A shooting incident at White House farm

[susan]

Adam you will not help me with sources when I have missed them.

[Neil]

Quite complicated, but in a nutshell Stan Jones took an instant dislike to Jeremy Bamber and needed little encouragement to start seeing the case through a different perspective. It happens a lot, a police officer just doesn't like someone and the relationship becomes antagonistic. From that small beginning the rest followed.

That would make a little more sense if Jones thought that Jeremy could possibly be guilty.  However, you seem to be suggesting that Jones would have known that Jeremy was not the killer.

However much Jones disliked Jeremy, would he really frame him for 5 murders? That would be most extraordinary.

[lookout]

 The police work in mysterious ways at times,Neil. 

[Caroline]

That would make a little more sense if Jones thought that Jeremy could possibly be guilty.  However, you seem to be suggesting that Jones would have known that Jeremy was not the killer.

However much Jones disliked Jeremy, would he really frame him for 5 murders? That would be most extraordinary.

I agree Neil, but it wouldn't have been just Jones who knew he wasn't guilty, if what Bill suggests was correct. Everyone who was there would have known it was a siege situation and that shots had been fired - as such, Jeremy couldn't have been guilty and they would have known it for a fact.

[guest154]

I agree Neil, but it wouldn't have been just Jones who knew he wasn't guilty, if what Bill suggests was correct. Everyone who was there would have known it was a siege situation and that shots had been fired - as such, Jeremy couldn't have been guilty and they would have known it for a fact.

Including Jeremy. Yet he has never claimed shots were fired whilst they were all standing outside.

[Jan]

Perhaps it was not just one reason,  perhaps there were a combination of circumstances that led to the final outcome. 

[Caroline]

Including Jeremy. Yet he has never claimed shots were fired whilst they were all standing outside.

I could never buy an argument which suggests they all KNEW he was innocent (and had proof), but framed him anyway.

[Adam]

I agree Neil, but it wouldn't have been just Jones who knew he wasn't guilty, if what Bill suggests was correct. Everyone who was there would have known it was a siege situation and that shots had been fired - as such, Jeremy couldn't have been guilty and they would have known it for a fact.

How could shots have been fired after the police arrived ? Jeremy had massacred then around two hours beforehand.

[Adam]

I could never buy an argument which suggests they all KNEW he was innocent (and had proof), but framed him anyway.

It has to be the police. The relatives have been ruled out.

If it wasn't the police, Jeremy must be guilty.

[gringo]

I could never buy an argument which suggests they all KNEW he was innocent (and had proof), but framed him anyway.

That would make a little more sense if Jones thought that Jeremy could possibly be guilty.  However, you seem to be suggesting that Jones would have known that Jeremy was not the killer.

However much Jones disliked Jeremy, would he really frame him for 5 murders? That would be most extraordinary.

  What is extraordinary is the belief that the police wouldn't knowingly frame an innocent man.
     Many so called Miscarriages of Justice are nothing of the sort and the term is often used as a euphemism for perversions of justice.Stefan Kiszko and the Cardiff Three are two prime examples where it is clear that police framed people they knew to be innocent and withheld the evidence which proved their innocence. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the police have framed people they know to be innocent on so many occasions that it is incredible that anyone believes that the police wouldn't do so.
     The police have been proven to have been involved in cover ups and conspiracies and all manner of lies and deceptions yet you regard the knowing framing of an innocent man to be unbelievable. Why?
       

[Adam]

Why did the police decide to frame Jeremy a month later ?

Jeremy says it was because Sheila woke up in the kitchen, went upstairs and was shot by the raid team with the 22 rifle, or shot herself. 

The raid team for some reason do not want to admit to this as they are embarrassed.

But during the first month,  no one was suggesting the raid team shot Sheila or she shot herself after going upstairs.  So why not keep to the murder/suicide stance ?

[Neil]

  What is extraordinary is the belief that the police wouldn't knowingly frame an innocent man.
     Many so called Miscarriages of Justice are nothing of the sort and the term is often used as a euphemism for perversions of justice.Stefan Kiszko and the Cardiff Three are two prime examples where it is clear that police framed people they knew to be innocent and withheld the evidence which proved their innocence. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the police have framed people they know to be innocent on so many occasions that it is incredible that anyone believes that the police wouldn't do so.
     The police have been proven to have been involved in cover ups and conspiracies and all manner of lies and deceptions yet you regard the knowing framing of an innocent man to be unbelievable. Why?
       

I'm not talking about the Cardiff three or any other case. Why frame Jeremy when they could have just blamed Shelia?  If your answer is, "because they didn't like Jeremy" then I would find that most extraordinary.

[maggie]

I'm not talking about the Cardiff three or any other case. Why frame Jeremy when they could have just blamed Shelia?  If your answer is, "because they didn't like Jeremy" then I would find that most extraordinary.

Hi Neil, think the answer to your question is that we don't know but that doesn't mean it didn't happen,  even if it's hard to believe. Don't think anything which has not been proven one way or another should be dismissed because all things are possible.

[susan]

Morning Neil/Maggie

Perhaps the police did frame Jeremy because they knew he was guilty but had no hard evidence and therefore had to build a case against him what would be the point in framing him when they had a suspect they would never frame him because one officer did not like him that is not feasible at all.

[Jane]

Morning Neil/Maggie

Perhaps the police did frame Jeremy because they knew he was guilty but had no hard evidence and therefore had to build a case against him what would be the point in framing him when they had a suspect they would never frame him because one officer did not like him that is not feasible at all.

Susan/Maggie/Neil, Good Morning.

Whilst I CAN see a situation arising in which one person is so popular/powerful that others are willing to collude with them, I think, in this case, there may have been those involved who didn't have the same knowledge of this person, in which case their influence wouldn't extent that far. However, it does rather sound as if the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing.