Testimony's that are never really published/forgotten

[guest7363]

Thank you Justice. If I thought they was not genuine I would never post them...

Never doubted you my friend

[Patti]

 

Never doubted you my friend

 

[Patti]

Ha ha Grahame i'm not the best person with Patti she is too close so i leave well alone.

Yes I could easily clip you round the lug hole hahahahahahaha You know I don't bite, but I can growl sometimes, but not at nice guys like you. 

[grahameb]

We shall see Grahame.....How did your birthday go? 

Fine thanks Patti. I did my best to forget my birthdays at my age.

[maggie]

Thank you Justice. If I thought they was not genuine I would never post them...

Well done Patti. There are many myths and legends about Jeremy Bamber but none have revealed evidence of violence or brutality. I cannot believe he carried out these horrendous crimes because there is no evidence of him ever showing the ability to do so.
It is a massive leap from immature petty crime to cold blooded, full on mass murder.
It's good to see these statements of his good character posted up for a change.

[guest7363]

Matt Wall
I’ve thought for a long time about what I’m going to say when writing about ‘Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent.’

Not because I wrestle with any issues surrounding legalities, case elements or otherwise – just literally a matter of what I’m going to say. I’m a ‘word man’, as it were. Words form the largest part of every single day of my life, so they’re important to me, as are what I’ve chosen to do with them. 

I have enjoyed reading many other contributions to this site; some wonderful, touching testimonials. I noted how interesting it was that many people’s explanations were quite complex; very well written but almost in a language that suggests something needs to be proven. The use of words, perhaps, that people might use in an essay but hardly ever when talking to the man on the street.

Personally I don’t think any of the people who’ve written testimonials for Jeremy have anything to prove – certainly not their belief in Jeremy’s innocence.

So that was one issue sorted in terms of what I should be writing; essentially, let’s not get caught up in the ‘this reason, that reason, that witness, this piece of evidence’ (we could go on.) That’s not to say that there isn’t a mountain of fact and evidence that supports the fact that Jeremy Bamber is innocent of the crimes he’s served more than my lifetime in jail for.  In fact, if we want to concentrate on the facts and the evidence then we could surely win any argument.  We all feel strongly about these issues and probably each of us, Jeremy included, could point to one single issue that points most significantly to his innocence (if you’re wondering, it’s the Police Logs for me – facts are facts, after all). 

Instead, I do genuinely feel that none of this matters when we sit and think about the case of Jeremy Bamber. That sounds like an astonishing thing to say when you consider the fact that he remains a man without freedom he deserves – but really, the detail of the case isn’t actually that vital or crucial at all.

 Let me explain:

Our legal system itself is surely quite flawed in many ways. In cases where a person maintains innocence –

Jeremy Bamber the ‘facts’ of the matter are presented, and then a random selection of men and women are sworn in to, essentially, make up their mind as to what they ‘think’ about it. Who do they believe? And it’s what these people ‘think’ has happened that can decide a man or women’s fate.
But none of the above really changes that facts are facts and truths are truths. A crime is committed – that has happened, and no amount of deliberation or many millions of pieces of paper change the fact that it has happened. Experts are sworn in, people ponder – but the facts still remain the same. 

What I’m trying to say is that we’re supposed to have a legal system on which guilt has to be proved, but where innocence never does. That, too, is a fact. I don’t see any ‘facts’ that suggest Jeremy Bamber is a guilty man. The most frustrating thing is that so, so much points to his innocence, when proving his innocence shouldn’t even be an issue.  Governed by a legal system in which, supposedly, only guilt has to be proved, we all now immerse ourselves in the work it will take to prove his innocence. Work none of us, nor Jeremy, should be doing. 

I find it quite fitting that the man who perhaps sums up my entire argument better than anybody is Jeremy Bamber himself. In one newspaper interview, speaking of his innocence, he said: 

“"It's not really whether I know it, they know it or anybody knows it. 

"It is just the truth and it is what it is. It is like a reality."

