Has your position changed?

[ngb1066]

The problem of course with this case (of which there are many) is that if one finds JB not guilty by way of reasonable doubt, then by default SC is guilty.

Whilst there may be a case for reasonable doubt applied to JB's case, it's the same for SC. There is still reasonable doubt that SC did not do it - stale mate!!

No, because Sheila is not on trial.  The question is whether there is a reasonable doubt about Jeremy's guilt.  If there is, that does not prove that Sheila was responsible.

[ngb1066]

As you may or may not know I am new to this forum although I have viewed it recently on quite a number of occasions as a guest. 

I have read all the information on the official Jeremy Bamber website and receive all the latest information on twitter.  As a guest on this forum I have been able to read most of the information on this site though obviously the benefit of becoming a member is so the relevant photographs and documentation can be viewed as well.

My opinion at the moment and has been for some time that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and that Sheila Caffell was responsible however I am going to take some time to re-read all of the information provided on this forum but this time with the benefit of the photographs and documents.

What I do believe 100% however is that he did not receive a fair trial so at the very least should be given the opportunity of a re-trial and that all of the documentation held under PII should be made available sooner rather than later so that an informed decision can be made by everyone involved.

I have already made my thoughts about 'Z' known in previous posts but I do think that until Mike or 'Z' is in a position to divulge more information regarding what they supposedly know and/or release the photographs/documentation that is continuously referred to then this information, in my opinion, will not be relevant in me reaching an ultimate decision of guilty or innocent.  I am going to concentrate on the facts and leave the rest alone.

A very well written post Gillian.

[andrea]

If jeremy ever got an appeal and won, would the case have to be reopened then?

[OnceSaid]

My position has not changed. 

If people are being convicted to many years in prison, is it not of the utmost importance that a full, thorough and honest investigation has taken place, and when it goes to trial, everything is disclosed, not just what the prosecution want the jury to hear and see?.

Everyone should have the right to a fair trial, but if the investigation is a shambles from the start, and then information is being witheld, how can that be fair to anyone? 

No one wants guilty people to get away with murder.  I also don't want innocent people being locked up for a murder they did not commit, especially when there is no hard evidence against them.

I have yet to find anything that convinces me of JB guilt, in that he murdered 5 members of his family.

[Roch]

My position has not changed. 

If people are being convicted to many years in prison, is it not of the utmost importance that a full, thorough and honest investigation has taken place, and when it goes to trial, everything is disclosed, not just what the prosecution want the jury to hear and see?.

Everyone should have the right to a fair trial, but if the investigation is a shambles from the start, and then information is being witheld, how can that be fair to anyone? 

No one wants guilty people to get away with murder.  I also don't want innocent people being locked up for a murder they did not commit, especially when there is no hard evidence against them.

I have yet to find anything that convinces me of JB guilt, in that he murdered 5 members of his family.

Top post and totally agree. I'm being expected to believe that Jeremy Bamber is guilty because he allegedly ate lobster and drank champagne, when he should have been sullen....  Or was it oysters?  It seems to me that he is guilty to some people because he burgled the caravan site.

I'm not buying any of this.  It's got nowt whatsoever to do with WHF incident.   

[andrea]

If jeremy ever got an appeal and won, would the case have to be reopened then?

sorry to bump this up, but if jeremy was freed on appeal, would the case have to be reopened?

[nugnug]

how would anybody know what he eat ate thats just hear say.

[nugnug]

sorry to bump this up, but if jeremy was freed on appeal, would the case have to be reopened?

they would try there hardest not to reopen it im sure.

[andrea]

they would try there hardest not to reopen it im sure.

well, the fact that 5 people were shot including 2 children, i would have thought it would be in the public interest to find out the perpetrator.

Or would they simply say, well if it wasnt jb then it must be sc? surely it would be investigated again, as far as is possible.

[Newbury1]

No, because Sheila is not on trial.  The question is whether there is a reasonable doubt about Jeremy's guilt.  If there is, that does not prove that Sheila was responsible.

I think you are slightly missing my point. I know SC was not on trial, but the judge said it was one or the other.

This is more a case of JB/SC, guilty/not guilty in the mind of the thinker, not a court process - if that makes sense?

If I was a juror and I was toying with the thought JB was not guilty by way of reasonable doubt, then I would have to believe SC did it - and that one in my mind is more difficult to believe imo.

This to me is part of the dilemma thrown up by this case.

[nugnug]

well, the fact that 5 people were shot including 2 children, i would have thought it would be in the public interest to find out the perpetrator.

Or would they simply say, well if it wasnt jb then it must be sc? surely it would be investigated again, as far as is possible.

they would do there best to say he was still guilty like they do in most cases.

[OnceSaid]

sorry to bump this up, but if jeremy was freed on appeal, would the case have to be reopened?

If JB ever got his conviction quashed I think the prosecution would be screaming for a retrial.

If JB was freed on appeal, having had his conviction quashed, I would hope if anyone that JB and the public would be screaming to have the case reopened, but I doubt it would happen.

It isnt automatic that when a murder conviction is quashed that the murder case is reopened.

[ngb1066]

If jeremy ever got an appeal and won, would the case have to be reopened then?

No, the case would not be reopened.

[Buddy]

Listen to you lot! Where is your courage? Are you now so unsure because JB had a fair triai?
I have not changed my stance at all. I have never said that I am 100% of JBs innocense, but I will not change midtrack,
Try telling me that the extended family were not bias, and I will laugh in your face.
The buffoon has got to you. I will have none of it.
If the buffoon has no connection to the family how do you explain his in depth knowledge. and his passion in defending the family. The bufoon also has a habit of belittling any dissenters.
The high and mighty bafoon made my mind up yonks ago.

[andrea]

No, the case would not be reopened.

So would they just say" well sc did it then"? wouldnt it be in the public interest to find out who slaughtered this family? i find that shocking really.