What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[grahameb]

"He also lied to police by telling them Sheila was proficient with all weapons in the house and had fired them all.  Later he told a tale of her going shooting with Anthony and Nevill and using the murder weapon during the shoot.  Anthony denied this.  The entire family and farm workers and friends said she had no interest in guns and no one even saw her touch one.  On this issue rather than look like a liar he changed and agreed he had not seen her touch or fire a gun.  Which means his prior statements were lies and clearly these lies were calculated to support the frame- his goal was to get police to believe she knew how to use weapons and thus could have carried out the murders.

I'm stuck between the last two paragraphs. Throw me a rope!!!
Jeremy Bamber supporters love to claim police framed him without any evidence it happened.  Here there is evidence he was framing Sheila and it is all ignored"

Who's Anthony?

[Caroline]

Who's Anthony?

Pargeter

[scipio_usmc]

The other document that does exist is a police log of DB reporting a silencer with blood stains on 11th SEPT -not august .

I  will try again

Can you post up documentary proof of exactly what Jeremy told the police about how much Sheila used the guns please?

Using the words which you have attributed to him "proficient"

proficient is a paraphrase.
from the dictionary:

Proficient

adjective, competent or skilled in doing or using something.


"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before."

The funny thing is he didn't just exaggerate her gun use and knowedge he exaggerated his own as well.

 

[grahameb]

proficient is a paraphrase.
from the dictionary:

Proficient

adjective, competent or skilled in doing or using something.


"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before."

The funny thing is he didn't just exaggerate her gun use and knowedge he exaggerated his own as well.

So what do you think of the suggestion that Bamber was a "crack shot" scipio?

[Adam]

What convinces me -

Jeremy had a motive X 1 - Large inheritence.

Jeremy had a motive X 2 - He did not like his family & resented the raw deal he felt he had.

Jeremy had no alibi.

Jeremy had the opportunity - Bike at home. Everyone asleep. Quiet access into WHF. A gun. A scapegoat (Sheila).

Jeremys police phone call rounds the suspects to two.

Sheilas episode happened at the perfect time when a would be killer would carry out an execution.

Jeremys reaction & actions after the massacre did him no favours. Already discussed.

No one can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. Thread created.

There are at least 19 reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy. Already posted.

Jeremy's answering machine would work before he got out of bed. It did not.

Jeremy phoned Julie before the police.

Jeremy told the police Sheila was good with guns. He later said at trial she was not.

Julie Mugford had no reason to lie. Jeremys only reason is that according to him he jilted her.

Just because some of the police intially believed Jeremy, does not make him innocent. The police are perfectly entitled to change their minds. Except Taff Jones who was taken off the case.

Other people testified how Jeremy did not like his parents.

Jeremy was extremly evasive in his police interviews. But he did say he robbed the families caravan site because of greed.

What Neville said to Jeremy on the phone did not match the situation. Already posted.

There are lots of reasons why Jeremy would tell Julie. Thread already created.

There is a mountain of curious coincidences (judges words)& circumstantial evidence which goes against Jeremy. Thread already created.

There is a lot of forensic evidence why Sheila did not do it. Already posted.

The silencer had human blood on. Almost certainly Sheila's or a mixture of June & Neville's.

It has been determined that it very unlikely the relatives would attempt to frame Jeremy. Or had the expertise to. Even Jeremys supporters have agreed. Saying the silencer  should be discarded as evidence because it apparently went around the houses before being tested.

Neville was brutally beaten. After having the energy to get downstairs. Smashed lampshades etc suggest a struggle. Much more likely it was Neville v Jeremy.

The police, DPP agreed there was enough evidence to go to trial. The jury found Jeremy guilty at trial. The CCRC & COA have upheld the convictions.

For Jeremy to be innocent. There must be a conspircy with the police, family & Julie Mugford all lying together. None of them cracking or retracting in the last 29 years. None of them had nothing to gain but everything to lose.

[Jan]

What convinces me -

Jeremy had a motive X 1 - Large inheritence.

Jeremy had a motive X 2 - He did not like his family & resented the raw deal he felt he had.

Jeremy had no alibi.

Jeremy had the opportunity - Bike at home. Everyone asleep. Quiet access into WHF. A gun. A scapegoat (Sheila).

Jeremys police phone call rounds the suspects to two.

Jeremys reaction & actions after the massacre did him no favours. Already discussed.

No one can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. Thread created.

There are at least 19 reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy. Already posted.

Jeremy's answering machine would work before he got out of bed. It did not.

Jeremy phoned Julie before the police.

Jeremy told the police Sheila was good with guns. He later said at trial she was not.

Julie Mugford had no reason to lie. Jeremys only reason is that according to him he jilted her.

Other people testified how Jeremy did not like his parents.

