Can you point me to your 200 pieces of evidence that proves JB committed the crime please, from what you posted above I am expecting some pretty strong evidence.
Perhaps if you start with your top ten pieces of evidence then post the rest latter, your chance to switch me to a guilter.
To answer your question, no I won't list 200 pieces of evidence, because it would be unwieldy, and would be incredibly boring to read.
The evidence is there to read on this forum, the red forum and various books and documentaries.
I'm more into narrative explanations, rather than list building.
The point that I was making was less about 200 pieces of evidence, and more about there being a large body of evidence that collectively, as a whole, points to Sheila being less likely to have committed the crime, as well as Jeremy being more likely to have committed the crime.
The dry, academic and legal argument is that if Sheila didn't do it, then Jeremy did.
Or to put it another way, if Jeremy didn't do it, then Sheila did.
Jeremy Bamber is the one who will not allow any other scenario, like an assassin, or a burglar.
There are two main scenarios laid out by both defence and prosecution:
If Sheila did it, then it was due to a completely unpredicted and unexpected, random psychotic mental breakdown, triggered by her schizophrenia.
If Jeremy did it, then it was as a result of a psychopath, calmly and cold-bloodedly planning the murder of his family over approximately an 18 month period.
And people who say Jeremy Bamber is
innocent seem to be in agreement (mostly) that Sheila had a breakdown as described above, and nobody blames her, as she was mentally ill. Just one of those things.
And people who say Jeremy Bamber is
guilty seem to be in agreement (mostly) that Jeremy is a psychopath who carefully planned the crime in cold blood over a period of time.
So, to put it mildly disrespectfully, based on the above, there's the
'Sheila went mad' scenario, or the
'Jeremy the psycho' scenario.
------------------------
So all the evidence that was presented to the police, collected, collated, bungled, messed up, lost, and all the rest of it, all that we now know evidentially, has to be set, or tested, against either 'Jeremy the psycho', or 'Sheila went mad'.
For example, there were 25 shots fired, and each hit their target. As an example, one of the boys had 5 bullets in his tiny little head, and they were in a single arc, equi-distant from each other.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
So who did it?
'Sheila went mad'? Or 'Jeremy the psycho'?
But don't ask yourself who actually did it. Ask yourself, what type of person is most likely to have done it.
Would it be a calm(ish) psychopath carrying out a plan made over an 18 month period. Or a person having a random mental breakdown, the symptoms being, behaving in an uncontrollably berserk, crazy and violent way.
Well, for a start, there were no stray bullets.
No stray bullets hit the walls or ceilings, or any other random non-human objects.
25 bullets all hit their target.
None of us were there, so no one can say for sure, but for me it is
more likely to be the work of a calm psychopath. Therefore in this case, that would be 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario.
If it was the 'Sheila went mad' scenario, then I would expect some stray bullets. After all, she was mad, she was going crazy, she went berserk.
For me, it is therefore
less likely to be Sheila, because I would have expected her to be less accurate and more manic, in her firing technique.
Jeremy was proficient with guns, and was a regular user of the Anschutz. He even admits to using it to shoot rabbits earlier that very evening.
Sheila knew very little about guns, didn't handle them regularly, if ever. And had never used the Anschutz, which had been purchased less than a year earlier.
For me, it just makes Sheila less likely to have fired those bullets. It doesn't mean she didn't do it, but to me:
25 bullets efficiently dispatched, all hit their target + 'Sheila went mad' =
less likely that Sheila did it.
And to me:
25 bullets efficiently dispatched, all hit their target + 'Jeremy the psycho' =
more likely that Jeremy did it.
And that is just the firing of the bullets. One piece of evidence. Not enough to convict on its own.
But once you start adding up the
entire body of evidence, layer by layer, then for each piece of evidence, I keep finding myself saying that the 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario is more likely, and the 'Sheila went mad' scenario less likely.
It's the
totality of evidence, that when taken into consideration as a single, whole body of evidence, that Bamber looks as guilty as he does. That is when you start to get to the beyond reasonable doubt stage.
Single sheets of paper with an incorrect handwritten timestamp, is not going to put a dent in that whole body of evidence.
It's never really black or white for me...there is a large area of gray, where something is more likely, or less likely, rather than guilty, or innocent.
Also....and unfortunately for Jeremy Bamber...
There will always be paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA. Currently, this evidence proves that Sheila was murdered, and was dead before the firearms officers broke into the house.
And then there is the phone call from Jeremy Bamber to Chelmsford Police station, that proves that Jeremy Bamber tried to frame Sheila.
Those two very big, very important pieces of evidence - on their own - condemn Bamber.
Paragraph 518 will have to be disproved if Bamber is going to overturn his conviction.
