Jeremy Bamber: the Prelude, the Tragedy and the Aftermath

[guest154]

The question is whether these letters purported to be in the hands of AA contain any relevant information pertaining to his innocence and why they have not been disclosed to his legal representation hitherto.

I've often wondered if numerous people that Jeremy has written to, got together and compared letters - how similair they would be in their consistency. I think they'd differ, and in some places quite drastically.

[Caroline]

The question is whether these letters purported to be in the hands of AA contain any relevant information pertaining to his innocence and why they have not been disclosed to his legal representation hitherto.

They are just correspondence sent to her from Bamber, I think her idea is to see if Jeremy's story has changed over the years? She isn't saying they contain anything that prove he is innocent.

[Steve_uk]

They are just correspondence sent to her from Bamber, I think her idea is to see if Jeremy's story has changed over the years? She isn't saying they contain anything that prove he is innocent.

Yes but only in areas where he is guessing and to suit his agenda. How can his story change anyway if he claims he woke up in the early hours of the morning with no pre-knowledge of anything?

[Caroline]

Yes but only in areas where he is guessing and to suit his agenda. How can his story change anyway if he claims he woke up in the early hours of the morning with no pre-knowledge of anything?

I think AA is confident that they won't have changed because he was telling the truth. Problem is, if his story has changed, people will make excuses.

[gringo]

Yes but only in areas where he is guessing and to suit his agenda. How can his story change anyway if he claims he woke up in the early hours of the morning with no pre-knowledge of anything?

   It would be informative to see how JB's early recollections fit into the picture as more evidence became known about and disclosed. Did JB's recollections have to change to accommodate new evidence or was it just the prosecution case that required "editing"?

[David1819]

   It would be informative to see how JB's early recollections fit into the picture as more evidence became known about and disclosed. Did JB's recollections have to change to accommodate new evidence or was it just the prosecution case that required "editing"?

When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.

Here is my take

1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)

2.  A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.

Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009  Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.

[Steve_uk]

When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.

Here is my take

1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)

2.  A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.

Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009  Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.

No he said he couldn't rule out the possibility that it was suicide. Jeremy has added nothing to the debate for 33 years as far as I can make out.

[gringo]

When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.

Here is my take

1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)

2.  A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.

Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009  Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.

   Nothing wrong with that analysis. There must be many more examples that would lend more credence to this. Reasonable inferences can be drawn from Jeremy's response to new evidence, as you have above.

[Caroline]

When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.

Here is my take

1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)

2.  A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.

Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009  Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.

Has he changed his mind since you posted this?

Herbert Leon McDonnell has recanted on his 1992 conclusions and now believes it could be suicide.

Herbert Leon McDonnell came to the conclusion of murder in 1992 based on incomplete information.

You cannot use his 1992 conclusions while simultaneously ignoring his revised 2009 conclusions.

Perhaps you can provide a source so we can read the actual wording? Make sure it isn't just hearsay though eh? 

[Adam]

Didn't Mcconnell say it could be suicide after being told by supporters the silencer may not have been used.

I agree. The problem is there is Sheila's blood & the aga paint in the silencer.

[Adam]

Bamber hired Mcconnell before he started focusing on the silencer blood.

[guest154]

When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.

Here is my take

1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)

2.  A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.

Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009  Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.

Naughty naughty.

[Jane]

Naughty naughty.

I believe the key word COULD -in relation to POSSIBLE suicide- has been 'forgotten', Mat.

[Caroline]

I believe the key word COULD -in relation to POSSIBLE suicide- has been 'forgotten', Mat.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg446131.html#msg446131

[Jane]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg446131.html#msg446131

Aha! Thanks for the confirmation, Caroline.