Off to Kenmare, Republic of Ireland, tomorrow, for 10 days...

[John]

I suppose now we can put Padre Pio into the same fantasy category as Ali Bongo and Agent Z. 
Bonkers! 

[mike tesko]

The idea that Jeremy somehow managed to get back inside the farmhouse between 9.30pm on evening of 6th, and 3.48am on morning of 7th August 1985, without leaving any physical or scientific evidence to show this, nor was any evidence produced outside the farmhouse, to even remotely suggest that any of the five victims had in fact been killed by anyone who left the scrne once everyone had been killed...

[Mr. Gee]

The idea that Jeremy somehow managed to get back inside the farmhouse between 9.30pm on evening of 6th, and 3.48am on morning of 7th August 1985, without leaving any physical or scientific evidence to show this, nor was any evidence produced outside the farmhouse, to even remotely suggest that any of the five victims had in fact been killed by anyone who left the scrne once everyone had been killed...

You have hit the nail on the head Mike. There is absolutely no physical evidence or forensic evidence that puts Bamber inside the house on the morning of the murders. Circumstantial evidence and testimonial evidence. But no physical or forensic evidence. And if he had not made that crucial phone call to the police nobody would have been any the wiser.

[John]

And there is no evidence, no ALIBI, that puts him anywhere else.

[Mr. Gee]

And there is no evidence, no ALIBI, that puts him anywhere else.

That is one of the most stupid statements I have heard in er let's see...3 weeks. The way the Law works is that the prosecution must have evidence in order to bring a case against someone. Not the other way round. So what you have juust written is silly. Let's see how it will look in a court room shall we?

"Your honour since the defendant has no evidence, no alibi that puts him anywhere else we conclude that he must be guilty". Can you see just how stupid that kind of thinking is? The fact remains that there is no physical or forensic evidence that puts Bamber at the scene.

Only the phone call that he said he received from his father. The rest can be discounted. (1) Mugford: A druggie and a proven liar who had to be interviewed 32 times before she was considered fit to take the stand. (2) The silencer: Far too much is made of this silencer that the police apparently missed but was allegedly found by the relatives, an interested party out to consciously incriminate Bamber.

You have to prove or rather the prosecution had to prove (because it was not up to the defendant to prove or disprove anything. In fact he doesn't have to do anything at all, even to taking the stand)
The prosecution failed to do so and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Bamber's word that his father called him on that fateful morning of 7th of August 1985.

[lookout]

And there is no evidence, no ALIBI, that puts him anywhere else.

There doesn't have to be !! One usually NEEDS an alibi when one is guilty,or haven't you noticed ??

[mike tesko]

I have been having some fabulous dreams, ever since my return from S. Ireland...

I can't say whether it was being exposed to a week of glorious sunshine, or the enjoyment of downing three or four pints of Guiness a day,which has changed me...

I may need a few more pints of Guiness, before I can make my mind up...

[Alias]

I have been having some fabulous dreams, ever since my return from S. Ireland...

I can't say whether it was being exposed to a week of glorious sunshine, or the enjoyment of downing three or four pints of Guiness a day,which has changed me...

I may need a few more pints of Guiness, before I can make my mind up...

Knock yourself out! 

[Mr. Gee]

Knock yourself out! 

The guinness will probably do that. My mother lives near Kenmare Mike. I haven't been there for a few years and I miss the emerald isle.

[John]

That is one of the most stupid statements I have heard in er let's see...3 weeks. The way the Law works is that the prosecution must have evidence in order to bring a case against someone. Not the other way round. So what you have juust written is silly. Let's see how it will look in a court room shall we?

"Your honour since the defendant has no evidence, no alibi that puts him anywhere else we conclude that he must be guilty". Can you see just how stupid that kind of thinking is? The fact remains that there is no physical or forensic evidence that puts Bamber at the scene.

Only the phone call that he said he received from his father. The rest can be discounted. (1) Mugford: A druggie and a proven liar who had to be interviewed 32 times before she was considered fit to take the stand. (2) The silencer: Far too much is made of this silencer that the police apparently missed but was allegedly found by the relatives, an interested party out to consciously incriminate Bamber.

You have to prove or rather the prosecution had to prove (because it was not up to the defendant to prove or disprove anything. In fact he doesn't have to do anything at all, even to taking the stand)
The prosecution failed to do so and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Bamber's word that his father called him on that fateful morning of 7th of August 1985.

Oh sorry, I thought for a moment you were trying to prove Bamber innocent, silly me for thinking that.

In every police investigation like the WHF murders, the suspect has to account for his or her whereabouts.  Bamber claims that he went home after work and remained there but he is without an alibi.  He thus has no way to prove where he was at the material time.

Evidence was provided to his trial as to how he got to White House Farm and how he managed to sneak into the farmhouse before killing all inside.  This evidence has never been successfully challenged thus why a jury of his peers found him guilty of murder.

[John]

There doesn't have to be !! One usually NEEDS an alibi when one is guilty,or haven't you noticed ??

Thought Bamber was  GUILTY?

[tyler]

Oh sorry, I thought for a moment you were trying to prove Bamber innocent, silly me for thinking that.

In every police investigation like the WHF murders, the suspect has to account for his or her whereabouts.  Bamber claims that he went home after work and remained there but he is without an alibi.  He thus has no way to prove where he was at the material time.

Evidence was provided to his trial as to how he got to White House Farm and how he managed to sneak into the farmhouse before killing all inside.  This evidence has never been successfully challenged thus why a jury of his peers found him guilty of murder.

Re; your last paragraph. Evidence was not provided. Speculation was provided.

[Mr. Gee]

Thought Bamber was  GUILTY?

Only according to the law, as a certain person was who is posting here today, even though they may have disagreed with the verdict.

[John]

Re; your last paragraph. Evidence was not provided. Speculation was provided.

The evidence was there at the trial and over the last 29 years further evidence has reinforced the juries decision.  Only two people had the means, the motive and the opportunity to carry out those murders and one of them has been shown so many times to be innocent, that leaves only one person, Jeremy Bamber...guilty as charged!

[Mr. Gee]

Oh sorry, I thought for a moment you were trying to prove Bamber innocent, silly me for thinking that.

In every police investigation like the WHF murders, the suspect has to account for his or her whereabouts.  Bamber claims that he went home after work and remained there but he is without an alibi.  He thus has no way to prove where he was at the material time.

Evidence was provided to his trial as to how he got to White House Farm and how he managed to sneak into the farmhouse before killing all inside.  This evidence has never been successfully challenged thus why a jury of his peers found him guilty of murder.

Of course I wasn't. Don't be daft. That would be like trying to prove that you're innocent.