So there we have it. ‘Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent’ really doesn’t matter. Why any of us believe it doesn’t matter. In his own words, the reasons why he believes it don’t even matter. 

As he says – the truth is what it is. And the truth is a fact.

Matt

[Jan]

That is a very thought provoking post.

It is so easy to get caught up in scenarios and assumptions and end up chasing your own tail. I am also uncomfortable with so much emphasis on why Sheila "probably" did not do it to prove that Jeremy did.

Some of the supporters have never even been in contact with Jeremy and are not aware of his background or what kind of man he is  but probably are just hoping that the "truth" will somehow emerge.

If the truth is out there surely it will come out in the end. I hope so.

[Patti]

Matt Wall
I’ve thought for a long time about what I’m going to say when writing about ‘Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent.’

Not because I wrestle with any issues surrounding legalities, case elements or otherwise – just literally a matter of what I’m going to say. I’m a ‘word man’, as it were. Words form the largest part of every single day of my life, so they’re important to me, as are what I’ve chosen to do with them. 

I have enjoyed reading many other contributions to this site; some wonderful, touching testimonials. I noted how interesting it was that many people’s explanations were quite complex; very well written but almost in a language that suggests something needs to be proven. The use of words, perhaps, that people might use in an essay but hardly ever when talking to the man on the street.

Personally I don’t think any of the people who’ve written testimonials for Jeremy have anything to prove – certainly not their belief in Jeremy’s innocence.

So that was one issue sorted in terms of what I should be writing; essentially, let’s not get caught up in the ‘this reason, that reason, that witness, this piece of evidence’ (we could go on.) That’s not to say that there isn’t a mountain of fact and evidence that supports the fact that Jeremy Bamber is innocent of the crimes he’s served more than my lifetime in jail for.  In fact, if we want to concentrate on the facts and the evidence then we could surely win any argument.  We all feel strongly about these issues and probably each of us, Jeremy included, could point to one single issue that points most significantly to his innocence (if you’re wondering, it’s the Police Logs for me – facts are facts, after all). 

Instead, I do genuinely feel that none of this matters when we sit and think about the case of Jeremy Bamber. That sounds like an astonishing thing to say when you consider the fact that he remains a man without freedom he deserves – but really, the detail of the case isn’t actually that vital or crucial at all.

 Let me explain:

Our legal system itself is surely quite flawed in many ways. In cases where a person maintains innocence –

Jeremy Bamber the ‘facts’ of the matter are presented, and then a random selection of men and women are sworn in to, essentially, make up their mind as to what they ‘think’ about it. Who do they believe? And it’s what these people ‘think’ has happened that can decide a man or women’s fate.
But none of the above really changes that facts are facts and truths are truths. A crime is committed – that has happened, and no amount of deliberation or many millions of pieces of paper change the fact that it has happened. Experts are sworn in, people ponder – but the facts still remain the same. 

What I’m trying to say is that we’re supposed to have a legal system on which guilt has to be proved, but where innocence never does. That, too, is a fact. I don’t see any ‘facts’ that suggest Jeremy Bamber is a guilty man. The most frustrating thing is that so, so much points to his innocence, when proving his innocence shouldn’t even be an issue.  Governed by a legal system in which, supposedly, only guilt has to be proved, we all now immerse ourselves in the work it will take to prove his innocence. Work none of us, nor Jeremy, should be doing. 

I find it quite fitting that the man who perhaps sums up my entire argument better than anybody is Jeremy Bamber himself. In one newspaper interview, speaking of his innocence, he said: 

“"It's not really whether I know it, they know it or anybody knows it. 

"It is just the truth and it is what it is. It is like a reality."

So there we have it. ‘Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent’ really doesn’t matter. Why any of us believe it doesn’t matter. In his own words, the reasons why he believes it don’t even matter. 

As he says – the truth is what it is. And the truth is a fact.

Matt

Thank you for sharing that Justice 

[scipio_usmc]

I don’t see any ‘facts’ that suggest Jeremy Bamber is a guilty man.

All those who say that choose to ignore the facts of the case.

