What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[Jan]

Or it could have been a rabbit hair - the ones Adam said Jeremy heard eating cabbages loudly.

[Caroline]

He told Julie that the hit man was responsible though, didn't he?

Allegedly, but if he had killed her (regardless of what he told Julie) he would still know that Sheila had been shot twice. Steve_UK  repeats fairly frequently that Jeremy told Julie about a glove coming of in MM's fight with Neville - you would think he would have mentioned that MM had shot Sheila twice as it seems more like something to worry about.

[Neil]

What relevance? The fact that it survived right up until the point that it was tested and then just as it finally reaches the lab - it's gone?

People done remember the kind of details like hair colour, size, height etc. because in a crime people get stressed and things happen quickly. The witnesses here weren't stressed (to the same degree), they were in a familiar surrounding and when the bood was first realised, they were sitting comfortably around their own kitchen table. hardly the same thing as witnessing a crime.

Crime scene officers weren't independent then, like they are now, they were part of the Police force. It wouldn't be the first time that evidence was tampered with during those dark days (if that was indeed the case) and it wasn't the last! 

I think the hair was mentioned simply to further the silencer's significance and doubt it ever existed.

In whose interest would it have been, to conveniently have magicked away the spot of blood?

Whose blood would it have to have been, in order to help Jeremy's cause?

As you can probably tell, I don't really understand the great importance of it!

[Neil]

Allegedly, but if he had killed her (regardless of what he told Julie) he would still know that Sheila had been shot twice. Steve_UK  repeats fairly frequently that Jeremy told Julie about a glove coming of in MM's fight with Neville - you would think he would have mentioned that MM had shot Sheila twice as it seems more like something to worry about.

Thanks for explaining that. I see your point.

[Caroline]

In whose interest would it have been, to conveniently have magicked away the spot of blood?

Whose blood would it have to have been, in order to help Jeremy's cause?

As you can probably tell, I don't really understand the great importance of it!

No Neil, I  don't think it was there in the first place.

It wouldn't help Jeremy's cause - there would be no point in contaminating something if you didn't contaminate it with the very thing you wanted to find (if that makes sense?  ).

[scipio_usmc]

There is no way a BLOB would have remained on the outside of the silencer for 3 days and it wasn't tested because it wasn't there!

That is your opinion that blood that dried would have fallen completely off.  Either the blood was never there and Ann was mistaken, Ann made it up for some reasons though it serves no purposes or the blood fell off before it was turned over to the lab.  In any even this has no bearing at all on the blood that was tested by the prosecution and the defense.

In understand your argument but it is feeble.

Your argument is like the following:

There is a hit and run car accident.  The car that was struck contains damage that demonstrates the car that hit it was a white toyota.  The paint chips left on the car match a toyota that had a custom paint job. The location of the paint chip tested matches exactly where said toyaot would have rubbed against the car in the collision.

There reportedly was another white paint chip in a different location that vanished before it could be tested.  There is speculation such chip was planted but no proof that it was.

Speculation about this possibly planted chip is then used to suggest that the evidence that there is no eidence to suggest was planted is suspect.

Does this suspicion erase the fact that the actual damage to the car came from a white toyota?  No the damage is consistent with such.  The paint chip tested was consistent with such and matched to a specific white toyota. 

If you want to challenge this evidence you need to do so directly.  Round about attacks on missing paint chips they may or may not have been there accomplish nothing at all.     

Did the lab shave the silencer? Because apparently it sprouted a hair also - which (and I know you won't believe this folks) but is disappeared - go figure!!

The hair could have resulted from the murders, it could have attached to the suppressor int he closet as it was being put away, it could have been planted.  It might even have been a figment of their imagination or a lie.  You have no way to establish it was planted or a lie as opposed to attached during the murders or after.  It could even have been stuck there prior to the murders.   

Sheila's blood 'type' was found or rather just the AK1 enzyme, so it was 'attributed' to Sheila. They found none of her DNA later though!!

That is how you determine blood type you look for markers that distinguish them.  They found the markers related to her bloodtype.  Some markers were shared with her parents others were not.   

However it got there, I wouldn't like to say as I'm not in the habit of planting blood in silencers but I guess those in the know would, well - know!

Well this is the important part becuase if you can't even estbalish how they would plant it you have no hope at all of establishing any likelihood that anyone did so.

