Time to agree with Jeremy regarding the silencer ? But...

[Adam]

Jeremy has never claimed the police framed him with the silencer.

His police complaints, years later are more to do with the massacre night. Saying the police know there were conversations with an alive Sheila inside and there were originally two bodies in the kitchen. Quite how a 'present'Jeremy was not informed or notice on the night I do not know. He claimed in 2005 the police know Neville phoned them, something they denied. Again Jeremy would have been told on the night.

My last thread showed the police still had a mountain of Circumstantial & forensic evidence. Together with witnesses such as Julie. So the police had no reason to risk creating a fake piece of evidence when they could still charge him.

Jeremy said outright in 2010 the relatives (not the police) framed him. Using the silencer.

The problem is, this board have highlighted the relatives did not have the time, courage, expertise, equipment, blood knowledge & financial need to frame Jeremy. A man that had just lost his family.

Politically it is better to blame the family. It highlights how everyone is working together to frame Jeremy. His own family turning against him attracts the sympathy vote. Blaming the law too much is not a great idea.

So if Jeremy is saying it was not the police, but the family could not, would not & did not do it, how did Sheila's, June's & Neville's blood/DNA get on the silencer ?

[grahameb]

Basically all one needs to frame someone else is one piece of false (manufactured) evidence and one crooked copper. The rest will snowball, like all lies and half truths. In the end the lie takes on a life of its own as people add to it over the years.
All the prosecution actually had was the dodgy silencer and the word of a jited woman and don't say that a jilted woman wouldn't keep up a lie for all these years, because (1) Jilted women have murdered because of it. (2) The further down the years from the original lie they go the more difficult it gets for that person to own up because of the potential consequences of their lie.

[scipio_usmc]

Bamber's claims change with the wind as do the claims made by his supporters.  In fact his supporters often make mutually exclusive claims simultaneously.  It is the thrw as much shit as possible at the wall to see if any sticks approach.

At this point most of Bamber's efforts seem to be aimed at propaganda to try to convince people he is innocent so that his reputation after he is gone will be one of innocence wih an MOJ having occurred. 

He hoped in the past to use that as a spring to freedom but at this point I think deep down even he realizes he has no hope of fooling the courts and that his legacy is all he could hope to influence.

[Adam]

Basically all one needs to frame someone else is one piece of false (manufactured) evidence and one crooked copper. The rest will snowball, like all lies and half truths. In the end the lie takes on a life of its own as people add to it over the years.
All the prosecution actually had was the dodgy silencer and the word of a jited woman and don't say that a jilted woman wouldn't keep up a lie for all these years, because (1) Jilted women have murdered because of it. (2) The further down the years from the original lie they go the more difficult it gets for that person to own up because of the potential consequences of their lie.

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5516.0.html

[Adam]

Bamber's claims change with the wind as do the claims made by his supporters.  In fact his supporters often make mutually exclusive claims simultaneously.  It is the thrw as much shit as possible at the wall to see if any sticks approach.

At this point most of Bamber's efforts seem to be aimed at propaganda to try to convince people he is innocent so that his reputation after he is gone will be one of innocence wih an MOJ having occurred. 

He hoped in the past to use that as a spring to freedom but at this point I think deep down even he realizes he has no hope of fooling the courts and that his legacy is all he could hope to influence.

Jeremy probably realised going quietly through the courts would not get him anywhere.

However going through the media as well as the courts may create an unstoppable momentum from sympathetic supporters. This has worked to an extent and Jeremy is always in the press. However the evidence against him is so strong there are not many supporters.

[grahameb]

Bamber's claims change with the wind as do the claims made by his supporters.  In fact his supporters often make mutually exclusive claims simultaneously.  It is the thrw as much shit as possible at the wall to see if any sticks approach.

At this point most of Bamber's efforts seem to be aimed at propaganda to try to convince people he is innocent so that his reputation after he is gone will be one of innocence wih an MOJ having occurred. 

He hoped in the past to use that as a spring to freedom but at this point I think deep down even he realizes he has no hope of fooling the courts and that his legacy is all he could hope to influence.

Well I wouldn't know what Bamber supporters might or might not do as I am not a supporter. But I AM a supporter of justice and it is my opinion that justice was not done at Bamber's trial. It appears to me that too many people had something up their sleeves just like David Boutflour did?

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5213.0.html

You may have missed this thread. About the trial fairness.

[grahameb]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5213.0.html

You may have missed this thread. About the trial fairness.

No I did not miss that thread Adam. I have just given clear evidence that there was nothing fair about the trial. There was no way of proving that the relatives actually did find the silencer. Anyone had amble time and opportunity to plant such a silencer. Also the silencer they allegedly found in the cupboard was taken away from the scene and quite frankly we only have their word it was there at all. My big question and one that I feel must be answered is WHY was it ever accepted as evidence in the first place? I often wonder if Miss Whiplash had any influence over Ducky? Who was allegedly see her on a regular basis in those days? One thing's for certain a man with such an influential position should never find himself in compromising places.

[scipio_usmc]

No I did not miss that thread Adam. I have just given clear evidence that there was nothing fair about the trial. There was no way of proving that the relatives actually did find the silencer. Anyone had amble time and opportunity to plant such a silencer. Also the silencer they allegedly found in the cupboard was taken away from the scene and quite frankly we only have their word it was there at all. My big question and one that I feel must be answered is WHY was it ever accepted as evidence in the first place? I often wonder if Miss Whiplash had any influence over Ducky? Who was allegedly see her on a regular basis in those days? One thing's for certain a man with such an influential position should never find himself in compromising places.

You gave clear evidence his trial was unfair how?

All you did was make ridiculous criticisms that fail miserably at proving he didn't get a fair trial.

