Beyond reasonable doubt.

[marchend]

It seems to me,beyond a reasonable doubt,that bamber would not of been convicted,beyond a reasonable doubt, if he went before a jury today,as opposed to 27 years ago. I would of thought that the silencer would be excluded due to the way it was discovered / stored / retained by relatives. Blood evidence would be accurately investigated to beyond reasonable doubt either way. I'm sure the way evidence is collected would differ greatly. I'm sure there would be a record of phone calls,or not from both properties.
All the above matters however not one jot.
Sad but true. It seems its all to late,or is it? Mike tesko states the proof of the telephone call from WHF is in the public domain? As evidence? As speculation? As myth?  I've asked but Mike Tesko hasn't replied. Can anyone else point me in the direction of the evidence that's in the public domain?  I only hope this isn't the handwritten log with the time discrepancy.

Any how. On an aside, how do you get a wider audience to believe he shouldn't of been found guilty?

[Jane]

It seems to me,beyond a reasonable doubt,that bamber would not of been convicted,beyond a reasonable doubt, if he went before a jury today,as opposed to 27 years ago. I would of thought that the silencer would be excluded due to the way it was discovered / stored / retained by relatives. Blood evidence would be accurately investigated to beyond reasonable doubt either way. I'm sure the way evidence is collected would differ greatly. I'm sure there would be a record of phone calls,or not from both properties.
All the above matters however not one jot.
Sad but true. It seems its all to late,or is it? Mike tesko states the proof of the telephone call from WHF is in the public domain? As evidence? As speculation? As myth?  I've asked but Mike Tesko hasn't replied. Can anyone else point me in the direction of the evidence that's in the public domain?  I only hope this isn't the handwritten log with the time discrepancy.

Any how. On an aside, how do you get a wider audience to believe he shouldn't of been found guilty?

Marchend HELLO I, like you have heard, from the same source, that the information regarding the phone call is in the public domain. Whilst I obviously can't categorically say that it ISN'T, I CAN say that I, personally have seen no proof that it is.....................................which was much easier to answer than saying how one manages to get a wider audience to believe he shouldn't have been found guilty. I have done my bit and have had some success even with those who were friends of the Bambers. SOME have admitted now that the trial had never seemed right but they had been influenced by what the rellies were saying and whilst none is prepared to say that Jeremy was an angel, they're intelligent to know that it doesn't necessarily make him a murderer.

[Roch]

how do you get a wider audience to believe he shouldn't of been found guilty?

There needs to be a defence based rough justice style documentary which allows some room for the prosecution argument and for prosecution witness / police commentary that is evidence related as opposed to opinion related.   What would happen is that the police would struggle to answer such points, possibly refuse to comment.  The docu would then allow the public to form an opinion on the lack of response from the police, which is likely to be negative / sceptical towards the police.  There is absolutely no way the relatives would cooperate in answering difficult evidence related questions.  They would more likely attempt to prevent the programme from happening, which would and should be interpreted as an indicator of collusion with the police stance.

Personally I believe that Jeremy's higher profile supporters should cut to the chase and publicly suggest that the silencer is a deliberately fabricated exhibit as opposed to an accidentially contaminated exhibit.

[susan]

Roch  very well said

[Jane]

Roch, it would only take one. I think that numerous would follow but it does need a figurehead.

[Jan]

There needs to be a defence based rough justice style documentary which allows some room for the prosecution argument and for prosecution witness / police commentary that is evidence related as opposed to opinion related.   What would happen is that the police would struggle to answer such points, possibly refuse to comment.  The docu would then allow the public to form an opinion on the lack of response from the police, which is likely to be negative / sceptical towards the police.  There is absolutely no way the relatives would cooperate in answering difficult evidence related questions.  They would more likely attempt to prevent the programme from happening, which would and should be interpreted as an indicator of collusion with the police stance.

Personally I believe that Jeremy's higher profile supporters should cut to the chase and publicly suggest that the silencer is a deliberately fabricated exhibit as opposed to an accidentially contaminated exhibit.

well said. take out the hearsay evidence of him being a monster and what are you left with?

A crime scene that you cant rely on. Contradictory  logs and timings from the police and with held evidence .Witnesses that even the judge said were unreliable . I agree with modern day forensics there would have been no case to answer.

[marchend]

There needs to be a defence based rough justice style documentary which allows some room for the prosecution argument and for prosecution witness / police commentary that is evidence related as opposed to opinion related.   What would happen is that the police would struggle to answer such points, possibly refuse to comment.  The docu would then allow the public to form an opinion on the lack of response from the police, which is likely to be negative / sceptical towards the police.  There is absolutely no way the relatives would cooperate in answering difficult evidence related questions.  They would more likely attempt to prevent the programme from happening, which would and should be interpreted as an indicator of collusion with the police stance.

Personally I believe that Jeremy's higher profile supporters should cut to the chase and publicly suggest that the silencer is a deliberately fabricated exhibit as opposed to an accidentially contaminated exhibit.

Personally,I don't agree. Bamber has had his fair share of attempts at putting his point across. The fact is none have been succesful. If that's because he's not had a fair hearing or he's had one arm tied behind his back it matters not. Appeals have been unsuccessfull. He was convicted 10/2. You have only to find 3 of the 12 initially. Put it to them,knowing the silencer history,as it is known factually,none of the sleight of hand that is alledged,what would be the verdict. 12 jurors. Let say average age 45. Bound to have lost a few.  7 still alive,you've only to find three and ask the question. IMO finding them won't be difficult.

