What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[Caroline]

I'm going to hold out on answering myself because I's like to hear other members views.

[nugnug]

the amount of people trying to tell me hes guilty.

and the pii certificates.

[susan]

Hi nugnug  I agree when I joined the forum in 2012 I had no knowledge on the Bamber case at all but after the extensive reading I have done I cannot put Jeremy Bamber at the scene, the bike, wet suit entering by the window is all quite farcical and I have not seen any ev idence that puts him at the scene.  The amount of items destroyed and held under PII tells me EP have so much to hide and that he was set up.  All I hear about he did not cry at the funeral he drank champagne went on holiday does not make him a murderer it is propaganda put out by the guilty brigade as they have no concrete evidence to throw at us.  Jeremy Bamber did himself no favours I agree I saw him as a very immature attention seeking young man.  Had he been guilty he would not have said he went out shooting rabbits, he would not have confessed to Julie and told her of his intentions 12 months earlier he would not have left a silencer than might incriminate him and he certainly would not have given his extended family keys to the property.  Taff Jones believed Jeremy to be innocent and would not be silenced so he was therefore removed from the case. Julie had all criminal charges dropped against her need I say more.  The Jury were not given the true facts of the case and were misled and not to sure that the Judge knew the full facts either the whole trial was a sham. Jeremy Bamber did not have a criminal mind and therefore would not have tried to give himself an alibi with the phone calls.  The phone calls happened and EP know they DID.

[haughton]

quite simply; there was no proof that he was guilty, it was assumed that it must have been him!
The members of the jury might just as well spun  a coin, for all they knew

[Jane]

Nice one Caroline. A new thread which issues a real challenge. I like it

Where to start? I guess by saying from the start that the only person who will ever know the truth is Jeremy and as a result, I'm not one of those who will ever be 100% convinced, EITHER way and my decision is based on what Steve would call a "balance of probabilities"

Young men in Jeremy's mould are ten a penny here in Bamber country. Easily picked out by their accents, they can be found, large as life, socializing in Young Conservative and Young Farmers' clubs after having left schools such as Felsted, Framlingham, Stowe and Hailybury(?) of which there are a surfeit in the area. They all carry about them an air of entitlement, inculcated by breeding and education. They do whatever is the modern equivalent of the Grand Tour, always funded at SOME level by parental generosity and if some sort of work is required to keep them going, parental "connections" can be used. After a year or two, they return to the family business, where even if the pay wasn't "up there" the perks undoubtedly were.

This, then was the background to Jeremy's life. He would have had dreams. What young man doesn't? But whatever life he may have yearned for, it doesn't seem to have run him into any kind of debt. He seems not to have been afraid of taking odd jobs to swell the coffers and was in credit at the time of his arrest, since when NO ONE has come forward to say that he owes them money. Almost EVERY penny of what he earned was HIS. There was probably very little by way of domestic expenditure that wasn't attached to the farm business. It was pocket money.

So what was Jeremy like, as a person? Depends on, as it would for the rest of us, to whom one is speaking. Boarding school life isn't a million miles away from forum life. It's inhabited by all comers who AREN'T all going to hit it off and is very much about the survival of the fittest and HOW one fits in. Jeremy may NOT have, entirely. There are always those who don't. However, there are no reports of unacceptably bad behaviour so it would appear that like the majority, he muddled through and was probably one of those who rarely stood out as doing anything remarkable. He may not have been an academic star but he didn't get expelled. I suspect that his desire to impress would have been an irritant to some. I have NO hesitation in suggesting he was a boaster and a braggart as the immature SO frequently are. His childish "bon mots" were eventually used against him but had probably been little more than the less artistic version of throwing Shakespearian quotes into a conversation for effect, the desire to impress his girlfriend's mother.

I suppose if the rellies could convince themselves of his guilt, it's possible for others to convince themselves of his innocence but on a balance of probabilities, I don't believe there is anything about his life prior to the murders to indicate that he either felt the need to or was capable of such an act.

[lookout]

I agree with all posts,,particularly yours,haughton,where you mention " assumed ".  I reckon,that sooner or later,Jeremy will make an " ass ( out of )-u-(and ) me !====assume.

Not us in particular,,but those who are ADAMant that he's guilty.

Again,haughton,you mentioned spinning a coin----------5 silencers---take your pick.
Summing up at the trial----------it " could " ( nothing definite or concrete ) have been either Sheila or Jeremy. Then the relatives had decided that it would be in THEIR interests to see the back of Jeremy too ! Hence the question first asked by AE,," was Jeremy dead/killed too ".

Media-driven to boost the prosecution,,and the case in general was driven by GREED all round !!

A most shocking investigation considering the seriousness of the crime.
" Taff " Jones KNEW that Sheila was still alive when the raid team entered ! Where is his log to clear Jeremy ?

[grahameb]

I believe that he is innocent because there are many great legal minds who think he is. Plus many law students who have studied the case. These were on Twitter in 2012 some of whom were followers of Jackie Preece. She can verify this. The class took Jeremy Bamber's case as a subject and came to the conclusion that he was innocent.

[wilf]

we all know the many and varied reasons.
 lets look at it from a different angle, guilters.
 experts at the scene  i.e . the police were just making mistakes in the logs that point to not guilty  just mistakes, many of them, but we should ignor them because they are just mistakes, therefore he's guilty. the tests in prison by experts, polygraph, psychological ,behaviour that point to not guilty, well they must be mistakes because he's guilty.
is that too many mistakes?

wilf

[Alias]

There are so many reasons for me. I can try to list them, but I will probably forget some points.

1. I don´t think that Jeremy would have been able to enter the farmhouse and EXPECT to control three aduts and two children. With an accomplice I can see it, alone, no; but since the case against Jeremy is that he committed the murders alone, I have to conclude that he couldn´t have done it on his own - or had the "guts".

