ECHR ..... now - Killers' life terms 'breached their human rights'

[maggie]

Exactly Caroline the bunbllng and strange 'witness statements' about the finding of the silencer which so conveniently held proof which was needed eventhough each person supposed to have been present when it was found had a slightly different story and RB even thought it was a different day!!! Far, far too convenient imo.
Reading the Wilkes book reinforced to me that Jeremy a product of a middle class family and public school found it almost impossible to show emotion or cry in public hence all the covering up of emotion and giggling etc. If I knew he was guilty of course I wouldn't bother anymore.  I have always believed he was innocent, just never made sense to me eventhough I found it hard to believe Sheila was capable of carrying out the crime back in 1985, always sounded so contrived

[tyler]

Thing is,so much more is known about mental illness 28 years on,and we are reading about cases similar to Sheila's all the time in the media. Its just not good enough to say the evidence was not there to prove that Sheila was responsible. Only a visual test was carried out on her nightdress for gpr and the hand swab tests were seriously messed up. For me personally,I can't and won't accept that Sheila had been dead for "hours" when she was found. Not only do I believe that she should have been in a more advanced state of rm,but also,she was described as having blood "running" from the corners of her mouth. People that have been dead "hours" do not bleed! Jeremy could NOT at least,have been responsible for Sheila's death. Fact!

[maggie]

All correct tyler there are so many arguments in Jeremy's favour now, it seems bloody minded to continue to insist on his guilt. Once you believe Sheila COULD have done it there's very little argument imo but people cling to the belief she couldn't have although we see so many cases of similar behaviour these days. In 1985 the old asylums were being emptied before that very probably Sheila would have been an inpatient, sadly which is one reason such tragedies were rarer..

[Caroline R]

Thing is,so much more is known about mental illness 28 years on,and we are reading about cases similar to Sheila's all the time in the media. Its just not good enough to say the evidence was not there to prove that Sheila was responsible. Only a visual test was carried out on her nightdress for gpr and the hand swab tests were seriously messed up. For me personally,I can't and won't accept that Sheila had been dead for "hours" when she was found. Not only do I believe that she should have been in a more advanced state of rm,but also,she was described as having blood "running" from the corners of her mouth. People that have been dead "hours" do not bleed! Jeremy could NOT at least,have been responsible for Sheila's death. Fact!

I feel the same Tyler and gets frustrating when we hear that she was too delicate - for starters Neville had chronic back pain after breaking his back during the war in an air crash. Sheila was quite tall (5'7") so not such the 'slip of a girl' that we're led to believe she was. And in the throws of a psychotic attack with a purpose on her mind, I imagine she would have been very difficult to control. I agree that her body seemed to be in the first stages of death and also, if her hands were 'supposed' to be clean, where did the finger prints on her nightdress come from? Or is someone going to suggest that they aren't finger prints at all?? 

[Jane]

I do agree but there's much wrong with this case and the more I read the more I believe he's innocent.  Xxxxx

Ma\ggie, I'm amazed by the number of people, friends with June and Neville and because the rellies pronounced Jeremy guilty believed it to be true, who are now beginning to doubt what they originally thought.

[maggie]

That is very interesting and very telling april. The fact is if Sheila was able to shoot nevill in the head as an early shot he would then have been totally disabled, poor man, after that she could easily have finished him off. We understand psychosis so much more now and the fact that she very likely had little or no understanding it was her dad she was attacking so visciously.

[Jane]

That is very interesting and very telling april. The fact is if Sheila was able to shoot nevill in the head as an early shot he would then have been totally disabled, poor man, after that she could easily have finished him off. We understand psychosis so much more now and the fact that she very likely had little or no understanding it was her dad she was attacking so visciously.

Maggie, the thing which raises my blood pressure is that every piece of "evidence" against Jeremy is based on supposition, is anecdotal, is hearsay, is contrived, and where none can be found, it comes to light miraculously in a manner which can only be regarded as suspicious but is nonetheless, along with the evidence of a scorned gold digger, accepted as concret proof of his guilt. Sheila's ability to carry out any act of violence is denied by a family who knew nothing of her mental state, had at very best a distant relationship with her, hadn't been in, or sought her company for the best part of a year, but for some inexplicable reason they were believed. How the hell would they know when at least one of them seemed to do all that could be done to avoid her company. There is much concerning Sheila which MUST have been documented facts but rather than call for these, the fudged report of a consultant who failed to ensure her meds were monitored was relied on in court..............and the outcome was called JUSTICE!!!

[lookout]

In all honesty,,if you were asked to sit on a jury such as this and were handed a silencer,then for someone to blind you with science on the intricacies of baffle-plates,etc etc,,would you know what was being spoken about if you didn't know one end of a rifle from the other.?

[lookout]

Ordinarily speaking,if it was person to person,you'd pretend to look intelligent and answer " oh yes,yes,that's right." But in a court of law,it then becomes a matter of " life and death " to that person in the dock,,and so you can't afford to be complacent by following others as if they were knowledgeable on the subject.

