submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[lookout]

I don't think anyone was accurate with their times really.

[Mr. Gee]

You certainly don't remember me believing the phone call, what you remember is me 'making excuses' because I believed him to be innocent for other reason (namely the silencer evidence being fake). I tried to convince myself that the phone call happened but (and I have mentioned it many times), I ALWAYS had a problem with it. The difference between the silencer and the phone Grahame, is that Jeremy himself claimed it happened which means that if it didn't (and I don't believe it did), he's guilty of killing five people. If the silencer was faked it still doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent - it just means he didn't use a silencer.

What it means Caroline is that if the silencer evidence was faked there should be a retrial, as you will have to ask that if thee was sufficient evidence without the silencer evidence then why feel the need to fake it? So if the silencer evidence was faked there would have to be an inquiry and then charges brought against the perpetrators of this false evidence. This will also bring into the question the entire prosecution case and no doubt the possibility of other evidence being thrown out. It will again put you in the unhappy position of having to question everything else the prosecution had to say as it were they would ok'd the evidence in the first place. I propose that if the silencer evidence could be proved to be false then Bamber would be released immediately.

[Alias]

What it means Caroline is that if the silencer evidence was faked there should be a retrial, as you will have to ask that if thee was sufficient evidence without the silencer evidence then why feel the need to fake it? So if the silencer evidence was faked there would have to be an inquiry and then charges brought against the perpetrators of this false evidence. This will also bring into the question the entire prosecution case and no doubt the possibility of other evidence being thrown out. It will again put you in the unhappy position of having to question everything else the prosecution had to say as it were they would ok'd the evidence in the first place. I propose that if the silencer evidence could be proved to be false then Bamber would be released immediately.

Exactly.

[lookout]

 I too am of the same view,even if I'd been on the side of guilty,that in all fairness due to the sloppy work that was EP,a re-trial should be in order. Guilty or not,under these circumstances nobody would/should argue.

[Caroline]

What it means Caroline is that if the silencer evidence was faked there should be a retrial, as you will have to ask that if thee was sufficient evidence without the silencer evidence then why feel the need to fake it? So if the silencer evidence was faked there would have to be an inquiry and then charges brought against the perpetrators of this false evidence. This will also bring into the question the entire prosecution case and no doubt the possibility of other evidence being thrown out. It will again put you in the unhappy position of having to question everything else the prosecution had to say as it were they would ok'd the evidence in the first place. I propose that if the silencer evidence could be proved to be false then Bamber would be released immediately.

Sorry Grahame, not sure why you're telling me this, I have already said (many times) that I think there should be a retrial. I know  what the implications of faking it are but in order to bring such a case, you would have to prove it. 30 years after the event, it's almost an impossibility.  However, even if it could be proven, it still doesn't PROVE Jeremy is innocent and until someone can do that, I would NOT want the possible killer of five people to walk free - would you?

[Mr. Gee]

Sorry Grahame, not sure why you're telling me this, I have already said (many times) that I think there should be a retrial. I know  what the implications of faking it are but in order to bring such a case, you would have to prove it. 30 years after the event, it's almost an impossibility.  However, even if it could be proven, it still doesn't PROVE Jeremy is innocent and until someone can do that, I would NOT want the possible killer of five people to walk free - would you?

No I wouldn't want to see a killer walk free. Neither would I want someone to lie in order to convict someone just because they think they are guilty.

[Jane]

No I wouldn't want to see a killer walk free. Neither would I want someone to lie in order to convict someone just because they think they are guilty.

Would you consider releasing a guilty person on the grounds that lies had been told in order to convict them?

[lookout]

 There must be loads of killers on the loose because of poor detecting skills,or half-wits who feel that 15 years max is enough time spent in prison for a killer. It's no wonder those who are released go on to murder again.I wonder how many times this happens ? There are those we read about,but for every one of those there'll be more that we don't hear/read about.

It's because of past mistakes/MOJ's made by the police that we don't have the death penalty,of which I'm a firm believer in. Why not ? Isn't it barbaric to kill another human being,be it an adult,or worst of all a child ( including child rape ) ? I put monsters like this in the same category as a mad dog,and have no feelings for the destruction of either. Killers aren't human. To " kill " someone by administering a lethal injection is ridding the country of those who have no place in the human race and therefore,like rubbish,would never be missed,nor would the public have to pay taxes toward keeping these monsters.
We're ALL encouraging and contributing towards these murderers by keeping them alive,and they know that they'll be looked after,unlike the poverty-stricken families in this country who are lucky to see 3 meals a week,let alone 3 a day. I get so incensed by this screwed-up system of ours.

