Sheila not fighting back. Why ?

[Adam]

well yes if you have faith in the justice system and your innocent you asume your going to be found innocent

If you're guilty you will be found guilty. Unless you can find a technicality or create reasonable doubt. Which happens a lot. But not in the Bamber case.

[lookout]

Are you trying to say he committed the crime but didn't use the silencer?

Yes its very possible, its one way of explaining why he keeps wanting the silencer tested for DNA.

If true it would mean Jeremy committed the perfect mass murder but ironically an imperfect trail and false leads brought Justice.

Just what the police like.

[Jane]

If you're guilty you will be found guilty. Unless you can find a technicality or create reasonable doubt. Which happens a lot. But not in the Bamber case.

Adam, are you saying that every case which goes to trial has the correct outcome? That the guilty are ALWAYS found to be so and the innocent are NEVER wrongly convicted? What a Utopian image.

[David1819]

If you're guilty you will found guilty. Unless you can find a technicality or create reasonable doubt. Which happens a lot. But not in the Bamber case.

I disagree he was found guilty by a 10-2 majority if one more juror had sided with him he would be a free man.

Considering the Jury did not know the following

1. Was not aware that the DNA in the Silencer was not Shelia's but Junes and no proof it was blood based DNA.

2. Julie Mugford was given imunity from prosecution of her own crimes if she testified against him.

3. Julie Mugford and Jeremy's cousins had financial incentives to push for a guilty verdict

4. Police admitted only after the trial that they messed up the crime scene.

Now if the Jury was aware of this do you still think the verdict would be 10-2? I seriously doubt it.

[Adam]

I disagree he was found guilty by a 10-2 majority if one more juror had sided with him he would be a free man.

Considering the Jury did not know the following

1. Was not aware that the DNA in the Silencer was not Shelia's but Junes and no proof it was blood based DNA.

2. Julie Mugford was given imunity from prosecution of her own crimes if she testified against him.

3. Julie Mugford and Jeremy's cousins had financial incentives to push for a guilty verdict

4. Police admitted only after the trial that they messed up the crime scene.

Now if the Jury was aware of this do you still think the verdict would be 10-2? I seriously doubt it.

June's DNA in the silencer. How an earth did that get there ?

The jury knew about the 1984 cheque book fraud.

Wouldn't the jury be able to work out that if Bamber was convicted the next relatives in line would inherit ?

The jury were well aware of the police mistakes.

[Caroline]

Are you trying to say he committed the crime but didn't use the silencer?

Yes its very possible, its one way of explaining why he keeps wanting the silencer tested for DNA.

If true it would mean Jeremy committed the perfect mass murder but ironically an imperfect trail and false leads brought Justice.

I'm struggling to understand your post - are you agreeing or just taking the piss? Perhaps you would like to make your post a little clearer without the use of Ricky to help you?

[Adam]

I am surprised it was 10 - 2 verdict.

Bamber has been going on about the silencer since the 90's, as it was his only option.

But at court the jury was told it was certainly Sheila's blood. This was not disputed by the defence.

If the gun was too long for Sheila to shoot herself with the silencer attached, how can anyone vote 'not guilty' ?

[lookout]

Yes its very possible, its one way of explaining why he keeps wanting the silencer tested for DNA.


I find this hilarious myself.

[David1819]

I'm struggling to understand your post - are you agreeing or just taking the piss? Perhaps you would like to make your post a little clearer without the use of Ricky to help you?

No I am agreeing that it could be possible and the irony around the conviction would be very amusing if true

[nugnug]

well i think its pretty obvios that he dident use the silencer or he wouldent want to keep having tests done on it.

[David1819]

well i think its pretty obvios that he dident use the silencer or he wouldent want to keep having tests done on it.

That's what I have already pointed out

He also always accuses the judge of misdirecting the jury when he said "On the silencer alone you may find the defendant guilty" If he's guilty and never used it that is rather hilarious

[Jane]

No I am agreeing that it could be possible and the irony around the conviction would be very amusing if true

It has often been said here that his conviction may have been one of the greatest legal ironies to grace a courtroom.

[Adam]

well i think its pretty obvios that he dident use the silencer or he wouldent want to keep having tests done on it.

Well the silencer was destroyed in 1996. They probably ran out of blood to test. 

So he hasn't requested testing for 19 years. Focusing on other weak claims like Neville calling the police and Neville's burn marks.

Bamber tried to focus on the blood testing techniques and optimistically claim it was not Sheila's blood. But achieved nothing in refuting the court information.

[nugnug]

he wouldent want the tests done if he knew they would prove his guilt witch they would if he had used the silencer.

[Caroline]

he wouldent want the tests done if he knew they would prove his guilt witch they would if he had used the silencer.

But he he hadn't.