What would the statement entail? Well, who was there for starters! How many witness's witnessed the finding of the silencer and what they actually saw on it and where they were when they saw it! because in the space of only one month they had all seemed to forget such fundamental details of things like - who was there at the time!

it is common for people to forget things after time passes.

To prove the blood was planted requires proving a series of things from knowing how to do so to where they got the blood from and eliminating blood from the weapon which means the fmaily alone were NOT in a position to carry out such alone.  It requires a grand conspiracy.

Rational people find such a grand conspiracy hard to swallow but you have failed miserably in establishing any evidence of such.   

You need people to recognize they would need to spray blood inside the suppressor instead of just dripping it in, finding a tool to use to accomplish such, obtain blood that was group A and to actually transfer it, and also to arrange for the blood in the rifle to be eliminated and disposed of without any receord of ever having been found.

You have provide no evidence that suggests any of this happened.

You believe it simply because you want to not because there is an evidence to suggest it happened.

[Neil]

Thanks again Caroline! Bit slow off the mark tonight!   

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's posts in the last couple of days.

Goodnight.

[Caroline]

That is your opinion that blood that dried would have fallen completely off.  Either the blood was never there and Ann was mistaken, Ann made it up for some reasons though it serves no purposes or the blood fell off before it was turned over to the lab.  In any even this has no bearing at all on the blood that was tested by the prosecution and the defense.

In understand your argument but it is feeble.

Your argument is like the following:

There is a hit and run car accident.  The car that was struck contains damage that demonstrates the car that hit it was a white toyota.  The paint chips left on the car match a toyota that had a custom paint job. The location of the paint chip tested matches exactly where said toyaot would have rubbed against the car in the collision.

There reportedly was another white paint chip in a different location that vanished before it could be tested.  There is speculation such chip was planted but no proof that it was.

Speculation about this possibly planted chip is then used to suggest that the evidence that there is no eidence to suggest was planted is suspect.

Does this suspicion erase the fact that the actual damage to the car came from a white toyota?  No the damage is consistent with such.  The paint chip tested was consistent with such and matched to a specific white toyota. 

If you want to challenge this evidence you need to do so directly.  Round about attacks on missing paint chips they may or may not have been there accomplish nothing at all.     

The hair could have resulted from the murders, it could have attached to the suppressor int he closet as it was being put away, it could have been planted.  It might even have been a figment of their imagination or a lie.  You have no way to establish it was planted or a lie as opposed to attached during the murders or after.  It could even have been stuck there prior to the murders.   

That is how you determine blood type you look for markers that distinguish them.  They found the markers related to her bloodtype.  Some markers were shared with her parents others were not.   

Well this is the important part becuase if you can't even estbalish how they would plant it you have no hope at all of establishing any likelihood that anyone did so.


it is common for people to forget things after time passes.

To prove the blood was planted requires proving a series of things from knowing how to do so to where they got the blood from and eliminating blood from the weapon which means the fmaily alone were NOT in a position to carry out such alone.  It requires a grand conspiracy.

Rational people find such a grand conspiracy hard to swallow but you have failed miserably in establishing any evidence of such.   

You need people to recognize they would need to spray blood inside the suppressor instead of just dripping it in, finding a tool to use to accomplish such, obtain blood that was group A and to actually transfer it, and also to arrange for the blood in the rifle to be eliminated and disposed of without any receord of ever having been found.

You have provide no evidence that suggests any of this happened.

You believe it simply because you want to not because there is an evidence to suggest it happened.

Actually, that's nothing like my argument, that's simply your interpretation of it - but no matter.

I have my own ideas about where the blood came from and how it got there (and no, not the washing!) but I shall keep that to myself for the time being. However, don't make the assumption that I believe it was contaminated by the relatives because I don't.

I don't need to provide evidence, this is simply a discussion and I don't have exhibits to hand. I do however have an opinion as you do and it is simply THAT that we are debating.

[Caroline]

Thanks again Caroline! Bit slow off the mark tonight!   

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's posts in the last couple of days.

Goodnight.

Night Neil and you're welcome

[Martin]

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!

“…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 - they engineered it.”


If you give a percentage so strongly in favour of guilt, as you have done, then, surely, it is legitimate for us to ask you for the reasoning which is behind it.

 You have recently said that, for you, the business with the wallet was just the final straw, so what were the other straws which came before that?

I ask this question on behalf of the forum members who may feel uncomfortable with the idea of a pro guilt administrator on a pro Bamber forum and still more so with an administrator who is inclined to mislead people concerning what her real position is.