[Jane]

Personally,I don't agree. Bamber has had his fair share of attempts at putting his point across. The fact is none have been succesful. If that's because he's not had a fair hearing or he's had one arm tied behind his back it matters not. Appeals have been unsuccessfull. He was convicted 10/2. You have only to find 3 of the 12 initially. Put it to them,knowing the silencer history,as it is known factually,none of the sleight of hand that is alledged,what would be the verdict. 12 jurors. Let say average age 45. Bound to have lost a few.  7 still alive,you've only to find three and ask the question. IMO finding them won't be difficult.

Doing this has loosely been discussed previously. Is there a gagging order on jury members, and if so, for how long? It would prove easier if they were still all in the same area that they were at time of trial.

[maggie]

I agree Roch, think Jeremy needs someone to take the fight to the public but who would be willing to do it?

[Roch]

Personally,I don't agree. Bamber has had his fair share of attempts at putting his point across. The fact is none have been succesful. If that's because he's not had a fair hearing or he's had one arm tied behind his back it matters not. Appeals have been unsuccessfull. He was convicted 10/2. You have only to find 3 of the 12 initially. Put it to them,knowing the silencer history,as it is known factually,none of the sleight of hand that is alledged,what would be the verdict. 12 jurors. Let say average age 45. Bound to have lost a few.  7 still alive,you've only to find three and ask the question. IMO finding them won't be difficult.

My suggestion involves a critical mass scenario.  These docus get aired over and over on different channels for a number of years.  There has never been a substantial defence based docu over a 60 minute slot.  Does your suggestion imply media coverage regarding their opinion?  Is there any legal bar to ex-jurors being sought in such a manner and publicly offering up their opinion?

[maggie]

Roch, it would only take one. I think that numerous would follow but it does need a figurehead.

Bellieve if JB had a relative on his side, someone totally loyal to him he may have been out years ago. The fact is a family member is often more likely to attract attention, get an argument in the public arena than other people. Unfortunately the only 'family' Jeremy has appear to have conspired against him or disowned him.

[susan]

Maggie maybe Mason Doyle's book will do that we don't know the contents but he did say on the forum he had approached the book from a different angle.  So excited and cannot wait for publication maybe just what Jeremy needs a new approach to his case.  We will have to wait and see.

[Jane]

Bellieve if JB had a relative on his side, someone totally loyal to him he may have been out years ago. The fact is a family member is often more likely to attract attention, get an argument in the public arena than other people. Unfortunately the only 'family' Jeremy has appear to have conspired against him or disowned him.

Maggie, I've been sitting here for ages wondering how to respond because I wouldn't want to look as if I'm trying to pull heartstrings. However, the fact HAS to be acknowledged that Jeremy has NO family support and there are very few, including myself, who can lay claim to, much less understand, how it feels. I, at least can lay claim to an adopted cousin who would never, EVER do to me what Jeremy's cousins, IMO, conspired in, to do to him primarily, I feel because he hadn't fitted in and they's never seen him as one of them. If we lived in a perfect world, now may be the time for his biological mother to step forward to support him. Sadly, we don't so he and we will have to make do with what we've got.

[marchend]

My suggestion involves a critical mass scenario.  These docus get aired over and over on different channels for a number of years.  There has never been a substantial defence based docu over a 60 minute slot.  Does your suggestion imply media coverage regarding their opinion?  Is there any legal bar to ex-jurors being sought in such a manner and publicly offering up their opinion?

Does it matter?  Find the jurors, ask the questions, defend the consequences of the original jurors saying " you know,if they'd of explained that silencer had been in the relatives hands for a month and could of been contaminated, and mugford did have a deal with the NOW we didn't know about and I didn't realise the relatives would gain by his conviction".....  So if you only find three of the twelve, and they all doubt the verdict, I would think that's your story. ORIGINAL JURY. " BAMBER'S NOT GUILTY"  there is the headline. None of the bullshit I'm finding.
You've got to understand Bamber is guilty. The jurors found him guilty on the evidence before them. Only they can find him not guilty now. That's my opinion. Find the jury. It can't be difficult. I organised a 70 th party for my Dad. We found people he hadn't seen for over 50 years. True we had some names,which helps,but people were all over the country. I don't see the names as difficult to find.

[Roch]

If you have no faith in due process to rectify a wrong, what's the merit in holding back to cross the t's and dot the i's of due process? 

The silencer is a bogus exhibit and anyone with case knowledge and any common sense / lack of bias should be able to see that. 

Now ask your selves this....   

In a case with withheld police logs that describe displacement of bodies; outright lies in prosecution witness statements, never disclosed audio logs, crossed out exhibit labels; withheld bloodied palm prints and bible, handwritten pathology notes that contradict the typed report and prosecution's case; attempts to interfere in defence media projects; police pocket books with altered dates... and a star prosecution witness first arrested then given immunity from prosecution and portrayed as a voluntary witness...

HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT THE SILENCER WAS CONTAMINATED BY ACCIDENT? 

Due process will never free Bamber in a million years.  So why use a due process mindset when attempting to free Bamber?