[Jane]

In all honesty,,if you were asked to sit on a jury such as this and were handed a silencer,then for someone to blind you with science on the intricacies of baffle-plates,etc etc,,would you know what was being spoken about if you didn't know one end of a rifle from the other.?

lookout, you can't possibly be implying that this is what the police/ prosecution banked on.........................................................................CAN you

[lookout]

lookout, you can't possibly be implying that this is what the police/ prosecution banked on.........................................................................CAN you

All those who are untrained,April. I'm almost certain that this is the way the trial went,because there was nothing else to report,,and much has been made about the silencer that the jury must have been brainwashed.

[Jane]

All those who are untrained,April. I'm almost certain that this is the way the trial went,because there was nothing else to report,,and much has been made about the silencer that the jury must have been brainwashed.

As long as they get their man, eh lookout? Well, in this case A man.

[Nickos]

I agree completely Maggie, but if had any doubts, I wouldn't be supporting the campaign. I used to think he was guilty, he was one of those faces that popped up from time to time with the title of 'Evil Killer' or 'Monster' before his name. I did an internet search and found out that he was protesting his innocence and I actually laughed thinking 'yeah, they all say that'. Anyway, I stared reading about the case and the more I looked for answers, I only discovered more questions. It's the silencer evidence that just doesn't ring true to me and Julie Mugford was coached IMO (perhaps even confronted with being an accessory), why else did she have so may interviews with SJ and why the need for the deception about the visit to the bank?, Too much ambiguous evidence such as the telephone logs and the position of the bodies on discovery, have been put down to error. Yes, one or two errors would be quite feasible but there are too many with weak explanations!!

Hi Caroline,

I used to think JB may not be guilty (following the Sutherst photo report highlighted in the Sunday Times back in 2010), but the more I read, and thought about certain aspects of the case, the more I came to believe JB did do it (or certainly had a significant hand in it).

Or thinking the other way - SC may have done it, but after some thought and consideration this look’s more unlikely. If you take this stance (which I believe most of the Jurors may have) the only suspect left is JB.

Trial by elimination.

I agree the silencer evidence is suspect (and always have) as it was handled by the relatives, and as for Mugford!! (this bit smacks to me of the Nat Fraser case – which as I believe you know is all circumstantial).

Originally Hector Dick was in the doc next to Fraser. The next thing Dick is giving damning evidence against Fraser – Dick is free (pardon the expression) and Fraser in jail (Mugford is free and JB in jail). Mugford could have sat in the doc next to JB if she knew so much about the murders. Rivlin imo did a poor job on Mugford – and the rest is history!!

Even the defence in the Fraser case actually accused Dick (a witness) in court of being the murderer. Rivlin wasn’t direct enough with Mugford, and even helped a prosecution witness with the use of a certain “trick of the light” expression imo.

There was an expression used by the prosecution in the Nat Fraser trial – it’s like taking individual strands, which on their own are weak, but when combined make it strong.

In this recent circumstantial evidence case (not even a body or murder weapon) a jury still found Fraser guilty for a second time – even though Fraser continues to protest his innocence.

JB has had multiple appeals, a COLP enquiry, a Judicial review,  etc. – JB has had his case reviewed over years and to be frank nothing has changed.

[susan]

Hello Nickos excellent post other than of course I believe Jeremy Bamber to be innocent but you made sense in much of what you said.  I strongly feel so much evidence was destroyed or withheld and why was this necessary if everything was as it should have been.  I feel again very strongly that much will be revealed in the near future and Jeremy Bamber will be found innocent of the horrendous crimes he was charged with.  The trial was a shambles and he would not be convicted in a court of law at this present time.xx

[Lugg]

Hi Caroline,

I used to think JB may not be guilty (following the Sutherst photo report highlighted in the Sunday Times back in 2010), but the more I read, and thought about certain aspects of the case, the more I came to believe JB did do it (or certainly had a significant hand in it).

Or thinking the other way - SC may have done it, but after some thought and consideration this look’s more unlikely. If you take this stance (which I believe most of the Jurors may have) the only suspect left is JB.

Trial by elimination.

I agree the silencer evidence is suspect (and always have) as it was handled by the relatives, and as for Mugford!! (this bit smacks to me of the Nat Fraser case – which as I believe you know is all circumstantial).

Originally Hector Dick was in the doc next to Fraser. The next thing Dick is giving damning evidence against Fraser – Dick is free (pardon the expression) and Fraser in jail (Mugford is free and JB in jail). Mugford could have sat in the doc next to JB if she knew so much about the murders. Rivlin imo did a poor job on Mugford – and the rest is history!!

Even the defence in the Fraser case actually accused Dick (a witness) in court of being the murderer. Rivlin wasn’t direct enough with Mugford, and even helped a prosecution witness with the use of a certain “trick of the light” expression imo.

There was an expression used by the prosecution in the Nat Fraser trial – it’s like taking individual strands, which on their own are weak, but when combined make it a strong.

In this recent circumstantial evidence case (not even a body or murder weapon) a jury still found Fraser guilty for a second time – even though Fraser continues to protest his innocence.

JB has had multiple appeals, a COLP enquiry, a Judicial review,  etc. – JB has had his case reviewed over years and to be frank nothing has changed.

But Nick isn't that the problem? His case has never been reviewed. At an appeal they don't review the whole case and neither to the CCRC. It only looks at new evidence. Their trust that the conviction was right is based entirely on the original verdict and the jury's decision is never questioned. That unfortunately is part of the appeal system that I personally would like to see changed. Hi again by the way.