2. Cannot see what Sheila was doing while Jeremy was killing off the rest of her family - just waiting her turn? I don´t think so!

3.Sheila´s appearance in death and the way she was shot. She looks vastly different than her parents. Nevill and June looked messy with an air of despair about them. Sheila looked at peace and tranquil, not a trace of fight, it is all so neat to look at that it has to strike you. How could Jeremy manage that - how could he manage to shoot her in such an awkward position?

4.The fact that Sheila was shot twice speaks against Jeremy having done it if he wanted to stage a suicide. What moron shoots a victim twice and expects it to be ruled a suicide?

5.Julie. If Jeremy had really told her so much about his plans of killing his family, she would have warned the Bambers and Sheila - as we know, she did not. Or did she really think it was all right to kill them all off including the little boys she had read bed-time stories.

6.The fact that the police initially and for quite a while saw the case as a murder-suicide case. The evidence must have supported that.

7.The way the most crucial piece of evidence was found and handled by relatives who had A LOT to gain by a guilty verdict. Found after police already had searched gun cupboard.

8.The way Jeremy behaved after the tragedy. If he had done it, he would have gone out of his way to appear innocent. As it was, he just kept on with his life as the arrogant young man he was.

9.Sheila´s illness. She was seriously mentally ill, contrary to what guilters say. She didn´t receive heavy medication for nothing, she wasn´t hospitalized for nothing. Paranoid Schizophrenics most frequently target their closest family if they have violent impulses. Sometimes they even plan to kill family members.

10.The "coincidence" that Sheila said: "All people are evil and must die". The fact that she thought her sons were the "Devil´s children", that they were "women haters", that she was afraid they would rape and kill her show with all clarity that something was seriously wrong. It should have raised alarm bells, she should not have been allowed to be with them unsupervised! As it was, the doctors washed their hands after the fact, claiming that Sheila would never harm her children. Children who had bruises, were neglected and had dark and strange thoughts themselves, which anyone can see for themselves from their sinister drawings.

[susan]

Alias what an excellent post and I agree with every point you have made.  Well done think you managed to cover it all.

[Alias]

Thank you, Susan. 

P.S. Didn´t want to read other posts before I made mine. You mention giving the keys to the relatives - of course he would not have given the keys to ANYBODY if he were the killer! In the back of his mind, the thought that he might have overlooked something would have constantly gnawed at him; I also think he would have been compelled to go back to the house to go through it, just to make sure. He wouldn´t let the family have free access, that is an absurd and illogical thought!

[Alias]

Forgot to mention the TWO clocks in completely different locations, which the police relied on to make their timeline fit - both of the clocks showed the wrong time to make the magical timeline fit. What kind of "evidence" is THAT?!

[susan]

Alias  I had totally forgot about the clocks to much of a coincidence as far as I am concerned for the two clocks to be both set at the incorrect time how did they get away with this.  I suspect this is the worst MOJ this Country has ever seen and I hope Jeremy Bamber will have his day and walk free.

[grahameb]

The words "lamb", "to" and "slaughter" come to mind. So easy to bait a silly Jeremy. Was very accommodating and helpful to the police in the beginning and since then has been portrayed as unhelpful to the police.

[wilf]

There are so many reasons for me. I can try to list them, but I will probably forget some points.

1. I don´t think that Jeremy would have been able to enter the farmhouse and EXPECT to control three aduts and two children. With an accomplice I can see it, alone, no; but since the case against Jeremy is that he committed the murders alone, I have to conclude that he couldn´t have done it on his own - or had the "guts".

2. Cannot see what Sheila was doing while Jeremy was killing off the rest of her family - just waiting her turn? I don´t think so!

3.Sheila´s appearance in death and the way she was shot. She looks vastly different than her parents. Nevill and June looked messy with an air of despair about them. Sheila looked at peace and tranquil, not a trace of fight, it is all so neat to look at that it has to strike you. How could Jeremy manage that - how could he manage to shoot her in such an awkward position?

4.The fact that Sheila was shot twice speaks against Jeremy having done it if he wanted to stage a suicide. What moron shoots a victim twice and expects it to be ruled a suicide?

5.Julie. If Jeremy had really told her so much about his plans of killing his family, she would have warned the Bambers and Sheila - as we know, she did not. Or did she really think it was all right to kill them all off including the little boys she had read bed-time stories.

6.The fact that the police initially and for quite a while saw the case as a murder-suicide case. The evidence must have supported that.

7.The way the most crucial piece of evidence was found and handled by relatives who had A LOT to gain by a guilty verdict. Found after police already had searched gun cupboard.

8.The way Jeremy behaved after the tragedy. If he had done it, he would have gone out of his way to appear innocent. As it was, he just kept on with his life as the arrogant young man he was.

9.Sheila´s illness. She was seriously mentally ill, contrary to what guilters say. She didn´t receive heavy medication for nothing, she wasn´t hospitalized for nothing. Paranoid Schizophrenics most frequently target their closest family if they have violent impulses. Sometimes they even plan to kill family members.

10.The "coincidence" that Sheila said: "All people are evil and must die". The fact that she thought her sons were the "Devil´s children", that they were "women haters", that she was afraid they would rape and kill her show with all clarity that something was seriously wrong. It should have raised alarm bells, she should not have been allowed to be with them unsupervised! As it was, the doctors washed their hands after the fact, claiming that Sheila would never harm her children. Children who had bruises, were neglected and had dark and strange thoughts themselves, which anyone can see for themselves from their sinister drawings.

well said   plus would Jeremy ditch Julie so quickly if he had told her he was a mass murderer and still expect her to keep quiet? nobodys that stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wilf