[Jane]

There must be loads of killers on the loose because of poor detecting skills,or half-wits who feel that 15 years max is enough time spent in prison for a killer. It's no wonder those who are released go on to murder again.I wonder how many times this happens ? There are those we read about,but for every one of those there'll be more that we don't hear/read about.

It's because of past mistakes/MOJ's made by the police that we don't have the death penalty,of which I'm a firm believer in. Why not ? Isn't it barbaric to kill another human being,be it an adult,or worst of all a child ( including child rape ) ? I put monsters like this in the same category as a mad dog,and have no feelings for the destruction of either. Killers aren't human. To " kill " someone by administering a lethal injection is ridding the country of those who have no place in the human race and therefore,like rubbish,would never be missed,nor would the public have to pay taxes toward keeping these monsters.
We're ALL encouraging and contributing towards these murderers by keeping them alive,and they know that they'll be looked after,unlike the poverty-stricken families in this country who are lucky to see 3 meals a week,let alone 3 a day. I get so incensed by this screwed-up system of ours.

It's just as well for Jeremy, then, that we don't still have a death sentence.

[lookout]

It's just as well for Jeremy, then, that we don't still have a death sentence.

If I'd have had no interest in the case,it wouldn't have mattered to me.

[Jane]

If I'd have had no interest in the case,it wouldn't have mattered to me.

I'm sure I must have it wrong, but it SOUNDS as if you're saying that despite that you believe Jeremy is innocent, if you'd had no interest in  the case, it wouldn't have mattered to you that an innocent man had been put to death for a crime you didn't believe he'd committed.

[lookout]

It's just as well for Jeremy, then, that we don't still have a death sentence.

During my early teens,hanging was still in place and for those which were broadcast/publicised I just took it that it was the thing to do,and never gave a thought that it could/would be the wrong person in the gallows. It was a part of life where you saw people getting their just desserts for a crime they'd committed,unlike today.

[Jan]

Would you consider releasing a guilty person on the grounds that lies had been told in order to convict them?

I don't think that would necessarily be the outcome  - but I think they would deserve a re-trial at least. If the verdict was still guilty without the lies - then it would not happen anyway.

[lookout]

I'm sure I must have it wrong, but it SOUNDS as if you're saying that despite that you believe Jeremy is innocent, if you'd had no interest in  the case, it wouldn't have mattered to you that an innocent man had been put to death for a crime you didn't believe he'd committed.

That's what I said,yes. Because I've actually taken the trouble to follow the case up on Jeremy is different to if I hadn't bothered,is what I'm saying.
If I hadn't have followed the case,and been as " involved " as I am,then as far as I'd be concerned if we'd still had hanging in-situ,it wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have been just another hanging.
I remember my dad talking about James Hanratty in the early 60's,and dad said,oh dear,they're wrong.I didn't know about the case,but I also remember mum who was adamant that he should hang,because everyone else had said so,that he'd committed murder.
However,donkeys years later I don't know how many years ago,he was proved innocent and duly posthumously pardoned.

Sad,and a shock for the families,but he'd already been charged and went through all the channels of being found guilty,etc,the same as Jeremy,and if I didn't know any different now,and thought that Jeremy was the murderer,would his loss have affected anyone ? The answer is no,because people put their faith in the law.

[Alias]

That's what I said,yes. Because I've actually taken the trouble to follow the case up on Jeremy is different to if I hadn't bothered,is what I'm saying.
If I hadn't have followed the case,and been as " involved " as I am,then as far as I'd be concerned if we'd still had hanging in-situ,it wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have been just another hanging.
I remember my dad talking about James Hanratty in the early 60's,and dad said,oh dear,they're wrong.I didn't know about the case,but I also remember mum who was adamant that he should hang,because everyone else had said so,that he'd committed murder.
However,donkeys years later I don't know how many years ago,he was proved innocent and duly posthumously pardoned.

Sad,and a shock for the families,but he'd already been charged and went through all the channels of being found guilty,etc,the same as Jeremy,and if I didn't know any different now,and thought that Jeremy was the murderer,would his loss have affected anyone ? The answer is no,because people put their faith in the law.

Lookout, it is hard for me to understand that you can be in favour of the death penalty when in the same breath you talk about someone who was wrongly executed. That is serious SHIT!!! Murder actually.