The Noble Cause Framing Theory

[lookout]

 I too asked myself how could they arrest the man without any evidence to back up. Then when he was arrested 12 months later,again,,I thought it even more odd and honestly imagined that he'd be back out again in no time because " a big mistake had been made ". Of course the years go by and so many other things crop up and take over,that you forget about the case altogether.
Even though it was so long ago,I can remember it as though it was last year.

[grahameb]

Agreed Grahame. It would be interesting to learn as to what is contained within the files of the first investigation (and second) that led both Taff Jones and subsequently Jim Kinneally to assert that Sheila was responsible. I just cannot accept that EP arrived at this conclusion because 'Jeremy led them in this direction' and certainly cannot believe that upon seeing Sheila (as she is depicted in the crime scene photos) that they couldn't recognise that Sheila's body had been so very obviously  'staged'.

Personally I can see that it was not Jeremy that led them in any direction. But rather the persistent worrying of the relatives that let them in Jeremy's direction?

[tyler]

Grahame,I had meant on the actual night/morning?

[No-Bits]

Grahame,I had meant on the actual night/morning?

It could be that the police inadvertently disturbed the scene around Sheila, moving the rifle/arm/bible, and then put it back together as best they could?

[No-Bits]

It could be that the police inadvertently disturbed the scene around Sheila, moving the rifle/arm/bible, and then put it back together as best they could?

I meant that in respect of the 'obviously staged' comment.

[grahameb]

It could be that the police inadvertently disturbed the scene around Sheila, moving the rifle/arm/bible, and then put it back together as best they could?

Body?

[Martin]

Let me just clarify something here; when I said 'Only Jeremy knows the truth' I was talking about whether he was guilty or innocent. Martin has taken this (with his great wisdom) to mean that I was saying he knew what happened in the farmhouse - which would mean he was there - and as such - guilty.

However, Martin simply assumes something and runs with it. When Steve first came here, he was accused by Martin of being Starryian (whoever he is) simply because he posted from a guilty stance. There were long winded posts where Martin had used his psychological prowess to analyse and compare the writing styles of both parties. Frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I found myself descending to such lengths but as it's quite obvious they are not the same person, I'd be even more embarrassed at having never apologised!

Like I said - debate the case and the posters behind them. Sometimes people question their opinions it's a good thing to do, it doesn't mean they should have to put up with the armchair psycho babble and flawed reasoning of Martin The Great.

 

Caroline

Sorry to backtrack, but just reading through this thread, I came to a post where I am accused by you of accusing Steve_uk of being starryian and even of failing to apologise for being wrong. The truth is, I have never, on this forum or any other, ever said that Steve_uk is starryian.

Just in case Steve should think that I have accused him of being starryian, I feel that I should set the record straight.

As for your main criticism, I did not misinterpret your meaning. My position is that Bamber can’t be the only person who knows he is innocent for a number of practical reasons which I have gone into elsewhere.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5219.msg231089.html#msg231089

[nugnug]

no im  starryian i feel i must confess.

[Caroline]

Caroline

Sorry to backtrack, but just reading through this thread, I came to a post where I am accused by you of accusing Steve_uk of being starryian and even of failing to apologise for being wrong. The truth is, I have never, on this forum or any other, ever said that Steve_uk is starryian.

Just in case Steve should think that I have accused him of being starryian, I feel that I should set the record straight.

Must have mixed you up with someone else - sorry.

[Caroline]

no im  starryian i feel i must confess.

I knew it! 

[Martin]

Must have mixed you up with someone else - sorry.

I just added something to the post berfore you replied. I really find it hard to get that point accross. My belief that some of the police know that Jeremy is innocent is based upon practical considerations, even at the level of hypothetical thinking.

I say that if he innocent it is hard to see how he could be the only one who knows it.

[Caroline]

I just added something to the post berfore you replied. I really find it hard to get that point accross. My belief that some of the police know that Jeremy is innocent is based upon practical considerations, even at the level of hypothetical thinking.

I say that if he innocent it is hard to see how he could be the only one who knows it.

OK Martin, I will read your link tomorrow and reply when I can concentrate a little better - Can't stay wake tonight .

[scipio_usmc]

If Jeremy had actually killed anyone at all,,he'd have made sure that most valuables such as small items like jewellery would have been well pocketed,,as nobody would then have been the wiser as to what was in Junes' possession. Also,,it would have been a far easier task who to pinpoint if certain items had been missing ( such as what the relatives knew of )
No sign of a break-in----jewellery missing,,it WOULD then have made more sense to blame Jeremy,as regards greed. I'd have blamed him myself.
All " sellable " items still remained in-situ. Seems strange to me,,seeing as he knew how to steal !

1) he would have no way to know that they would not find out such items were missing

2) he had no need to pocket them immediately as he would receive them in due course through the will

[Adam]

I created a thread yesterday. Ruling out Julie & the relatives in attempting to frame Jeremy. Julie too young & naive. The relatives already rich & respectable with not enough expertise.

So that leaves the police.

However the police had nothing to gain in framing Jeremy. There was no guarantee of a conviction. But a chance a frame attempt may be discovered. Which would ruin the careers of the officers concerned. Even after the conviction the police were heavily criticised. It has never been proved that the police tried to frame Jeremy.

So if the police, family & Julie did not frame Jeremy, who did ?

[Caroline]

I created a thread yesterday. Ruling out Julie & the relatives in attempting to frame Jeremy. Julie too young & naive. The relatives already rich & respectable with not enough expertise.

So that leaves the police.

However the police had nothing to gain in framing Jeremy. There was no guarantee of a conviction. But a chance a frame attempt may be discovered. Which would ruin the careers of the officers concerned. Even after the conviction the police were heavily criticised. It has never been proved that the police tried to frame Jeremy.
So if the police, family & Julie did not frame Jeremy, who did ?

Of course you did 

Of course the police had something to gain! A successful conviction and of course it wasn't guaranteed which is why a silencer was produced and a coached star witness. Were the officers involved in the Birmingham Six case convicted? Were the officers involved in the Stephan Kizsco case convicted?

OBVIOUSLY it's never been proved because if it had, he would be a free man!! However, just because it hasn't been proven, doesn't mean they didn't!