What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[Jan]

Grahame, as you state: 'you have known this case from the beginning'...you have 'not once changed your allegiance.' Thats good, I respect that.  However, I don't think Bob ever had an allegiance, (unless your person says different), nor do I, like me , he researched and came to a conclusion, we differ in our conclusions, so what, thats life. I don't bear grudges or question his integrity or patronisingly call him Woof Woof because we differ in opinion. Simples really. 

Having a sly dig at me or my book doesn't help or work to be honest, you say you were there at the beginning, great.  Me, I wasn't, I didn't witness the murders, I simply attended the trial, spoke to cops, witnesses et al, at the time, and much later, I also, post trial, communicated with Jeremy Bamber, thats my professional role, I profile serious offenders.  So maybe what 'I have to offer' is never going to match your own in depth knowledge. It's all about opinions Grahame, not damning people because someone else tells you something which may or may not be true. Easiest way to find out if it is true, ask them direct. That's what I did with Jeremy and everyone else, I questioned them face to face on many things they said and claimed.

Ultimately, what matters to me, I don't want my friends unfairly slated or their integrity questioned, if you have something to say about Bob then give him a chance to respond, you are appealing for Jeremy to get a fair hearing, then perhaps you should do so yourself. Contact Bob, but word of advice, don't call him Woof Woof.

Hi Mason

genuine question from me. Do you think that if some people did not tell the whole truth in the original trial for whatever reason, if they are questioned afterwards for journalistic purposes , would they  either feel guilty and try and play down their role or evidence - or embellish the evidence even more to try and make the story even more convincing? In other words justify their  evidence by providing more detail that they may not have had a chance to say in court?

And as a journalist do you think you would be able to spot that?

I am not sure I am convinced personally about the whole "relatives " conspiracy to obtain the inheritance story , but I think they really might have been totally convinced JB was guilty and used everything in their power to make sure he paid for what he had done. After the trial I wonder if some of them did feel there were some doubts and then felt guilty about what they had done.

[Alias]

Hi Mason

genuine question from me. Do you think that if some people did not tell the whole truth in the original trial for whatever reason, if they are questioned afterwards for journalistic purposes , would they  either feel guilty and try and play down their role or evidence - or embellish the evidence even more to try and make the story even more convincing? In other words justify their  evidence by providing more detail that they may not have had a chance to say in court?

And as a journalist do you think you would be able to spot that?

I am not sure I am convinced personally about the whole "relatives " conspiracy to obtain the inheritance story , but I think they really might have been totally convinced JB was guilty and used everything in their power to make sure he paid for what he had done. After the trial I wonder if some of them did feel there were some doubts and then felt guilty about what they had done.

Maybe - but why then have Jeremy´s earned prison status as a cat B prisoner reversed into cat A again?

[Jane]

Maybe - but why then have Jeremy´s earned prison status as a cat B prisoner reversed into cat A again?

The memory of how guilty feels faded fast?

[Mason Doyle]

Hi Jansus

In many instances, journalists are after a story, something different.  For a book, or for serious research, its different questions.  Thats what makes the difference, the questions that may or may not be answered.

I think people do change their stories/versions post trial, however, it takes a very strong person to speak out against the system, so many act in a sycophantic fashion, going with the flow and embellishing detail, that happens in court too.  We are indoctrinated as a society that the police, and court system is faultless, amazingly, the vast majority of society believe this, or don't want to disbelieve it.  Police corruption does exist, miscarriages of justice do happen, not as often as many would hope, but they do and its because of corrupt and improper evidence. 

Authors tend to over analyse things, whereas journalists are looking for a unique story.  Putting it bluntly, I've spotted lies and cover ups during questioning, and thats looking at something objectively.  I do believe people embellish the truth post trial.

[Jan]

Maybe - but why then have Jeremy´s earned prison status as a cat B prisoner reversed into cat A again?

Not sure -its only my opinion - but even though they perhaps had  felt some guilt they still have to perpetuate the lie. In public they can not show any weakness because that might strengthen his cause.

That's the trouble with lies - once you start you can not stop.

[Caroline]

Hi Jansus

In many instances, journalists are after a story, something different.  For a book, or for serious research, its different questions.  Thats what makes the difference, the questions that may or may not be answered.

I think people do change their stories/versions post trial, however, it takes a very strong person to speak out against the system, so many act in a sycophantic fashion, going with the flow and embellishing detail, that happens in court too.  We are indoctrinated as a society that the police, and court system is faultless, amazingly, the vast majority of society believe this, or don't want to disbelieve it.  Police corruption does exist, miscarriages of justice do happen, not as often as many would hope, but they do and its because of corrupt and improper evidence. 

