't look any more innocent.  In fact it looks like he is fabricating evidence from a number single, out of context documents, from which he creates a work of fiction.

So that's the summary of my personal verdict, based on several hundred pieces of evidence, but taken as a whole.

-----

But here are 3 pieces of evidence that when combined and taken into consideration as one big piece of evidence, is very conclusive.

I'll keep it short, because the full explanations would take a long while...


First piece of evidence:

Paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA. This is a forensic examination of some of the photos of Sheila Caffel.

It proves that Sheila was murdered and didn't commit suicide. 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html


Second piece of evidence:

If Sheila was murdered, then it was someone else going crazy with the gun, and not Sheila.

Therefore the phone call from Nevill to Jeremy couldn't have happened, because Sheila wasn't going crazy with the gun.  It was a work of fiction on Jeremy's part, in order to fabricate an alibi.  Jeremy is therefore the Murderer, or he hired someone.  Either way, he knows Sheila is innocent, and he was involved.


Third piece of evidence:

This is just my observation, but it is still evidence.

If Jeremy Bamber is innocent, how does he know so absolutely that his sister was the murderer?

An innocent person wouldn't know this, and wouldn't campaign for this.  An innocent person would beg the police to investigate the possibility that a third party was involved, like a burglar.

Bamber has always blamed Sheila, even though it is effectively proven beyond reasonable doubt (in the eyes of the CoA judges) that Sheila was murdered, and therefore did not commit the crimes.

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

The above is a very very short explanation of those three points, but paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA is a piece of forensic science that led the 3 CoA judges to say that this evidence on its own was strong enough for the Jury to find Jeremy Bamber guilty.

Michael Turner QC, Jeremy Bambers defence Counsel, declined to respond to the evidence, prompting the judges to say that Michael Turner QC must have agreed with the findings, because he declined in any way to attempt to contradict the evidence.

CCRC investigations always take into account all evidence from previous appeals.  The 3 CoA judges set a precedent when they drew their conclusion about the evidence in paragraph 518 that will be respected by all subsequent CCRC applications. 

Bamber keeps talking about silencers and movement inside the house, but there is at this moment, what amounts to 'beyond reasonable doubt' evidence that Sheila was murdered.  Bamber has made no attempt over the last 20 years to overcome this very large obstacle (As far as I know).

A couple of hundred sounds about right. There is a mountain of sourced incriminating evidence.

[David1819]

A couple of hundred sounds about right. There is a mountain of sourced incriminating evidence.

Ah yes. Adams "mountain of sourced incriminating evidence"

Behold...

[David1819]

I suspect Killingeve has not read the full transcript of the 2002 appeal hearing. This can be found in the link bellow should they wish to.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390

[Adam]

Ah yes. Adams "mountain of sourced incriminating evidence"

Behold...

One aledged 'forensic evidence breakthrough' 6 years ago is not going to negate 'a couple of hundred'.

But at least someone who actually saw it 6 years ago said it was well presented.