jeremy bamber poll

[Bridget]

Having already once switched from 4 murders and a suicide to 5 murders they would have looked like complete idiots to revert back to the former. Perhaps they really did think JB was guilty so just 'helped the evidence along'. It's not like this doesn't happen the more recent case of Steven Johnston is a prime example! Over zealousness and ambition can sometimes be dangerous.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html

Police lines of enquiry change all of the time, it's hardly going to be considered unusual let alone embarrassing to pursue a line only to find that it's a dead end. The idea that they would manufacture evidence simply to hide the fact that they were right in the first place seems to me quite preposterous.

[Caroline R]

Police lines of enquiry change all of the time, it's hardly going to be considered unusual let alone embarrassing to pursue a line only to find that it's a dead end. The idea that they would manufacture evidence simply to hide the fact that they were right in the first place seems to me quite preposterous.

The world is fraught with ambitious individuals seeking heighten their profile at the expense of others- the police force is not immune from such ruthless individuals!

The idea of the police trying to cover mistakes may seem 'preposterous' to you and also to me however, it does happen - read Steven Johnston's appeal document  - and of course the idea is inherent in the infamous quote by Lord Justice Denning, - "It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned"

The Bamber case was high profile and those involved were under pressure.

[Bridget]

The world is fraught with ambitious individuals seeking heighten their profile at the expense of others- the police force is not immune from such ruthless individuals!

The idea of the police trying to cover mistakes may seem 'preposterous' to you and also to me however, it does happen - read Steven Johnston's appeal document  - and of course the idea is inherent in the infamous quote by Lord Justice Denning, - "It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned"

The Bamber case was high profile and those involved were under pressure.

I think you are conflating Denning's comments, which were concerning people already convicted and the effect apparent miscarriages can have on the integrity of the judicial system, with the process which takes place prior to a person getting anywhere near the judicial system. That is not to say that i agree with Denning's sentiments! Most right thinking people would praise the police for their diligence in getting to the truth, however circuitous the route, not mock them for having disappeared up a couple if blind alleys for a while.

[Caroline R]

I think you are conflating Denning's comments, which were concerning people already convicted and the effect apparent miscarriages can have on the integrity of the judicial system, with the process which takes place prior to a person getting anywhere near the judicial system. That is not to say that i agree with Denning's sentiments! Most right thinking people would praise the police for their diligence in getting to the truth, however circuitous the route, not mock them for having disappeared up a couple if blind alleys for a while.

I'll say again, the case was high profile and they were under a great deal of pressure! Of course the police should be praised for getting to the 'truth' IF the circuitous route does in fact lead them there! I'm not mocking anyone and I don;t think I have given that impression? However, neither am I happy to simply dismiss so many anomalies and contradictions and accept someone is guilty without any solid physical evidence!

[Jane]

I'll say again, the case was high profile and they were under a great deal of pressure! Of course the police should be praised for getting to the 'truth' IF the circuitous route does in fact lead them there! I'm not mocking anyone and I don;t think I have given that impression? However, neither am I happy to simply dismiss so many anomalies and contradictions and accept someone is guilty without any solid physical evidence!

Caroline, I agree. I feel a major reason for many of us no longer accepting "FOUND guilty ERGO guilty," is because we have been let down too many times by "ambitious individuals seeking to heighten their profile at the expense of others." Sadly, now, law enforcement can no longer expect our trust as an entitlement, they have to show they have earned it.

[Caroline R]

Caroline, I agree. I feel a major reason for many of us no longer accepting "FOUND guilty ERGO guilty," is because we have been let down too many times by "ambitious individuals seeking to heighten their profile at the expense of others." Sadly, now, law enforcement can no longer expect our trust as an entitlement, they have to show they have earned it.

Well said April!!

[Bridget]

I'll say again, the case was high profile and they were under a great deal of pressure! Of course the police should be praised for getting to the 'truth' IF the circuitous route does in fact lead them there! I'm not mocking anyone and I don;t think I have given that impression? However, neither am I happy to simply dismiss so many anomalies and contradictions and accept someone is guilty without any solid physical evidence!

The point you appear to be making (or supporting) is that the police would try to cover their 'mistakes' (the mistake in this case being that they incorrectly turned their attention from Sheila to JB) by inventing or concealing evidence which would lead to the opposite (original) conclusion. You then sought to support that point using Denning's comments. To me there is a world of difference between a police force investigating various lines of enquiry before concluding that one of them is sufficient for a prosecution, and the situation on which Denning commented and which I do not believe was intended to refer to the police at all.

[Jane]

The point you appear to be making (or supporting) is that the police would try to cover their 'mistakes' (the mistake in this case being that they incorrectly turned their attention from Sheila to JB) by inventing or concealing evidence which would lead to the opposite (original) conclusion. You then sought to support that point using Denning's comments. To me there is a world of difference between a police force investigating various lines of enquiry before concluding that one of them is sufficient for a prosecution, and the situation on which Denning commented and which I do not believe was intended to refer to the police at all.