Fact: Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill saying Sheila had the gun and might shoot someone so come help.  Thus this call allegedly was before any shooting occurred.

Fact: there was no reason why Nevill would call Jeremy under such circumstances and worse no opportunity for Nevill to do so.  Nevill would not have hung up the phone and then taken it back off the hook to go search for Sheila.  So Sheila had to be the one who caused the phone to be hung up and then take it off the hook so no one could phone.  The shooting though started upstairs eithe rin the twin's room or the master bedroom.  How did that come to pass?  Sheila marching Nevill upstairs to kill him up there with June makes no sense.  She owuld have just shot him near the phone if she were raging.  In the meantime if she chose not to shoot him and instead t go to try to shoot others he either would have tried to disarm her or arm himself.  Jeremy supporters don't want to look at the detials because the devil is always int he details and shows how bogus their claim really is that there is no evidence.

Fact:  In advance of the murders Jeremy removed the telephone form the master bedroom,, replaced the kitchen phone wiht it and hid the kitchen phone.  He admitted to this.  He claimed the kitchen phone was broken but it wasn't, he lied.

Fact: Boutflour insists that Jeremy admitted he removed the scope the day before the murders.  He later told police Nevill did it but there was testimony that Nevill never removed it and no reson of any kind could even be made up by Jeremy to explain why Nevill would have removed the sights.  Using the gun close quarters like the murders is the only reaosn to remove them.

Fact: Julie insists that for a long time Jeremy told her he wanted to kill his family and had made preparations and even called her before to tell her tonight is the night and after to tell her it was done.

Fact: Jeremy was not known to ever shoot rabbits so his gun stating story makes no sense and even worse, it is impossible for the killer to have fired 25 bullets form the batch of 50 he claims to have taken out and yet for 30 to have remained which proves he staged these bullets and is further evidence the story of leaving the gun and bullets out was simply to fame Sheila.

Fact; Jeremy told numerous lies to police and others including the tale that the gun did not fit in the closet with the accessories attached.  I could spend a long time discussing them but there is no need because the last 3 things I mention are the nails that crucify Jeremy and prove his guilt.

Fact: The killer used gloves because no bloody fingerprints were left and they would have given the blood on the rifle. If Sheila killed the family she would neither have had a reaosn to use gloves nor a reason to hide the gloves and would not have had the ability to dispose of them outside of the premises. No such gloves were found on the premises.  Jeremy in contract had a reason to use gloves and the ability to dispose of them off premises without police ever finding them.  If the killer had not been wearing gloves then the killer would have had damage to the hands especially when the rifle stock broke, that would have scratched or slashed the killer. But Sheila had no damage at all to her other than the shots.

Fact: the killer's clothing and body had high velocity blood spatter from the victims, medium velocity spatter from Nevill and GSR.  Sheila's clothing and body had none of these. She had no reason to wash and change but if she had murdered everyone else and then done so then her clothing containing GSR and blood would have been found on the premises because she lacked the ability to get rid of them before police arrived.  In contrast Jeremy had a reason to change and wash and the ability to do so without police finding out.  So this means Sheila can't have killed anyone else, someone else had to have done it.

Fact: Sheila can't have killed herself then after she was dead 1) put away the moderator, 2) moved her body flat or 3) opened and closed the bible in a pool of blood that formed after her death so someone else had to have been there to do all these things and that person would have to have been the actual killer.

People who say there is no evidence are people who choose to ignore the evidence and then pretend it doesn't exist.

[guest7363]

All those who say that choose to ignore the facts of the case.

Fact: Jeremy claims he received a phone call from Nevill saying Sheila had the gun and might shoot someone so come help.  Thus this call allegedly was before any shooting occurred.

