Has your position changed?

[grahameb]

My postion on JB's guilt on joining the forum was c.60% now its nearer 80%.

However; I do believe any withheld information should be on the table and I do believe some of the evidence has been tampered with / distorted or deliberately destroyed.

If you could determine "reasonable doubt" as a % (that would deliver a not guilty vote), what would that % be?

I have demonstrated reasonable doubt many times.

[grahameb]

I don't know any more. When i first came here I was very much on the fence. I try to look at it from all sides. I then started to be much more on the innocent side. In the last few weeks I've become very confused and I must be honest that is very much to do with the whole Z situation, and now we're expected to follow the "Taff Jones was murdered".  It just makes those who are pro Bamber look like fools. I'm starting to feel like I need to see much more evidence instead of heresay and Mike insisting its true because he says it is.  Oh god, I'm going to get lynched now ...

They think wer're fools anyway.

[grahameb]

Mike presents a lot of theories based upon his detailed knowledge of the case evidence.  Mike has made it clear that he does that to stimulate debate, and he succeeds in doing that.  Just because you may disagree with some of Mike's theories should not in my view affect your overall view on the case.  Assess the material here and reach your own overall conclusions.  That is what I have done.  I have not agreed with all of Mike's ideas but I have to say I find most of them convincing and they accord with my own analysis of the case.  Mike's posts on the silencer evidence in particular are very carefully reasoned and are powerful.

What I can't understand is people saying that they've changed their views from innocent to guilty just because of what Mike has been saying. Don't they have a mind of their own for goodness sake?

[grahameb]

I'll have the turquoise one at the front please  :D

I'll catch the others when they fall

[Gillian]

You're very welcome to them Grahame as long as you save one for me. 

[grahameb]

I stand with Buddy on this one. I started out believing 26 years ago that Jeremy was innocent. I am now 110% of his innocence. Why I came to that 110% in favour of Jeremy was something said by Campion. That if he had just committed 5 murders he would under no circumstances be as calm as he was in the presence of the police. I have seen soldiers, men trained for combat as high as a kite after they had been in a battle zone. The adrenalin rush would have been so much after being in that situation that he would not have been able to stop shaking. To my mind it was utterly impossible that he could have been that good an actor.

I have also established before that there was absolutely no evidence at all forensic or otherwise to connect Jeremy to the scene of the crime. The who case was built entirely upon the words of Julie Mugford without any kind of proof from an independent witness at all. Even the trial judge told the jury not to rely upon Julie Mugford's evidence alone.

But unfortunately he made the grave error of referring to the silencer and the blood inside it. Thereby creating the myth that a silencer was used. This evidence again was based entirely on the words of the relatives who said they found the silencer in the gun cupboard. Again no independent witnesses at all to corroborate their find.

You cannot tell me that when the police looked in the gun cupboard that they missed seeing the silencer in there? So this so called silencer evidence is not even backed up by the police. The conclusion is that the whole trial should have been deemed a mistrial by the first appeal court. Since then each successive appeal court, plus the CCRC have perpetuated the myth that Jeremy committed the murders.

Therefore without any kind of evidence to the contrary Sheila must by default be the murderer. I have not only established reasonable doubt I have also proved Jeremy's innocence.

[andrea]

What I can't understand is people saying that they've changed their views from innocent to guilty just because of what Mike has been saying. Don't they have a mind of their own for goodness sake?

Its because it made me question everything that mike has posted, and i also started looking the other side of the coin so to speak.

when i first became interested in this case and started looking on the net for info, all i ever seemed to find were pro bamber sites, so i only got to see one side of the argument.

Since joining this forum i have been able to see both sides of the argument, so it wasnt just a matter of mike mentioning Z.

[grahameb]

Its because it made me question everything that mike has posted, and i also started looking the other side of the coin so to speak.

when i first became interested in this case and started looking on the net for info, all i ever seemed to find were pro bamber sites, so i only got to see one side of the argument.

Since joining this forum i have been able to see both sides of the argument, so it wasnt just a matter of mike mentioning Z.

I thought that, that was one of the reasons that made you doubt?

[andrea]

You mean z one of the reasons?

[Chochokeira]

I stand with Buddy on this one. I started out believing 26 years ago that Jeremy was innocent. I am now 110% of his innocence. Why I came to that 110% in favour of Jeremy was something said by Campion. That if he had just committed 5 murders he would under no circumstances be as calm as he was in the presence of the police. I have seen soldiers, men trained for combat as high as a kite after they had been in a battle zone. The adrenalin rush would have been so much after being in that situation that he would not have been able to stop shaking. To my mind it was utterly impossible that he could have been that good an actor.

I have also established before that there was absolutely no evidence at all forensic or otherwise to connect Jeremy to the scene of the crime. The who case was built entirely upon the words of Julie Mugford without any kind of proof from an independent witness at all. Even the trial judge told the jury not to rely upon Julie Mugford's evidence alone.

But unfortunately he made the grave error of referring to the silencer and the blood inside it. Thereby creating the myth that a silencer was used. This evidence again was based entirely on the words of the relatives who said they found the silencer in the gun cupboard. Again no independent witnesses at all to corroborate their find.

You cannot tell me that when the police looked in the gun cupboard that they missed seeing the silencer in there? So this so called silencer evidence is not even backed up by the police. The conclusion is that the whole trial should have been deemed a mistrial by the first appeal court. Since then each successive appeal court, plus the CCRC have perpetuated the myth that Jeremy committed the murders.

Therefore without any kind of evidence to the contrary Sheila must by default be the murderer. I have not only established reasonable doubt I have also proved Jeremy's innocence.

Excellent post, Grahame.

[andrea]

This may be a dumb question but here goes...

When police wre called to WHF, they were led to believe shiela had gone crazy with a gun, when they stormed whf they found everyone dead, and shiela with the rifle without silencer attatched.

So why would they look for the silencer in the begining if they didnt think it was used?

[mertol22]

This may be a dumb question but here goes...

When police wre called to WHF, they were led to believe shiela had gone crazy with a gun, when they stormed whf they found everyone dead, and shiela with the rifle without silencer attatched.

So why would they look for the silencer in the begining if they didnt think it was used?

If i did not any better Andrea you sound unsure !, when the relatives were deputised we have more parts of the jigsaw puzzle do you not think, this may explain why hartley joins in and out he is trying to get the message through that there is nothing more to discuss he sounds very sure of himself even i am not that bold.

[andrea]

No, people are asking why the silencer wasnt found, i dont think they were looking for it because they thouight at the time that it hadnt been used.

[Chochokeira]

This may be a dumb question but here goes...

When police wre called to WHF, they were led to believe shiela had gone crazy with a gun, when they stormed whf they found everyone dead, and shiela with the rifle without silencer attatched.

So why would they look for the silencer in the begining if they didnt think it was used?

Then why accept it from Jeremy's extended family prior to JM's allegations? The same argument applies.

It was the job of the police to investigate the deaths at WHF. It was not their role to presume anything. As I understand it, they were required to thoroughly examine the scene for soc evidence then to search the scene in order to gather all possible portable evidence which could have been used in or involved with the murders- even if they found strong evidence of four murders and a suicide. This would surely have required the police to remove all firearms and associated equipment plus any other portable evidence.

[mertol22]

No, people are asking why the silencer wasnt found, i dont think they were looking for it because they thouight at the time that it hadnt been used.

The silencer was not where it should be ? the relatives had no right to touch that item they should have left it right there as Keira says quite rightly they are not the law not then or now without that silencer JB would have remained a free man, if it was not used jb is innocent .