Bridget, whilst YOU may be correct, each time the public hears of ANOTHER possibility of police corruption/manipulation, as in the recent news of a police chief protecting Jimmy Saville from being investigated, faith in their integrity is further diminished. As Lugg pointed out earlier, Steve may be dropping subliminal messages regarding Jeremy's character, the police, on occasions, seem to be doing a good job of doing it on their own behalf................and it's usually when a high profile case is involved.

[Bridget]

Bridget, whilst YOU may be correct, each time the public hears of ANOTHER possibility of police corruption/manipulation, as in the recent news of a police chief protecting Jimmy Saville from being investigated, faith in their integrity is further diminished. As Lugg pointed out earlier, Steve may be dropping subliminal messages regarding Jeremy's character, the police, on occasions, seem to be doing a good job of doing it on their own behalf................and it's usually when a high profile case is involved.

If Lord Denning had used the words 'justice system' instead of 'judicial system' then that is probably a wide enough description to include the activities of the police and Caroline may have been justified in using his comments to support her argument, but he didn't. I'm sure the judiciary abhor police corruption and dishonesty as much as the next person, which is why they banged up the police officer in the Steven Johnston case. Faith in the police and faith in the judicial system are two entirely separate things, although I agree that the actions of the police can tarnish both, perhaps unjustly.

I think Steve's messages are rather too loud and clear to be termed subliminal

[Caroline R]

The point you appear to be making (or supporting) is that the police would try to cover their 'mistakes' (the mistake in this case being that they incorrectly turned their attention from Sheila to JB) by inventing or concealing evidence which would lead to the opposite (original) conclusion. You then sought to support that point using Denning's comments. To me there is a world of difference between a police force investigating various lines of enquiry before concluding that one of them is sufficient for a prosecution, and the situation on which Denning commented and which I do not believe was intended to refer to the police at all.

I don't need an analysis of my words. You asked what the police stood to gain from the cover up and I gave you a 'possible' explanation. 'You' may not agree with it but is HAS been done before and will no doubt happen again in the future. I have given you an example of a recent case which is an official source but it's up to you if you wish to read it or not.

[Bridget]

I don't need an analysis of my words. You asked what the police stood to gain from the cover up and I gave you a 'possible' explanation. 'You' may not agree with it but is HAS been done before and will no doubt happen again in the future. I have given you an example of a recent case which is an official source but it's up to you if you wish to read it or not.

This is a forum Caroline, like it or not people will analyse your words.

[Caroline R]

This is a forum Caroline, like it or not people will analyse your words.

Fair enough. Then let me just add that 'your' interpretation of Denning's words are no more valid than mine. I wasn't 'trying' to say that police would cover up their mistakes, I'm saying they have done in the past! the are plenty of examples I don't understand why you are so surprised at the suggestion? I don't know if they did so in the Bamber case but if they did, I can only hope that one day the truth will be uncovered!

[Patti]

Having already once switched from 4 murders and a suicide to 5 murders they would have looked like complete idiots to revert back to the former. Perhaps they really did think JB was guilty so just 'helped the evidence along'. It's not like this doesn't happen the more recent case of Steven Johnston is a prime example! Over zealousness and ambition can sometimes be dangerous.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html

Hi Caroline  

I agree with you I believe the relatives did think Jeremy was guilty, for they could not believe that Sheila being a female with two small children could have picked up a rifle and shot her entire family.  They thought she was  incapable...Lets not forget that they suffered in this tragedy too.     

It must have been very difficult for them to come to terms with what had happened.  AE wondered why Jeremy had survived from the onset. I suppose there were no love lost between them, but if you strongly think a person is guilty, then one can make the crime fit, no matter how you look at it.  One has to remember that the police themselves did not gather any evidence in his conviction.  Was it a massive oversight by them, if so it could be that they were negligent.  In any case they committed gross misconduct by destroying the evidence they did have in 1996 when an ongoing claim for innocence was being perused...

Its so easy to turn the tables after some of evidence was destroyed in the first 24 hours and the crime scene was neither protected or examined in the correct way. Thus, making it very difficult for forensics to have gathered any real evidence like hair or fibers, that put Jeremy in the main bedroom.  Its no use talking about what would have been done today....All the evidence was there, the fact is the police destroyed it. 

Out of the 38 people who are serving a whole life sentence, Bamber is the only one that says he is innocent....he well might be and it may be that a grave injustice has been done....

[Patti]

Police lines of enquiry change all of the time, it's hardly going to be considered unusual let alone embarrassing to pursue a line only to find that it's a dead end. The idea that they would manufacture evidence simply to hide the fact that they were right in the first place seems to me quite preposterous.

But is does happen....

hello BTW

[-Harters-]

But it does happen....

hello BTW

So do earthquakes, but I haven't felt one today.