What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[Mason Doyle]

I wish I had your confidence lookout.

Me too Grahame, they all drop their guard at some point though, its noticing it that matters.

There are way too many unresolved 'issues' in this case, but perhaps some are not as important as they would seem, we tend to look for fault once we form opinions of right and wrong.  The police look for a collar, a good nick, personal reputation, its not all about putting the bad guys away.  Most cops see it as a game, once someone is nicked its all about getting a successful prosecution, the investigation is secondary. If they (cops) believe in the accuseds' guilt then it must be so. Don't believe in the custody sergeant making an independent charging judgement either, or the CPS looking at matters overall. All part of the same body - they look after each other.

The Courts (Magistrates/Judges) primarily - support the police or the prosecution - the accused has no voice, they are treated as guilty before trial, which is why they are treated like criminals from the outset - innocent until proven guilty is a lie, it means nothing, watch any court case, the accused has no rights at all, everything they say is questioned, whereas everything a cop say is accepted as the truth. Don't get me wrong, most folk in court are there for the right reason, that doesn't make the system flawless though.   

[Mason Doyle]

I think it was meant to Adam. Those fiery sarcastic darts are difficult to extract from one's butt as I found out to my cost.

No offence meant to either of you. Apologies - pen is mightier than the sword they say! Oops. 

[lookout]

Wheels within wheels.

[Caroline]

'The evidence in court was crap'

I bet you were itching to contribute to my recent thread on whether the trial was fair & whether evidence was hidden.

I would have appreciated you're input as no one gave any evidence of unfairness or withheld evidence. But I am sure all will be revealed in the book.

You have been given countless examples of evidence that was withheld. I am sick of hearing myself mention the autopsy documents that are replete with discrepancies but you choose not to comment because you can't explain it. This is a tangible piece of evidence, not one of your 'scenario's'.

The jury asked to hear the silencer/blood evidence again as it was complicated - so much so that even the judge didn't completely understand it but he gave HIS notes that contained incorrect information to the jury and it was HIS notes they used to make their decision.

There are hundreds of such examples but they have simply flown past your head because your mind is closed. You told me a few weeks ago that I dismiss your posts because I just believe Jeremy is innocent - well, you're wrong, at the moment I'm probably around 70/30 weighted on the guilty side. However, guilty or not, he didn't have a fair trial and I believe because they didn't have ANY tangible, physical evidence, just a hunch it -  they engineered it. Stick you head in the sand and keep those fingers in your ears - it won't change the fact that corruption is a fact of life!

[Caroline]

Nice question Adam. I shall do as you ask, and therefore shall not answer. However, I wasn't there, nor were you (at least I hope you weren't), so its pure conjecture based on nothing but 'allegiance' whatever anyone claims.

Many people proclaim themselves 'experts' in this case, reality is, people are basing so called 'new evidence' on the inarticulation of others, or police cock ups - which, unlike you seem to accept - are very common, sadly all of this affects innocent and guilty lives.  Yet people want to believe the system is flawless - believe me, it isn't.  People won't accept this because its scary, it goes against the grain, they want to feel safe and secure.  I worked in the police for three decades, I hasten to add - with an unblemished record. But would I trust a coppers word then or now, no I wouldn't. Some, it has been proven in court, would rob their own family all for the sake of money. 

People are dicks in all walks of life, not only in the police, look at politicians, councillors, thespians, singing stars et al, for me, that's what makes the world such an interesting place - liars, cheats and oddballs exist in walks of society, they are not exclusive to the incarcerated criminal community.  Despite this, I believe most people are rightly in prison, as we now know, those who shout loudest about their innocence aren't always what they seem.  Jeremy Bamber was found guilty on evidence in a court of law, thats a fact. The question remains, was the provenance of that evidence true?

You can make all the claims you like and copy what others say because it sounds acceptable, you even say you read book reviews before you buy a book. Let me tell you most book reviews are penned by people fuelled with jealousy and insecurities, many are known to the author, writers used to accept them, but no longer, why? Because people no longer put their name to them, they lack credibility without the provenance of real identity.
Sad thing is, until you actually research this case, live it every day and night for years, listen to Jeremy Bamber, the police, witnesses, barristers and people it affected, I've done them all, then you cannot appreciate the pressures all of these individuals endure. 

Opinion is great, I accept it, but living with this case day and night as I have, and there are a few people on here who know what I've gone through, makes you take stock and realise the traumatic affect that still endures. I had no allegiance at the outset, I have no allegiance now, I have researched this entire case objectively. I get on well with Jeremy, we laugh and talk together, but then I laugh with Ronald DeFeo too, he admits he murdered his family, each year I get cards off the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and serial killers such as Peter Sutcliffe - juxtaposition of morality or what?. In this case, me and Jeremy are two different people, I absolutely liked Stan Jones when I spoke to and interviewed him, doesn't make either Stan or Jeremy right in what they may or may not have done.

