Jury convicted Jeremy of the murders, on the basis that police touched nowt...

[mike tesko]

JJury convicted Jeremy of the murders, on the basis that police touched nowt...

If this was / is not true - Jeremy's convictions are unsafe, and CCRC should refer his case back to the court of appeal for judgement with a view of quashing his convictions and compensating him for his terrible ordeal. You do not claim that police did not move or touch anything at all at the scene until after PC Bird completed taking all his crime scene pictures, and then disclose the following photographs (27 and 32) - here take a look and make your own minds up as to whether or not police told lies during the trial and mislead the jury into accepting that Jeremy stage managed Sheila's body, when all along no-one other than the police did so...

If police stage managed Sheila's body and blamed Jeremy for doing so, it is unquestionable that these convictions are expressly unsafe...



"It's make your mind up time"...



"Here...

Let me help you along":-

[Moe Cassani]

JJury convicted Jeremy of the murders, on the basis that police touched nowt...

If this was / is not true - Jeremy's convictions are unsafe, and CCRC should refer his case back to the court of appeal for judgement with a view of quashing his convictions and compensating him for his terrible ordeal. You do not claim that police did not move or touch anything at all at the scene until after PC Bird completed taking all his crime scene pictures, and then disclose the following photographs (27 and 32) - here take a look and make your own minds up as to whether or not police told lies during the trial and mislead the jury into accepting that Jeremy stage managed Sheila's body, when all along no-one other than the police did so...

If police stage managed Sheila's body and blamed Jeremy for doing so, it is unquestionable that these convictions are expressly unsafe...



"It's make your mind up time"...



"Here...

Let me help you along":-

Mike, what evidence is there that the police said that they did not touch anything?

[mertol22]

Mike, what evidence is there that the police said that they did not touch anything?

Anything ? they did actually but you may be suprised what they did move.

[Patti]

One must research the facts and evidence. They did move the rifle it is well documented that they did this. BUT, it was not examined at the original trial...nor was it contested in the 1991/2002 appeal....Mike is correct....this was not found till after 2002...because the EP withheld evidence, or should I say the CPS......

[Moe Cassani]

Anything ? they did actually but you may be suprised what they did move.

Everything I have read, the police fully owned up to moving things. For example the firearms team moving furniture to gain access to certain rooms or places.
I dont know about you Mertol, but it looks like these ideas are construed to try anything to get him off.......I mean anything. Some of these theories are clearly stretching the truth, some clearly belong in the realms of fiction and those that write them know it.
I can understand someone being a little over-zealous to try to prove their point, but that is very different to putting such twists on things that in no longer relates to the truth. How on earth is this going to help Jeremy?
Bamber has been languishing in clink for 27 years while a succession of campaigners and assorted fairy tale tellers go back and forth with theories that seem to be getting crazier with each passing day and what has emerged?...........erm..........nothing! What new evidence has resulted from this.......erm.......nothing.
In sum it has been pretty unproductive. If it were a company it would have been declared bankrupt and the receivers called in a long time ago.  And before you all jump all over me for my 'heresy' It is an opinion not a judgement.

[mertol22]

Everything I have read, the police fully owned up to moving things. For example the firearms team moving furniture to gain access to certain rooms or places.
I dont know about you Mertol, but it looks like these ideas are construed to try anything to get him off.......I mean anything. Some of these theories are clearly stretching the truth, some clearly belong in the realms of fiction and those that write them know it.
I can understand someone being a little over-zealous to try to prove their point, but that is very different to putting such twists on things that in no longer relates to the truth. How on earth is this going to help Jeremy?
Bamber has been languishing in clink for 27 years while a succession of campaigners and assorted fairy tale tellers go back and forth with theories that seem to be getting crazier with each passing day and what has emerged?...........erm..........nothing! What new evidence has resulted from this.......erm.......nothing.
In sum it has been pretty unproductive. If it were a company it would have been declared bankrupt and the receivers called in a long time ago.  And before you all jump all over me for my 'heresy' It is an opinion not a judgement.

An opinion is to be welcomed and respected be that for or against JB, with regret i may not share your view of society and this claimed /disputed free society, the sooner people come to terms that things may be not as we see society will be better for it, if we still had and used the death penalty along with Jeremy Bamber would have been others who have since being proved innocent but those responsible would never come to trial, JB  is fighting for remission as a free man his fight goes on to this day many a man by now would have given up or ended his life .