Fact: there was no reason why Nevill would call Jeremy under such circumstances and worse no opportunity for Nevill to do so.  Nevill would not have hung up the phone and then taken it back off the hook to go search for Sheila.  So Sheila had to be the one who caused the phone to be hung up and then take it off the hook so no one could phone.  The shooting though started upstairs eithe rin the twin's room or the master bedroom.  How did that come to pass?  Sheila marching Nevill upstairs to kill him up there with June makes no sense.  She owuld have just shot him near the phone if she were raging.  In the meantime if she chose not to shoot him and instead t go to try to shoot others he either would have tried to disarm her or arm himself.  Jeremy supporters don't want to look at the detials because the devil is always int he details and shows how bogus their claim really is that there is no evidence.

Fact:  In advance of the murders Jeremy removed the telephone form the master bedroom,, replaced the kitchen phone wiht it and hid the kitchen phone.  He admitted to this.  He claimed the kitchen phone was broken but it wasn't, he lied.

Fact: Boutflour insists that Jeremy admitted he removed the scope the day before the murders.  He later told police Nevill did it but there was testimony that Nevill never removed it and no reson of any kind could even be made up by Jeremy to explain why Nevill would have removed the sights.  Using the gun close quarters like the murders is the only reaosn to remove them.

Fact: Julie insists that for a long time Jeremy told her he wanted to kill his family and had made preparations and even called her before to tell her tonight is the night and after to tell her it was done.

Fact: Jeremy was not known to ever shoot rabbits so his gun stating story makes no sense and even worse, it is impossible for the killer to have fired 25 bullets form the batch of 50 he claims to have taken out and yet for 30 to have remained which proves he staged these bullets and is further evidence the story of leaving the gun and bullets out was simply to fame Sheila.

Fact; Jeremy told numerous lies to police and others including the tale that the gun did not fit in the closet with the accessories attached.  I could spend a long time discussing them but there is no need because the last 3 things I mention are the nails that crucify Jeremy and prove his guilt.

Fact: The killer used gloves because no bloody fingerprints were left and they would have given the blood on the rifle. If Sheila killed the family she would neither have had a reaosn to use gloves nor a reason to hide the gloves and would not have had the ability to dispose of them outside of the premises. No such gloves were found on the premises.  Jeremy in contract had a reason to use gloves and the ability to dispose of them off premises without police ever finding them.  If the killer had not been wearing gloves then the killer would have had damage to the hands especially when the rifle stock broke, that would have scratched or slashed the killer. But Sheila had no damage at all to her other than the shots.

Fact: the killer's clothing and body had high velocity blood spatter from the victims, medium velocity spatter from Nevill and GSR.  Sheila's clothing and body had none of these. She had no reason to wash and change but if she had murdered everyone else and then done so then her clothing containing GSR and blood would have been found on the premises because she lacked the ability to get rid of them before police arrived.  In contrast Jeremy had a reason to change and wash and the ability to do so without police finding out.  So this means Sheila can't have killed anyone else, someone else had to have done it.

Fact: Sheila can't have killed herself then after she was dead 1) put away the moderator, 2) moved her body flat or 3) opened and closed the bible in a pool of blood that formed after her death so someone else had to have been there to do all these things and that person would have to have been the actual killer.

People who say there is no evidence are people who choose to ignore the evidence and then pretend it doesn't exist.

So there you have it everyone?

[guest7363]

Quote from: justice on Today at 12:03 PM
I don’t see any ‘facts’ that suggest Jeremy Bamber is a guilty man.
This is not me saying this as Scipio has portrayed, this is a wording from the piece written by a matt guy that i found interesting.

[scipio_usmc]

Quote from: justice on Today at 12:03 PM
I don’t see any ‘facts’ that suggest Jeremy Bamber is a guilty man.
This is not me saying this as Scipio has portrayed, this is a wording from the piece written by a matt guy that i found interesting.

I figured that out but if I putt by Matt I thought people might think the Matt who posts here and then I would get slammed.

My post was meant to addres shis claim and htose of others who support Jeremy who say ther eis no evidence...

If they faced the evidence and tried to refute it they would get further.  Not far because they can't refute it successfully but still further than to just pretend it doesn't exist.

[grahameb]

I told you so Patti. But what has all that which scipio said got to do with these testimonies by people who knew Bamber. There he is trying to derail the thread again. At least this time he can't blame it on anyone else.