Jeremy is the only person on this planet who knows the truth, not the relatives, not the courts, not the media, and certainly not the red.  The evidence at court was crap, you know it, we all know it, however, that means nothing because a jury of Jeremy's peers, lay people who were not instructed correctly, believed it. Therefore it all becomes fact.  In most circumstances, without such pressure, most people would err on the side of caution, jury's cannot, pressure is on them to deliver a verdict. 

That's just my thoughts Adam, I know you have your own but trust me, an open mind is the best one to keep in everything involving the establishment, its my belief there is no such things as coincidence. Things do get contrived.

A pretty spectacular analysis!!

[Caroline]

What a great topic Caroline, even bought me out of retirement. Mason you have hit the nail on the head I don't think anyone is 100 per cent sure about what happened and yes I changed from 60/40 innocent to 60/40 guilty when I had conversation with 2 very respected personnel that worked at full Sutton who I hope to meet again in the near future?

Thanks Ralf!  and welcome back!!

[Adam]

You have been given countless examples of evidence that was withheld. I am sick of hearing myself mention the autopsy documents that are replete with discrepancies but you choose not to comment because you can't explain it. This is a tangible piece of evidence, not one of your 'scenario's'.

The jury asked to hear the silencer/blood evidence again as it was complicated - so much so that even the judge didn't completely understand it but he gave HIS notes that contained incorrect information to the jury and it was HIS notes they used to make their decision.

There are hundreds of such examples but they have simply flown past your head because your mind is closed. You told me a few weeks ago that I dismiss your posts because I just believe Jeremy is innocent - well, you're wrong, at the moment I'm probably around 70/30 weighted on the guilty side. However, guilty or not, he didn't have a fair trial and I believe because they didn't have ANY tangible, physical evidence, just a hunch it -  they engineered it. Stick you head in the sand and keep those fingers in your ears - it won't change the fact that corruption is a fact of life!

Nice try Caroline.

Read my thread on the trial. There are no examples of withheld evidence or an unfair trial.

If new evidence has come to light, Jeremy could have submitted it at his three appeals. New evidence does not mean the trial was unfair.

It was a 19 day trial. Jeremy having the best lawyers available.

[Adam]

Posts: 1178

Re: Was the 1986 trial unfair ?

« Reply #35 on: March 26, 2014, 01:45:AM »QuoteHave to say that people complain about Adam (me included) but if he doesn't post, no one seems to have anything to say at the moment


You're only comments on the thread.

[Adam]

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

[mike tesko]

Jeremy didn't have any involvement in the switching of the original badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) situated in Sheila's neck, by replacing it with a test fired whole bullet, so that the prosecution could argue that a silencer was fitted to the barrell of the same rifle at the time Sgeila was shot twice...

[Caroline]

Nice try Caroline.

Read my thread on the trial. There are no examples of withheld evidence or an unfair trial.

If new evidence has come to light, Jeremy could have submitted it at his three appeals. New evidence does not mean the trial was unfair.

It was a 19 day trial. Jeremy having the best lawyers available.

I won't be reading your thread - it's inaccurate and written from the stance of a closed minded individual. You can't debate you just repeat the same inaccuracies.

[grahameb]

Jeremy didn't have any involvement in the switching of the original badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) situated in Sheila's neck, by replacing it with a test fired whole bullet, so that the prosecution could argue that a silencer was fitted to the barrell of the same rifle at the time Sgeila was shot twice...

Didn't the jury feel like questioning this when they saw the x-ray photos for themselves Mike?

[lookout]

Grahame,it sounds to me that the jury were completely clueless anyway,,apart from two,,who I wouldn't mind betting,changed their minds at the last minute. Given more time and I think they'd have all changed their minds. As usually,with a massacre such as it was,,the verdict could/would/should have been a unanimous one.

[grahameb]

Grahame,it sounds to me that the jury were completely clueless anyway,,apart from two,,who I wouldn't mind betting,changed their minds at the last minute. Given more time and I think they'd have all changed their minds. As usually,with a massacre such as it was,,the verdict could/would/should have been a unanimous one.

And if the jury system was used in the correct manner then it should have been a not guilty verdict? What is the use of 12 persons who are your peers if you ignore the verdicts of two of them?

[Alias]

And if the jury system was used in the correct manner then it should have been a not guilty verdict? What is the use of 12 persons who are your peers if you ignore the verdicts of two of them?

If this had been in usa, it would have been a mistrial - it would only have taken one juror who disagreed.