The trier of fact weighs credibility you want it so that nothign reaches the trier of fact unless ther eis 100% proof claims are true but there never is 100% proof of anything. That is why convictions are beyond a reasonablr doubt not 100% proof.   

A defendant can claim witnesses who testify they saw him shoot are lying.  Based on your standard their testimony is worthless because they could potentiall lie. 

You have only proved that you are absurd not that Jeremy didn't get a fair trial.

[grahameb]

You gave clear evidence his trial was unfair how?

All you did was make ridiculous criticisms that fail miserably at proving he didn't get a fair trial.

The trier of fact weighs credibility you want it so that nothign reaches the trier of fact unless ther eis 100% proof claims are true but there never is 100% proof of anything. That is why convictions are beyond a reasonablr doubt not 100% proof.   

A defendant can claim witnesses who testify they saw him shoot are lying.  Based on your standard their testimony is worthless because they could potentiall lie. 

You have only proved that you are absurd not that Jeremy didn't get a fair trial.

Don't you ever read other people's posts? Just read what I said about the silencer the relatives allegedly found. It was my critisism of the trial itself. If they did have good solid evidence they would not have had to rely upon circumtantial evidence. My standard of testimony is not based upon the potential to lie as that can be applied to everybody. My standard is based upon the fact that they had the MOTIVE to lie. No one can place Jeremy at WHF that night after he went home. Police questioned neighbours in his village. But there was no one to testify that he went out that night. All the prosecution had was a "theory" based upon the diary of one of the family again who had the motive to want Jeremy gaoled. that he went by bike along the sea wall. This bike was tested forensically and was stated that it could not be proved to have been used in the murders. But that didn't stop the prosecution producing this "evidence". The whole trial was based upon supposition and the words of a jilted girl. He did not have a fair trial. In my opinion it should have been ruled as a mistrial. It is not absurd at all. That is only because you can't see much into human nature I fear?

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5516.0.html

[Adam]

It soon became clear how Jeremy got to WHF undetected at around 2.00am. 

Julie said June's bike had arrived at Jeremy's cottage just before the massacre. In her WS she said Jeremy was planning to cycle to WHF. He was planning to do a trial run & thought it would take 15 minutes. 

Jeremy was very vague and un coperative when discussing  the time he brought the bike over,  when interviewed by the police. It was eventually determined it was just before the massacre. Jeremy said he brought it over for Julie. However in the same police interview he said their relationship had been in decline for six months. The judge asked why Jeremy would bring over the bike for Julie if the relationship was coming to a close. 

Ann Eaton became more suspicious when she saw the bike outside Jeremy's cottage just after the massacre.  Robert Boutflour worked out there were three possible cycle routes Jeremy could use to get to WHF. 

Jeremy was a young farmer. So a three mile cycle journey on land he knew would not be difficult. 

Bob Miller said in the 'Crimes that shook Britain' video that no one would have seen Jeremy cycling to WHF at that time in a month of Sundays. 

No blood was found on the bike. But why would there be ? Jeremy was not injured on the night. Could have cleaned up at WHF and had a month to clean the bike. 

[grahameb]

It soon became clear how Jeremy got to WHF undetected at around 2.00am.

Julie said June's bike had arrived at Jeremy's cottage just before the massacre. In her WS she said Jeremy was planning to cycle to WHF. He was planning to do a trial run & thought it would take 15 minutes.

Jeremy was very vague and un coperative when discussing  the time he brought the bike over,  when interviewed by the police. It was eventually determined it was just before the massacre. Jeremy said he brought it over for Julie. However in the same police interview he said their relationship had been in decline for six months. The judge asked why Jeremy would bring over the bike for Julie if the relationship was coming to a close.

Ann Eaton became more suspicious when she saw the bike outside Jeremy's cottage just after the massacre.  Robert Boutflour worked out there were three possible cycle routes Jeremy could use to get to WHF.

Jeremy was a young farmer. So a three mile cycle journey on land he knew would not be difficult.

Bob Miller said in the 'Crimes that shook Britain' video that no one would have seen Jeremy cycling to WHF at that time in a month of Sundays.

No blood was found on the bike. But why would there be ? Jeremy was not injured on the night. Could have cleaned up at WHF and had a month to clean the bike.

Excuse me Adam, but it is definitely not clear that he ever went to WHF let alone how and at what time? You are just assuming all these things. No one has been able to place him at WHF that night, not even Mugsy.

[scipio_usmc]

Well I wouldn't know what Bamber supporters might or might not do as I am not a supporter. But I AM a supporter of justice and it is my opinion that justice was not done at Bamber's trial. It appears to me that too many people had something up their sleeves just like David Boutflour did?

You admitted at one point you don't believe Jeremy did it because peopel who knew him told you he wouldn't.  You are indeed a supporter.

The evidence leaves no reaosnable doubt he is the killer and justice was served in this case.

You have no evidence at all that anyone did anything to plant evidence.  You have only ridiculous supicions and natural distrust for police nothing more.

That is not evidence of misjustice merely evidence of having paranoia.

You hide your eyes from all key things like that Sheila can't have killed herself then moved her own body.  She can't have beaten Nevill without getting his blood on her and damaging her hands.  There is no evidence Sheial killed anyone else let alone herself.

There is no evidence to support Nevill phoned Jeremy and the claim he did makes no sense for dozens of reaosns which neither you nor anyone else will even attempt to go ove rbecause you have no chance of winning so you just skip all that and go to the claim the suppressor evidence is all there was and it was planted though you have no evidence at all to establish that and it is not likely at all.

Public opinion rests squarely against Jeremy because after all the evidence is looked at there is no evidence at all to support the claim a MOJ occurred or that he is innocent.