Authors tend to over analyse things, whereas journalists are looking for a unique story.  Putting it bluntly, I've spotted lies and cover ups during questioning, and thats looking at something objectively.  I do believe people embellish the truth post trial.

Hi MD, I agree!! Sadly because of pressure from above to 'get a result' it's not always a case of the 'right person' convicted as long as someone is. It's lazy policing! However, it is always going to be inherent in a system that thinks any result is better than the right result. As long as the public 'believe' they always get it right - that's the main thing!!

Although I think I should add that I think this happens as an exception rather than the rule.

[grahameb]

Grahame, as you state: 'you have known this case from the beginning'...you have 'not once changed your allegiance.' Thats good, I respect that.  However, I don't think Bob ever had an allegiance, (unless your person says different), nor do I, like me , he researched and came to a conclusion, we differ in our conclusions, so what, thats life. I don't bear grudges or question his integrity or patronisingly call him Woof Woof because we differ in opinion. Simples really. 

Having a sly dig at me or my book doesn't help or work to be honest, you say you were there at the beginning, great.  Me, I wasn't, I didn't witness the murders, I simply attended the trial, spoke to cops, witnesses et al, at the time, and much later, I also, post trial, communicated with Jeremy Bamber, thats my professional role, I profile serious offenders.  So maybe what 'I have to offer' is never going to match your own in depth knowledge. It's all about opinions Grahame, not damning people because someone else tells you something which may or may not be true. Easiest way to find out if it is true, ask them direct. That's what I did with Jeremy and everyone else, I questioned them face to face on many things they said and claimed.

Ultimately, what matters to me, I don't want my friends unfairly slated or their integrity questioned, if you have something to say about Bob then give him a chance to respond, you are appealing for Jeremy to get a fair hearing, then perhaps you should do so yourself. Contact Bob, but word of advice, don't call him Woof Woof.

Look, for the last time his name was mentioned. I gave my opinion why I don't trust him and that was all. Please do not make it into more than it was. Let that be an end to it. Also I don't have to ask him. He wrote it all out.

[Jan]

Hi Jansus

In many instances, journalists are after a story, something different.  For a book, or for serious research, its different questions.  Thats what makes the difference, the questions that may or may not be answered.

I think people do change their stories/versions post trial, however, it takes a very strong person to speak out against the system, so many act in a sycophantic fashion, going with the flow and embellishing detail, that happens in court too.  We are indoctrinated as a society that the police, and court system is faultless, amazingly, the vast majority of society believe this, or don't want to disbelieve it.  Police corruption does exist, miscarriages of justice do happen, not as often as many would hope, but they do and its because of corrupt and improper evidence. 

Authors tend to over analyse things, whereas journalists are looking for a unique story.  Putting it bluntly, I've spotted lies and cover ups during questioning, and thats looking at something objectively.  I do believe people embellish the truth post trial.

thank you for your reply. I agree you can ask questions that were not covered in court  and perhaps some people use that as a chance  to put the story straight - some I guess may retreat away because they can not back up evidence and others may relish in the publicity. I guess in a case like this you do have all sorts of different people involved. Probably all with their own agendas.

I must admit I am one of the ones who does not like to admit our justice system or even the police could be flawed as in an ideal world I would like to have been part of that as a barrister , but I was neither clever enough or determined enough. But even though I can see it is flawed I still think as a country we should try an uphold as high standards as we possibly can because compared with some other parts of the world we are still very lucky , on the whole, to have our current system.

[Roch]

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

Coincidences. 

How likely is it that the lack of rigidity in Sheila Caffell's body, suggesting a later time of death than the other victims, does not place in her in the frame as prime suspect, given that her mind was known to be subject to periodic bouts of tormented delusions, such as the incident described by Farhad Emani?

How likely is it that supporting evidence had to be cobbled together using corruptive police practices, in order to frame a person who was in fact guilty? 

How likely is it that evidence needed to be withheld, for example bloodied palm / handwritten note / bible / scene and event logs as per build up & entry by TFG, in order to convict a guilty person?

Imagine the odds on that?  That police and prosecution witnesses would have to go to such extraordinary lengths, altering, adding to and ommitting from statements, in order to achieve a conviction of somebody who was already culpable and guilty in real terms?

How likely is it that the second head of the investigation, would upon retirement be tasked with overseeing security at OCS,  yet have played no part in complying with and fulfilling the demands of a man who concocted the wetsuit theory and who arguably misled the jury as to his own indirect gains stemming from the conviction of a nephew he despised?

How likely is it that police would mistake a grey haired male for a dark haired model, when describing the same body as a suicide?