In the quoted passage, you admit that the police had no real evidence against Bamber but only a “hunch” But if you admit, as you do, that the silencer evidence was unreliable and that it is clear that Julie Mugford lied in court, how do you arrive at a figure of 70% in favour of guilt? I mean, since there was no other evidence against him but the faked evidence.

Is it the totality of the anecdotal evidence, such as Jeremy driving slowly and all the rest? Is your position now closer to that of Steve_uk?

It just strikes me as being illogical to reject the evidence on which Bamber was convicted and also admit that the police had no substantial evidence against him and yet come down so heavily in favour of guilt.

Constantly trying to discredit Adam is a useful rhetorical ploy to make it sound like your view is fairer and that your pro guilt position is a more carefully considered one and, presumably, therefore more “reliable” and not prejudiced against Bamber. But what are your reasons for thinking he is guilty?

[Martin]

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.

“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”

Mason

This is an assertion which we often hear but one which is, in my opinion, deeply problematical.

 Since it is admitted, even by the pro guilt side, that there is no actual proof of Bamber’s guilt, it is fair to say that if he is guilty, he is the only one who knows it with certainty.

 But to say that if he is innocent he is the only one who knows it, implies the wholesale rejection of all the evidence that the police knew that Sheila was alive while Jeremy was in a police car.

So the assertion is far from being neutral. To begin with, it implies the rejection of the evidence of two pathologists who say that they can tell from photographs of Sheila that she could not have been dead for more than two hours before the pictures were taken. It’s true that the CCRC rejected their evidence, but why should  a scientist respect a legal person’s judgement when it contradicts what is for him a very easy judgment to make?

It seems to me that people who say that Jeremy could be innocent without anybody knowing it but himself, ought to be able to give us some indication of how it may be possible.

I have tried to do that and failed. The main problem is that If Sheila did it, it’s hard to see how there could be no policemen who know it. The reason is that if Jeremy is telling the truth about the phone call, his whereabouts are accounted for since before the time that Sheila died, since Nevill and Sheila must have still been alive at that time.

If Sheila died much later than the others, the police would have easily been able to tell that the condition of her body was different to that of the other victims. That’s just one consideration, anybody can see there are others such as the length of the siege, for example.

The best I can come up with is the scenario where Sheila commits suicide much earlier and not long after killing the others, implying that the police waited for over three hours outside a house which showed no signs of life. Why would they do that? For all they knew, there could be people seriously injured in there requiring urgent medical help.

And it is contradicted by Meloni's opinion and by PC Woodcocks description of Sheila's wound which he said was still leaking blood when he first saw her, which suggests that she died hours later than the others.
 

I would very much like to hear from anybody how Jeremy could just possibly be innocent without any of the police knowing it.

[scipio_usmc]

“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”

Mason

This is an assertion which we often hear but one which is, in my opinion, deeply problematical.

 Since it is admitted, even by the pro guilt side, that there is no actual proof of Bamber’s guilt, it is fair to say that if he is guilty, he is the only one who knows it with certainty.

 But to say that if he is innocent he is the only one who knows it, implies the wholesale rejection of all the evidence that the police knew that Sheila was alive while Jeremy was in a police car.

So the assertion is far from being neutral. To begin with, it implies the rejection of the evidence of two pathologists who say that they can tell from photographs of Sheila that she could not have been dead for more than two hours before the pictures were taken. It’s true that the CCRC rejected their evidence, but why should  a scientist respect a legal person’s judgement when it contradicts what is for him a very easy judgment to make?

It seems to me that people who say that Jeremy could be innocent without anybody knowing it but himself, ought to be able to give us some indication of how it may be possible.

I have tried to do that and failed. The main problem is that If Sheila did it, it’s hard to see how there could be no policemen who know it. The reason is that if Jeremy is telling the truth about the phone call, his whereabouts are accounted for since before the time that Sheila died, since Nevill and Sheila must have still been alive at that time.

If Sheila died much later than the others, the police would have easily been able to tell that the condition of her body was different to that of the other victims. That’s just one consideration, anybody can see there are others such as the length of the siege, for example.

The best I can come up with is the scenario where Sheila commits suicide much earlier and not long after killing the others, implying that the police waited for over three hours outside a house which showed no signs of life. Why would they do that? For all they knew, there could be people seriously injured in there requiring urgent medical help.

And it is contradicted by Meloni's opinion and by PC Woodcocks description of Sheila's wound which he said was still leaking blood when he first saw her, which suggests that she died hours later than the others.
 

