The Noble Cause Framing Theory

[susan]

Hello lookout  it is hard to comprehend how the criminal charges against JM disappeared without a trace and nobody said a word

[Alias]

I´ll never understand most guilters´ stance on JM. To me it is clear that IF Jeremy is guilty as charged, Julie was in on the whole thing. She knew about it for a year, she provided sleeping pills, she didn´t warn the family when Jeremy called her and told her he was going to do it. In her own words!
How can they keep seeing her through rose coloured glasses? Beats me.

There were some serious criminal issues with JM, one of them possibly being accessory to murder.

[nugnug]

i cant ether i mean shes pure evil which ever way you look at it.

[Adam]

I think we can say with confidence that either Bamber is 100% innocent or he is 100% guilty. What we cannot say with confidence is that we believe 100% that he is either guilty or he is innocent. In other words he is either 100% innocent or he is 100% guilty. If he is innocent he is innocent. I because I am not in full possession of ALL the facts cannot be 100% either way. This in no way affects his being innocent.
All I can say with all certainty is that he did not have a fair trial because of (1) how the main exhibit was handled and because of JM's testimony that could have been false because she could have been swayed by (2) The £25000 deal she made with the NOTW. (3) Because she consciously lied to the judge about that deal. Thus potentially rendering her testimony null and void.
These three things cause me to come down more on the side of innocency than on the side of guilty.

I created a thread on whether the 19 day trial was fair. No one came up with any decent reasons why it was not.

When Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones, with Julie present. Neither of them were thinking about 25k. They just wanted to tell the truth. About the caravan break in & murder. Jeremys lawyers have never been able to prove that Julies NOTW deal negates her testimony. But god knows they have tried.

Jeremys own Youtube video said his relatives were rich in their own right & had no reason to lie. They were not criminals so would not decide in unison 4 days after the murder to commit such a major crime. They found the silencer and handed it in. Simple.  They would have had to know Sheila's blood group and to effectivly put that blood into the silencer. Creating the back  splatter effect. The silencer evidence has been accepted at trial & at appeals. It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer. If he did not, why was there no blood inside the rifle ? All the shots were either contact or close range according to the pathologist.

So in other words the trial was fair. Jeremy had the best lawyers. They had several months to prepare. And had the best witness - Jeremy.

[Jan]

I created a thread on whether the 19 day trial was fair. No one came up with any decent reasons why it was not.

When Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones, with Julie present. Neither of them were thinking about 25k. They just wanted to tell the truth. About the caravan break in & murder. Jeremys lawyers have never been able to prove that Julies NOTW deal negates her testimony. But god knows they have tried.

Jeremys own Youtube video said his relatives were rich in their own right & had no reason to lie. They were not criminals so would not decide in unison 4 days after the murder to commit such a major crime. They found the silencer and handed it in. Simple.  They would have had to know Sheila's blood group and to effectivly put that blood into the silencer. Creating the back  splatter effect. The silencer evidence has been accepted at trial & at appeals. It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer. If he did not, why was there no blood inside the rifle ? All the shots were either contact or close range.

So in other words the trial was fair. Jeremy had the best lawyers. They had several months to prepare. And the best witness - Jeremy.

Adam that is not entirely true is it? You had lots of posts and questions about contradictory factual documents about the sound moderator which you just chose to ignore.

The blood was not proven to belong to SC and anyway sadly even if it had of been  there was a lot of her blood left in the house by the police.

You also are fully aware there are a lot of photos and documents that have only come to light after the trial. That has been well documented by the original Defence team  in subsequent enquiries.

Just because you chose to ignore all the contra arguments to your posts it does not mean your thread did not receive answers.

[lookout]

Anyone can engage the best lawyers or barristers,,but it doesn't mean a thing if half the evidence meant for the defence,is withheld. Which it was after the first arrest in 1985,after RWB forced the hand of EP to open up the case.

This is why it wasn't a unanimous decision as expected, in a murder trial of this size. At one time,,a 10-2 wouldn't have been accepted as a majority verdict.

[lookout]

 Anyway,,why murder 5 people when the old grannie was in the throe's of an illness from which there was no recovery ? As it happened,,she sadly passed away the year that Jeremy was jailed anyway.
Jeremy would probably have known,,or had an idea that her days were numbered,,so why go on to kill when he knew that he was her favourite grandchild and would probably do well.
Chances are,,he probably didn't give death a thought.

[nugnug]

yes her favrite granchild must of been a great source of tension bettween him and the family.