Jeremy was extremly evasive in his police interviews. But he did say he robbed the families caravan site because of greed.

What Neville said to Jeremy on the phone did not match the situation. Already posted.

There are lots of reasons why Jeremy would tell Julie. Thread already created.

There is a mountain of curious coincidences (judges words)& circumstantial evidence which goes against Jeremy. Thread already created.

There is a lot of forensic evidence why Sheila did not do it. Already posted.

The silencer had human blood on. Almost certainly Sheila's or a mixture of June & Neville's.

It has been determined that it very unlikely the relatives would attempt to frame Jeremy. Or had the expertise to. Even Jeremys supporters have agreed. Saying it should be discarded as evidence because it apparently may have been contaminated.

Neville was brutally beaten. After having the energy to get downstairs. Smashed lampshades etc suggest a struggle. Much more likely it was Neville v Jeremy.

The police, DPP agreed there was enough evidence to go to trial. The jury found Jeremy guilty at trial. The CCRC & COA have upheld the convictions.

For Jeremy to be innocent. There must be a conspircy with the police, family & Julie Mugford all lying together. None of them cracking or retracting in the last 29 years. None of them had nothing to gain but everything to lose.

Adam - if you are so positive Jeremy is guilty why do you feel the need to repeat your scenarios and assumptions over and over again ? I don't get it  - you have had our opinions - on your opinions  ( because that is all they are ) on many many occasions . So what was the point of you wasting time on that post ? Trying to show off to someone perhaps?

[Jan]

proficient is a paraphrase.
from the dictionary:

Proficient

adjective, competent or skilled in doing or using something.


"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before."

The funny thing is he didn't just exaggerate her gun use and knowedge he exaggerated his own as well.

I do know what it means thank you

I was asking for an OS from an officer that was with Jeremy on the day - not one made in Sept  when they were starting the new file .

Try not to be condescending in your post - you knew exactly what I was referring to - twisting words to suit a scenario.

[Adam]

Just updated my list (point 6) after a good point by Scipio earlier in the week.

Related to point 6 is the fact that Jeremy could have committed the massacre alone. Already discussed previously.

[Alias]

This is true, he puts so much effort into writing them but then I don't have time to answer, then I forget or just can't find it again.

Yes, that is exactly the problem with those long posts.

[Jan]

Just updated my list (point 6) after a good point by Scipio earlier in the week.

Related to point 6 is the fact that Jeremy could have committed the massacre alone. Already discussed previously.

so could Sheila

[lookout]

Adam,you could have saved yourself writing all that after your first sentence because if you think for one minute,,as MOST do,,that Jeremy " killed " everyone for the inheritance.

Jeremy might be an idiot for lots of reasons,,but I'm sure when it was alleged that he spread it about he " could,or was going to kill his family ",,that he'd thought about the inheritance side and would have realised that had he committed the crime,that he'd get not a cent anyway if he was caught. A criminal automatically forfeits all rights to an estate under those circumstances.

Though he wasn't exactly caught,as blamed for the crime,which comes under the same law once they're arrested and imprisoned,,so you can forget any money which he would have benefitted from,,,and it wouldn't have been the whole lot either. Neverthless,,Jeremys' thoughts would probably have been with his grannie,,who'd died the following year,1987,,and where her original will stated that Jeremy would have received a share of the farm,,,so why would he risk killing all his family for the sake of a sick old lady whose days were numbered ? 

[Adam]

so could Sheila

Much less likely with Sheila.

If it was Sheila, Neville & June were not asleep in bed. Neville was up & wide awake. Even having time to make two phone calls (according to Jeremy). Surely June was awake as well. Therefore virtually no element of surprise & Sheila up against two adults.

[Jane]

Much less likely with Sheila.

If it was Sheila, Neville & June were not asleep in bed. Neville was up & wide awake. Even having time to make two phone calls (according to Jeremy). Surely June was awake as well. Therefore virtually no element of surprise & Sheila up against two adults.

Why are you presuming that we are suggesting that they WERE in bed and asleep? OH YES!!! I KNOW!!!!! Coz if you didn't, you couldn't apply your scenario.

[Adam]

Why are you presuming that we are suggesting that they WERE in bed and asleep? OH YES!!! I KNOW!!!!! Coz if you didn't, you couldn't apply your scenario.

If it was Jeremy then Neville & June were surely in bed.

Scipio made an interesting point, that Neville managed to get out of bed &  followed Jeremy into the kitchen when Jeremy went to re load. Rather than Jeremy chasing Neville.

[Jane]

If it was Jeremy then Neville & June were surely in bed.

Scipio made an interesting point, that Neville managed to get out of bed &  followed Jeremy into the kitchen when Jeremy went to re load. Rather than Jeremy chasing Neville.

It didn't HAVE to be Jeremy he followed.