I would very much like to hear from anybody how Jeremy could just possibly be innocent without any of the police knowing it.

I'm convinced of Jeremy's guilt but would like to clarify a point.

Not all of his supporters believe the claim that Sheila died much later than the rest.  Some believe she did it then killed herself before police arrived.  They accept police would have heard the shots if she killed herself while they were present and that he coroner was correct about only pockets of bllod being in her mouth which spilled.

Then there are those who insist she either killed herself while police were there or police killed her.  Indeed you are correct that those who subscribe to this theory are flat out wrong in suggesting only Jeremy knows the truth the police would as well if this were true.

Reliable evidence to support her being alive after police arrived is of course nonexistent.

[grahameb]

That is your opinion that blood that dried would have fallen completely off.  Either the blood was never there and Ann was mistaken, Ann made it up for some reasons though it serves no purposes or the blood fell off before it was turned over to the lab.  In any even this has no bearing at all on the blood that was tested by the prosecution and the defense.

In understand your argument but it is feeble.

Your argument is like the following:

There is a hit and run car accident.  The car that was struck contains damage that demonstrates the car that hit it was a white toyota.  The paint chips left on the car match a toyota that had a custom paint job. The location of the paint chip tested matches exactly where said toyaot would have rubbed against the car in the collision.

There reportedly was another white paint chip in a different location that vanished before it could be tested.  There is speculation such chip was planted but no proof that it was.

Speculation about this possibly planted chip is then used to suggest that the evidence that there is no eidence to suggest was planted is suspect.

Does this suspicion erase the fact that the actual damage to the car came from a white toyota?  No the damage is consistent with such.  The paint chip tested was consistent with such and matched to a specific white toyota. 

If you want to challenge this evidence you need to do so directly.  Round about attacks on missing paint chips they may or may not have been there accomplish nothing at all.     

The hair could have resulted from the murders, it could have attached to the suppressor int he closet as it was being put away, it could have been planted.  It might even have been a figment of their imagination or a lie.  You have no way to establish it was planted or a lie as opposed to attached during the murders or after.  It could even have been stuck there prior to the murders.   

That is how you determine blood type you look for markers that distinguish them.  They found the markers related to her bloodtype.  Some markers were shared with her parents others were not.   

Well this is the important part becuase if you can't even estbalish how they would plant it you have no hope at all of establishing any likelihood that anyone did so.


it is common for people to forget things after time passes.

To prove the blood was planted requires proving a series of things from knowing how to do so to where they got the blood from and eliminating blood from the weapon which means the fmaily alone were NOT in a position to carry out such alone.  It requires a grand conspiracy.

Rational people find such a grand conspiracy hard to swallow but you have failed miserably in establishing any evidence of such.   

You need people to recognize they would need to spray blood inside the suppressor instead of just dripping it in, finding a tool to use to accomplish such, obtain blood that was group A and to actually transfer it, and also to arrange for the blood in the rifle to be eliminated and disposed of without any receord of ever having been found.

You have provide no evidence that suggests any of this happened.

You believe it simply because you want to not because there is an evidence to suggest it happened.

Every farmer shooting wildlife will come across this kind of thing a lot. Why they were surprised about it I don't know. The alleged blob of blood the alleged grey hair (rabbit hair is the most likely? ) all points to animal. Mike demonstrated and had documents to prove that the blood tested contained animal enzimes which some humans also have. What's the betting that the relatives took advantage of such a common occurance and then pleaded ignorance, knowing it it was all animal material in the silencer and no human blood at all?

[lookout]

 That wouldn't surprise me in the least,Grahame. What a pity the hair ( hare ) vanished. The lab would have looked a bit sick testing that.

Now for something logical. A human hair,,which is fine,,would have stayed put on the silencer,,but a hair from an animal,which is more coarse,wouldn't have adhered the same,particularly if the blood specimen was smaller than a pin-head.

[Caroline]

Every farmer shooting wildlife will come across this kind of thing a lot. Why they were surprised about it I don't know. The alleged blob of blood the alleged grey hair (rabbit hair is the most likely? ) all points to animal. Mike demonstrated and had documents to prove that the blood tested contained animal enzimes which some humans also have. What's the betting that the relatives took advantage of such a common occurance and then pleaded ignorance, knowing it it was all animal material in the silencer and no human blood at all?

But they wouldn't have known there was anything 'in' the silencer?