[lookout]

yes her favrite granchild must of been a great source of tension bettween him and the family.

I'm sure it must have been nugs-----------being as he was a " stranger " !

[Jane]

I created a thread on whether the 19 day trial was fair. No one came up with any decent reasons why it was not.

When Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones, with Julie present. Neither of them were thinking about 25k. They just wanted to tell the truth. About the caravan break in & murder. Jeremys lawyers have never been able to prove that Julies NOTW deal negates her testimony. But god knows they have tried.

Jeremys own Youtube video said his relatives were rich in their own right & had no reason to lie. They were not criminals so would not decide in unison 4 days after the murder to commit such a major crime. They found the silencer and handed it in. Simple.  They would have had to know Sheila's blood group and to effectivly put that blood into the silencer. Creating the back  splatter effect. The silencer evidence has been accepted at trial & at appeals. It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer. If he did not, why was there no blood inside the rifle ? All the shots were either contact or close range according to the pathologist.

So in other words the trial was fair. Jeremy had the best lawyers. They had several months to prepare. And had the best witness - Jeremy.

I have said on numerous occasions, RICH IS RELATIVE. Whilst YOU may see a family as being so -but compared with WHAT?- their version of it, balanced against their relatives, their neighbours, their friends, their out goings, their DEBTS, may be ENTIRELY different.

[Caroline]

I´ll never understand most guilters´ stance on JM. To me it is clear that IF Jeremy is guilty as charged, Julie was in on the whole thing.[/b] She knew about it for a year, she provided sleeping pills, she didn´t warn the family when Jeremy called her and told her he was going to do it. In her own words!
How can they keep seeing her through rose coloured glasses? Beats me.

There were some serious criminal issues with JM, one of them possibly being accessory to murder.

I COMPLETELY agree Alias!!

[Caroline]

Thinking about what Martin has said - and the list of things that we have posted on other threads that would PROVE the innocence of JB ( and not just get him out on a technicality ) then he is correct

If the evidence was forthcoming then it would prove a cover up and not just a selective presentation of evidence.

Personally I came on here for interesting discussion and to look at documents etc. Not really to look at scenarios from books. But there are times I have been influenced by posters who obviously have been on here for much longer than me - but over all I don't think I have changed my opinion much .

The most recent thing that I find very annoying is the replies from EP about releasing the evidence held under PII - personally I think that is BS - and that is a big indication of what is behind all of this situation.

But you're assuming there IS evidence to prove what Martin thinks. Given that no one knows what evidence is being held, there is no way of knowing what it would or would not prove.

Wishful thinking is that they have the key to Jeremy's prison cell - however, that is all it is at the moment.

[Caroline]

I would also add that I had explored the "noble theory" in respect of the police and the family . I think mainly that has been "thinking out loud" and then posting those thoughts , because sometimes the replies put you back on track.

I think that is my inherent trait of wanting to see some good in every person. I find it hard to accept that an innocent man would be framed - however I know that it is possible and it has happened before in other cases .

I think it always good to re-visit that list in the OP of what would PROVE innocence. And in every case the police must have known what the truth was.

Personally, for me, it's nothing to do with wanting to see the good in people - innocent people have been framed in the past and will no doubt continue to be framed in the future. But the suggestion in this instance isn't just a case of framing an innocent man, it's a case of framing an innocent man in the full knowledge of who the real culprit was. That's the bit I just don't buy.

[Caroline]

I created a thread on whether the 19 day trial was fair. No one came up with any decent reasons why it was not.

When Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones, with Julie present. Neither of them were thinking about 25k. They just wanted to tell the truth. About the caravan break in & murder. Jeremys lawyers have never been able to prove that Julies NOTW deal negates her testimony. But god knows they have tried.

Jeremys own Youtube video said his relatives were rich in their own right & had no reason to lie. They were not criminals so would not decide in unison 4 days after the murder to commit such a major crime. They found the silencer and handed it in. Simple.  They would have had to know Sheila's blood group and to effectivly put that blood into the silencer. Creating the back  splatter effect. The silencer evidence has been accepted at trial & at appeals. It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer. If he did not, why was there no blood inside the rifle ? All the shots were either contact or close range according to the pathologist.

So in other words the trial was fair. Jeremy had the best lawyers. They had several months to prepare. And had the best witness - Jeremy.

Yes they did, the fact that YOU didn't agree is neither here nor there.

[nugnug]

oh i certanly buy it i remember what paddy hill said.