Author Topic: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?  (Read 4243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #45 on: March 26, 2014, 04:01:PM »
Grahame I agree the Jeremy Bamber case should never have been brought to trial it was a disaster from the start with no evidence found against him nothing but hearsay and a silencer which would appear to have been dodgy to say the least.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #46 on: March 27, 2014, 01:05:AM »
By the same standards, so was Jeremy so not really a good example of why someone shouldn't lie!!

Guilty or innocent -  no, he didn't have a fair trial.

Why did he not have a fair trial ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #47 on: March 27, 2014, 01:07:AM »
Hello Wilf so much was held from the Defence at Jeremy Bamber's trial and I also suspect due to this they were a tad complacent that Jeremy would not be found guilty and so was Jeremy hence his silly remarks and lets face it one more jury member voting not guilty and he would have walked a free man.

What was held from the defence ?  Details please. It is why I created the thread.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 01:13:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #48 on: March 27, 2014, 01:08:AM »
What about the plonker in the jury who fell asleep ? There was even a case about that among the judges,as to whether he was asleep-----------------or resting his eyes ! FGS !

Alledgedly falling asleep may benefit Jeremy.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #49 on: March 27, 2014, 01:10:AM »
I really don't know what Adam SOUGHT to achieve by creating this particular thread on a pro Jeremy forum, but it seems to me that nothing new has come out of it and we're just repeating things previously said.

That is right. Nothing new has come up, showing why it was an infair trial.

Nothing new has come up showing what was alledgedly hidden from the defence.

So it was a fair trial. And the jury gave a verdict.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 01:12:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #50 on: March 27, 2014, 01:12:AM »
Grahame I agree the Jeremy Bamber case should never have been brought to trial it was a disaster from the start with no evidence found against him nothing but hearsay and a silencer which would appear to have been dodgy to say the least.

Why have three appeals failed ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #51 on: March 27, 2014, 01:14:AM »
Grahame I agree the Jeremy Bamber case should never have been brought to trial it was a disaster from the start with no evidence found against him nothing but hearsay and a silencer which would appear to have been dodgy to say the least.

the most obviously planted piece of evidence that i have ever seen.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #52 on: March 27, 2014, 08:01:AM »
Adam  I suspect the three Appeals have failed for the same reasons the trial did evidence withheld and people being economical with the truth.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #53 on: March 27, 2014, 08:05:AM »
Adam you want details of what evidence was held from the Defence wish I could answer that one but I can't as most of it was destroyed and the rest held under PII why don't you ask EP to release it just to show you are right about Jeremy Bamber being Guilty of this horrendous crime.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #54 on: March 31, 2014, 06:27:AM »
Hopefully I will get some more comprehensive evidence on this thread.

The 19 day court transcripts are not available. So not sure why it was an unfair trial with evidence withheld.

MD claims the the evidence in court was crap. So I do not know how the case then got through the DPP & Jeremy did not appeal on this basis.  Jeremy did have the best & most expensive lawyers available at trial.

Jeremy appealed against the supposed unfair judge. I am not aware of Jeremy claiming any of the supposed new evidence in the last 29 years was on purpose withheld at the original trial.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 06:43:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #55 on: March 31, 2014, 06:44:AM »
Adam you want details of what evidence was held from the Defence wish I could answer that one but I can't as most of it was destroyed and the rest held under PII why don't you ask EP to release it just to show you are right about Jeremy Bamber being Guilty of this horrendous crime.

Wasn't some evidence destroyed in 1996. Ten years after the trial ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #56 on: March 31, 2014, 07:35:AM »
Morning Adam