[lookout]

Everything I have read, the police fully owned up to moving things. For example the firearms team moving furniture to gain access to certain rooms or places.
I dont know about you Mertol, but it looks like these ideas are construed to try anything to get him off.......I mean anything. Some of these theories are clearly stretching the truth, some clearly belong in the realms of fiction and those that write them know it.
I can understand someone being a little over-zealous to try to prove their point, but that is very different to putting such twists on things that in no longer relates to the truth. How on earth is this going to help Jeremy?
Bamber has been languishing in clink for 27 years while a succession of campaigners and assorted fairy tale tellers go back and forth with theories that seem to be getting crazier with each passing day and what has emerged?...........erm..........nothing! What new evidence has resulted from this.......erm.......nothing.
In sum it has been pretty unproductive. If it were a company it would have been declared bankrupt and the receivers called in a long time ago.  And before you all jump all over me for my 'heresy' It is an opinion not a judgement.

Moe,,,let's not forget that heaps of vital evidence was destroyed in 1996,,so making any further investigations very difficult. I would say that any solicitor taking this case on after the destruction of files,etc is the hardest task that's been set for anyone,,and one where deeper thought about the whole scenario is crucial to Jeremy being released.
Imagine beginning a case 26 years later,,then proving " beyond reasonable doubt " that the man was innocent after all.
To then say that supporters/campaigners are being " unproductive " is an insult to our intelligence,,when your own input does nothing at all to help any cause,,least of all any concrete evidence that Jeremy was/is guilty.
We too have had to endure " fairy stories " such as the cycling frogman. Strewth,,,that was more than over-zealous,,it was a crack-pot theory.
Anyway,,what's wrong in fighting for someones' freedom.? I've done it once, ( with success ) so I'll do it again.
I bet you'd put up a good argument if you'd been accused of something you didn't do. What would your reaction be.? Sit back and do nothing,knowing you are right.? I don't think so,,,and neither would I nor anyone else,,,so this is why we're  all putting in our sixpenn'orth,to try to make a difference.

[Moe Cassani]

Moe,,,let's not forget that heaps of vital evidence was destroyed in 1996,,so making any further investigations very difficult. I would say that any solicitor taking this case on after the destruction of files,etc is the hardest task that's been set for anyone,,and one where deeper thought about the whole scenario is crucial to Jeremy being released.
Imagine beginning a case 26 years later,,then proving " beyond reasonable doubt " that the man was innocent after all.
To then say that supporters/campaigners are being " unproductive " is an insult to our intelligence,,when your own input does nothing at all to help any cause,,least of all any concrete evidence that Jeremy was/is guilty.
We too have had to endure " fairy stories " such as the cycling frogman. Strewth,,,that was more than over-zealous,,it was a crack-pot theory.
Anyway,,what's wrong in fighting for someones' freedom.? I've done it once, ( with success ) so I'll do it again.
I bet you'd put up a good argument if you'd been accused of something you didn't do. What would your reaction be.? Sit back and do nothing,knowing you are right.? I don't think so,,,and neither would I nor anyone else,,,so this is why we're  all putting in our sixpenn'orth,to try to make a difference.

Please explain to me why the 'frogman theory' (as you call it) was........in your words 'crackpot' why is this theory deserve your scorn when so many others that certainly would qualify for this moniker from the innocent theory do not? Please let me know what is so 'crackpot' about the point that Bamber wore a wetsuit top to commit the killings - especially when his was myseriously missing from his wardrobe at home and he had to borrow one a few weeks later to go surfing with friends. So why would anyone suspecting he could have worn a wetsuit top so outrageous'?
I do try to look at the evidence 'flat on' lookout. I just feel a little tired of people wandering off into the ether of their own imaginations to the point that it becomes fact.

[Bridget]

Just as an aside, there are actually two wetsuits in play - one is a two piece which was taken from JB's old room at WHF and examined if memory serves, and the other a one piece which Aunt Agatha has, and which she says has never been examined. I don't know anything about one with a missing top.

