Accusing the relatives of framing him. A good idea ?

[Adam]

It is no secret that Bamber has claimed the relatives framed him.

For a casual observer this seems plausible. It has been known for people to attempt frame ups where huge amounts of money are involved. However on closer inspection it seems like a bad move.

The relatives had nothing to do with the massacre. Were wealthy and had no criminal record. They have always denied framing him, saying there was enough evidence anyway.

AE testified she had a good relationship with Bamber pre massacre, and was supportive directly after the massacre. But quickly became suspicious after hearing of Sheila reloading etc. However to expect several relatives to make a quick and unanimous decision to frame Bamber and commit a serious crime is preposterous.

It was also not possible for them to expertly plant the evidence into the silencer. 

It was Sheila's blood in the silencer. And not possible for her to shoot herself. Therefore Bamber had to claim either the police or the relatives of framing him. Choosing the relatives.

Do other people believe it was a good idea to accuse the relatives ?

[nugnug]

how were they wealthy they couldn't afford to buy there own land Nevile had to but it for them.

no criminal record well that really doesn't mean anything

[tyler]

Yes,he keeps repeating that the relatives were wealthy. Pamela and Robert Boutflour were tenants of Carbonnells Farm which was owned by Mabel Speakman. Although Pam owned shares in Osea caravan park,her husband Robert owned precisely nothing. Ann and Peter Eaton had a mortgage on their farmhouse but Ann did have shares in OCP also. And I believe David Boutflour owned nothing either,living in a house on Carbonnells Farm. So hardly wealthy?

[Adam]

Well Bamber's own Youtube video says the relatives were 'wealthy in their own right. And had no reason to lie.'

Before going on about land, accusing the relatives of framing him and giving him a life sentence. Just after his Mother, Father, Sister & two nephews had been massacred !

[Jane]

Adam, you appear to inject into many of your posts the words "they had no reason to lie". I would ask HOW you can be so certain. What YOU may see as being "no reason to lie" is YOUR reasoning, NOT theirs. Furthermore, HAVING "no reason to lie" has never previously prevented it from happening. Everyone has their own agenda. Perhaps you could take time out to consider the words you use before you make wild and incorrect judgement calls.

[Mr. Gee]

It is no secret that Bamber has claimed the relatives framed him.

For a casual observer this seems plausible. It has been known for people to attempt frame ups where huge amounts of money are involved. However on closer inspection it seems like a bad move.

The relatives had nothing to do with the massacre. Were wealthy and had no criminal record. They have always denied framing him, saying there was enough evidence anyway.

AE testified she had a good relationship with Bamber pre massacre, and was supportive directly after the massacre. But quickly became suspicious after hearing of Sheila reloading etc. However to expect several relatives to make a quick and unanimous decision to frame Bamber and commit a serious crime is preposterous.

It was also not possible for them to expertly plant the evidence into the silencer. 

It was Sheila's blood in the silencer. And not possible for her to shoot herself. Therefore Bamber had to claim either the police or the relatives of framing him. Choosing the relatives.

Do other people believe it was a good idea to accuse the relatives ?

You are missing one vital element here. Bamber's phone call from his father. If true and there is no reason for it not to be true then it points directly to the relatives. In fact if the phone call did take place then there is no question that he was framed.
Also there was no reason for Bamber to make up the call. There was no need to tell the police about the gun he left on the settle either. In fact the very reason he told the police these things is not the actions of a guilty man but an innocent one. All he had to do was go to bed and forget everything and no one would have suspected him at all.
As concerning the relatives, you only have the word of two of them that the silencer was found where they said it was found and I maintain  it did not take an expert to fake such evidence.

[Jane]

Something else for you to contemplate, Adam, is that Peter Eton, husband to Ann, was a dealer in guns. They were his business. As such I imagine that he knew ALL about silencers.

[Adam]

Adam, you appear to inject into many of your posts the words "they had no reason to lie". I would ask HOW you can be so certain. What YOU may see as being "no reason to lie" is YOUR reasoning, NOT theirs. Furthermore, HAVING "no reason to lie" has never previously prevented it from happening. Everyone has their own agenda. Perhaps you could take time out to consider the words you use before you make wild and incorrect judgement calls.

Bamber's own Youtube video said 'they had no reason to lie'. Not me.

[Jane]

Bamber's own Youtube video said 'they had no reason to lie'. Not me.

Perhaps we could ask for inverts in the same way you ask for quotes then we would know which words were yours.

[Jan]

Bamber's own Youtube video said 'they had no reason to lie'. Not me.

I think you may be quoting out of context .

[Adam]

Perhaps we could ask for inverts in the same way you ask for quotes then we would know which words were yours.

If you read properly you will see ' they had no reason to lie'.

[Jan]

It is no secret that Bamber has claimed the relatives framed him.

For a casual observer this seems plausible. It has been known for people to attempt frame ups where huge amounts of money are involved. However on closer inspection it seems like a bad move.

The relatives had nothing to do with the massacre. Were wealthy and had no criminal record. They have always denied framing him, saying there was enough evidence anyway.

AE testified she had a good relationship with Bamber pre massacre, and was supportive directly after the massacre. But quickly became suspicious after hearing of Sheila reloading etc. However to expect several relatives to make a quick and unanimous decision to frame Bamber and commit a serious crime is preposterous.

It was also not possible for them to expertly plant the evidence into the silencer. I am not saying they did - but that is just rubbish and you know it. It was perfectly possible.

It was Sheila's blood in the silencer. And not possible for her to shoot herself. Therefore Bamber had to claim either the police or the relatives of framing him. Choosing the relatives.

Do other people believe it was a good idea to accuse the relatives ?

[Adam]

I will find my thread post.

[Mr. Gee]

If you read properly you will see ' they had no reason to lie'.

Yes they did. They wanted Bamber convicted for murder.

[Adam]

For Jan. My thread post.

Stan Jones gave Ann Eaton the keys to WHF. This was to do some cleaning.

Ann Eaton and other relatives attended WHF. Finding a silencer hidden away in the gun cupboard. Basil Cock & Barbara Wilson were also present. The silencer had blood & paint on according to the relatives.

The silencer was handed to Stan Jones within two days. 

In court it was never suggested the silencer was contaminated or was unsafe evidence. Jeremy suggested this decades later. Claiming his surviving family framed him. The relatives did not do this for money. Jeremys own Youtube video said they were already rich with no reason to lie. They also had no criminal record as far as I know.

If the silencer did not have blood & paint on, the relatives, in two days had to -

1: Decide in unison to attempt to frame Jeremy. All be confident in each other that no one will crack under pressure. They all had to agree to commit a serious crime & risk criminal charges. Framing an innocent man.

2: Find out about back splatter.

3: Find out if any shots were contact shots which would produce back splatter.

4: Find out Sheila's, June's and Neville's blood type.

5: Find out if the rifle end had blood on it. Meaning a silencer was not used & they could not frame Jeremy.

6: Get blood which is very close to Sheila's, June's and Neville's. Assisting in getting a conviction. 

7: Find out how to effectivly & realistically put the correct blood into the silencer baffles.

8: Get the right equipment to transfer the found blood into the silencer.

9:  Go back to WHF and effectivly put paint onto the silencer.

10: None of them retract from their statements and attempt to frame Jeremy.

11: Find out if the rifle was too long for Sheila with the silencer on.

12: Find out if Sheila was able to move downstairs and put the     silencer away. After the first shot into her neck.