Indeed evidence was destroyed against Court Orders in 1996 I can only  assume that a panic situation arose as DNA testing was made available then so I am led to believe.  This is one of the reasons this case does not sit easy with me because if EP has nothing to hide why destroy evidence and hold so much of it under PII.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #57 on: March 31, 2014, 09:57:AM »
Morning Susan,,exactly.If the held evidence was in Jeremys' favour,,then all concerned wouldn't be happy at all.
 Had the evidence destroyed Jeremy even more than he had been,,they then would have had the concrete proof that they'd so needed in order to secure the conviction that they desperately needed at the time. But there was NEVER anything to prove that he'd done any such thing.
I didn't think you could be imprisoned because nobody liked you,,but there you are. The police at one time were a very" left-wing" organisation,,and there'd have been no sympathy for Jeremy,a young,rich, up and coming businessman who would eventually have taken over his fathers' farm. Jealousy,I suspect.
An incident years ago proved this to me,,when my daughter had suffered bad next-door neighbours.Would you believe that the first question my daughter was asked was," do you own your house ",to which my daughter said," yes ". Well,came the answer," the next door only rented and were on benefits " ! What ? With that,the police were laughing and joking with the neighbours,,whose unruly teen had thrown paint over my daughters' front door/window,,slashed all 4 tyres of her car and threatened me for shouting at them,,jumped my g/son and his friend one New Years Eve to which the friend was hospitalised,my g/son was battered black and blue. CPS threw the case out saying there wasn't enough evidence !!!
12 months later,the family had done a moonlight flit ( thank goodness ) but it wasn't long before this unruly thug of a teenager ( that was another thing the police had said," he's only 16 !" ) held a shop up with a gun. He didn't go to prison or any other corrective place,,instead,they told his mother to keep him indoors !!!
Last I heard was that he'd gone to live in London. It'll only be a matter of time before I see his name in the papers-----------again. A criminal in the making.


I'm very surprised that everything wasn't incinerated.I wonder why this was ? Unless the powers that be thought,that at some time in the future,that the hidden evidence would come to light to prove that he was innocent. After all,,it suited EVERYONE at the time,to shut Jeremy up for a few years,until the dust settled,to hold back on the truth.
I wonder if any of them ever thought that at some point,Jeremy would fight back ? Did they honestly think that the man would take all this lying down ?

I'm of the opinion that if Jeremy had come from a run-down family,,was on benefits,no hope in life,etc etc,,that he'd have been well released before now.This is the difference,,and if you look at the way the sentencing is today,,you'll understand what I'm talking about. Some of the sentencing for heinous crimes,are abysmal. The excuses ? They just roll off the tongues of those idiots that will never live anywhere near these criminals.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #58 on: March 31, 2014, 10:07:AM »
Morning lookout  excellent post and very true.  I am of course not comfortable with Jeremy Bamber's conviction and am almost as sure as one can be that he is innocent.  Not sure what is behind this case but it seems people will go to any lengths to keep him where he is where he can say or do nothing.  It is shameful really that a person is not given a fair chance to defend themselves sadly people do assume and always come up with the wrong answer this applies to people in all walks of life :'( even on this forum :(

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?
« Reply #59 on: March 31, 2014, 10:30:AM »
Morning lookout  excellent post and very true.  I am of course not comfortable with Jeremy Bamber's conviction and am almost as sure as one can be that he is innocent.  Not sure what is behind this case but it seems people will go to any lengths to keep him where he is where he can say or do nothing.  It is shameful really that a person is not given a fair chance to defend themselves sadly people do assume and always come up with the wrong answer this applies to people in all walks of life :'( even on this forum :(





Hi Susan,,a lot has been said on the forum regarding the case as political. I can go along with that to an extent,,but it was so so wrong to allow " outside interference ",the relatives,to have such an influence on the running of the investigation,and it's something that I'd have called in to question straight away.
I was told to " button it ",by a police officer,because I'd dared to support my family through that neighbour ordeal.Do you know what ? It's no wonder the police get a fourpenny one at times,because I'm sure that if I'd have had a brolly,I'd have hit him,hahahahaha.
Pity the same officers weren't around when the relatives were fannying about.They'd have been told in no uncertain terms. ;D
Susan,,we weren't given a fair chance by the law,,so that's why I can say in all honesty,that neither was Jeremy,,and we only had a taste of it. I feel so sorry for him.
Another thing the police don't like is intelligence. If you show the least bit of knowledge,,their backs are up immediately,then it becomes a game of who can outdo who when it comes to arguing,,and you can actually see when they're brow-beaten,then they revert to their nasty tactics.
In a way,,thank goodness that I had experience of seeing how unbelievably thick some of them are.