[Patti]

Please explain to me why the 'frogman theory' (as you call it) was........in your words 'crackpot' why is this theory deserve your scorn when so many others that certainly would qualify for this moniker from the innocent theory do not? Please let me know what is so 'crackpot' about the point that Bamber wore a wetsuit top to commit the killings - especially when his was myseriously missing from his wardrobe at home and he had to borrow one a few weeks later to go surfing with friends. So why would anyone suspecting he could have worn a wetsuit top so outrageous'?
I do try to look at the evidence 'flat on' lookout. I just feel a little tired of people wandering off into the ether of their own imaginations to the point that it becomes fact.

The wetsuit and bike was examined there was nothing found. Yet the scenario was of course examined in court....The wetsuit, along with the bike was a made up theory. Whether the jury was convinced of it, one can guess not, because it wasn't part of the judges summing up....

[Aunt Agatha]

Just as an aside, there are actually two wetsuits in play - one is a two piece which was taken from JB's old room at WHF and examined if memory serves, and the other a one piece which Aunt Agatha has, and which she says has never been examined. I don't know anything about one with a missing top.

Bridget:   The wetsuit was given to me from Jeremy, via the Police.  The Police arrived at my home with the suit, the rifle and many other items.  When Bob W suggested JB cycled to WHF wearing the wetsuit I found that difficult to believe or comprehend, knowing the Police had this wetsuit themselves once.  They surely would/could of examined it before it came to me.  My point was, since Bob's statement, the wetsuit has not been examined to prove his statement to be incorrect and I cannot confirm whether it has ever been examined or not.

Hoping this makes sense and I apologise if I have confused members with previous posts.

[Bridget]

Bridget:   The wetsuit was given to me from Jeremy, via the Police.  The Police arrived at my home with the suit, the rifle and many other items.  When Bob W suggested JB cycled to WHF wearing the wetsuit I found that difficult to believe or comprehend, knowing the Police had this wetsuit themselves once.  They surely would/could of examined it before it came to me.  My point was, since Bob's statement, the wetsuit has not been examined to prove his statement to be incorrect and I cannot confirm whether it has ever been examined or not.

Hoping this makes sense and I apologise if I have confused members with previous posts.

Hi AA, the previous discussion on this is here:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2968.45.html

There doesn't seem to be any record of the suit you have being examined, not by the lab anyway. That said, the idea of him wearing wet suit, let alone a one piece, is too ridiculous for me anyway.

[Moe Cassani]

Bridget:   The wetsuit was given to me from Jeremy, via the Police.  The Police arrived at my home with the suit, the rifle and many other items.  When Bob W suggested JB cycled to WHF wearing the wetsuit I found that difficult to believe or comprehend, knowing the Police had this wetsuit themselves once.  They surely would/could of examined it before it came to me.  My point was, since Bob's statement, the wetsuit has not been examined to prove his statement to be incorrect and I cannot confirm whether it has ever been examined or not.

Hoping this makes sense and I apologise if I have confused members with previous posts.

Thank you for that information Aunt Agatha. In regards to the wetsuit why would you find that difficult to believe or comprehend? It is perfectly feasible and rational to belive this could happen. The police clearly didn't find anything that they could use as evidence. It is just a theory. When you say the police 'had the wetsuit' do you mean the whole suite (top and bottom) or just one part? I ask this because he lost the top which may have been the one the police later found in the grounds of the farm.The bottoms were found hanging up in his wardrobe.

[Moe Cassani]

Hi AA, the previous discussion on this is here:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2968.45.html

There doesn't seem to be any record of the suit you have being examined, not by the lab anyway. That said, the idea of him wearing wet suit, let alone a one piece, is too ridiculous for me anyway.

Can I just clear something up here. The idea cam efrom the discovery of wet suit top.............not a whole suit (a big difference)The top was found in the farm ground by police. The bottoms were found in Bamber's wardrobe. (presuming the two were from the same suit)
It is not ridiculous to question why that is. It is perrfectly feasible and plausible for a person intent on murder who knew that he would be 'up close and personal' to try to make sure he didn't become contaminated with evidence that could identify them as the killer.
What is so ridiculous about that?

[elliehickman]

Patti as I am new to the forum I wanted to ask you a question I am puzzled about, do you know when Jerem last used the wet suit?

I have just written to Jeremy and I am putting together a list of questions I would like to ask him