What chance a murderer would cunningly foil all kinds of police at the scene ranging from SOCO's to senior detectives, to the extent that a distinguished officer - the lead detective would refuse to even consider prosecuting him, yet the very same murderer has supposedly confessed the crimes to his own girlfriend, who he cant even be bothered to maintain as a serious long term partner post murders?

There are many more aspects which could be described in similar fashion.

For example: How likely is it that SOCO and senior detectives at the scene would stubbornly write-off a two gunshot victim as suicide, as if to rap up the incident and move on?   

And here's a classic:  How likely is it that the 'junior' detective supposedly responsible for achieving the right conviction by way of his dogged determination, just happened to be one of the most corrupt police officers ever to operate in Essex?
 

[Adam]

Not sure why lambasting Bob Woffinden, or attacking his credibility has anything to do with what really happened at WHF? The bloke came up with his opinion, and unlike many on here, he had the balls to put it in print and put his name to it.  Has it made a difference to Jeremy Bamber's case? Nope! Has it kept the case in the public eye? Yep, and I'm sure Jeremy knows and appreciates the value in that. 

If you don't agree with what he has done, rather than attack him, do something positive about it, write up your own theory and put your real identity and make it easy to contact yourself, as he has.  Far better to do that than slate and destroy someones integrity for having an opinion whilst hiding behind a computer screen.  I know Bob Woffinden, he's a decent guy, I'll stand up beside him and be counted, he doesn't deserve any of this because he's got an opinion that differs from the bulk on here. I thought this was a fair place for debate, I was clearly wrong.

One question Mason.

What was Sheila doing when Neville made his 'mysterious' call to Jeremy ?

If it is in you're book, you do not need to answer. If it is not in you're book, you need to answer.

I created a thread on this recently. No plausible answer was given.

Neville's implausible words suggest Sheila was about to or had already started shooting people. Neville then deciding to ring Jeremy !!!

If there is no realistic possible answer to this question, everything else is irrelevent. 

[grahameb]

One question Mason.

What was Sheila doing when Neville made his 'mysterious' call to Jeremy ?

If it is in you're book, you do not need to answer. If it is not in you're book, you need to answer.

I created a thread on this recently. No plausible answer was given.

Neville's implausible words suggest Sheila was about to or had already started shooting people. Neville then deciding to ring Jeremy !!!

If there is no realistic possible answer to this question, everything else is irrelevent.

Of course a plausible answer was given. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it implausible. What I said was completely believeable. Although just as your scenarios it was a complete guess. But still possible.

[Adam]

Of course a plausible answer was given. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it implausible. What I said was completely believeable. Although just as your scenarios it was a complete guess. But still possible.

Sheila starts shooting people upstairs (hitting the target) with a not very powerful rifle.

Tall & strong Neville runs downstairs to phone Jeremy. Sleeping like a log three miles away. Rather than tackle Sheila.

What the f_ _ _ ?

[lookout]

I was of the understanding that the reason why Jeremys' status from Cat B back to Cat A,,was because the relatives wrote to either EP or the prison officer telling them how THEY'D be let down by the justice system if this made a difference in his bid for freedom,,and that THEY'D be forever fearful of this happening. RWB was still alive at the time. Says it all really.
So on the strength of what the relatives had to say,his category was again increased to " dangerous prisoner ".What chance does the man stand ?

[Caroline]

Sheila starts shooting people upstairs (hitting the target) with a not very powerful rifle.

Tall & strong Neville runs downstairs to phone Jeremy. Sleeping like a log three miles away. Rather than tackle Sheila.

What the f_ _ _ ?

Pointless!!

[Jane]

Sheila starts shooting people upstairs (hitting the target) with a not very powerful rifle.

Tall & strong Neville runs downstairs to phone Jeremy. Sleeping like a log three miles away.

What the f_ _ _ ?

What do you mean "What the f**k"? You've never acknowledged it, but WEEKS back I said that I could see a situation in which Sheila WAS as silent-withdrawn-as Jeremy said. I think it possible that she may have retreated still further into herself until she couldn't be reached. It's possible that Nevill had told June to go to bed because historically he'd been able to "manage" Sheila. I think that whilst her silence OR mumblings in response to whatever she may have been hearing in her head, would have been unsettling, they wouldn't have been disturbing to the point at which Nevill felt assistance was necessary. We can't know how long that position held, but it's not unreasonable to imagine that at some point Nevill needed to use the loo. He could hardly take an unresponsive Sheila with him. Might it have been at this point that Sheila picked up the gun and left the room? Might it have been then that Nevill called Jeremy and heard the first shots whilst he was on the phone, which he then dropped and ran after Sheila? It isn't possible for me, OR, I feel, anyone, to give you a blow by blow, minute by minute account of what happened. Everything is speculation because we don't know.