submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[John]

Where is this " mountain of evidence " that you keep on about ?

BTW,it's slightly more that just a gut-feeling that I have.

That's exactly the question Jeremy Bamber has been asking and he knows he did it.

ETA.  Offer up a single fact which points to his innocence if you can?

[Patti]

So let's see, you ignore the mountain of evidence which implicates Jeremy Bamber in the murders, you subscribe to the, 'Jeremy's innocent' mantra, based on nothing more than a gut feeling and still you expect to be taken seriously?

Should someone be ashamed of their beliefs John or is it their right to have beliefs? I doubt Lookout would support a child murderer, I doubt anyone would in their right mind.

Its the points of law and the way the case was handled from the onset which causes some people to remain unsure that it was a sound conviction and have doubts..There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Just because someone has been convicted it does not necessarily mean they are guilty in the eyes of those that do not believe the conviction is sound.  If everyone had the same opinion, then those that were innocent at the time of conviction would never stand a chance or that conviction being overturned.

I do agree that Jeremy is a convicted killer in the eyes of the law, but when there are doubts, surely people have the right to say so without being ridiculed. 

[lookout]

That's exactly the question Jeremy Bamber has been asking and he knows he did it.

ETA.  Offer up a single fact which points to his innocence if you can?

Never mind about choosing the easy way out.I asked you for this mountain of evidence,not Jeremy.
When you can furnish me with the evidence,then I'll tell you why he's innocent.

[guest154]

What is the largest ocean in the world? 

Naughty! Hilarious, but naughty! 

Never mind about choosing the easy way out.I asked you for this mountain of evidence,not Jeremy.
When you can furnish me with the evidence,then I'll tell you why he's innocent.

The evidence can be found on this board, Lookout. In the COA documents in the CCRC's rejections. Just because it isn't YOU agree with doesn't mean it's not evidence.

[scipio_usmc]

Should someone be ashamed of their beliefs John or is it their right to have beliefs? I doubt Lookout would support a child murderer, I doubt anyone would in their right mind.

Its the points of law and the way the case was handled from the onset which causes some people to remain unsure that it was a sound conviction and have doubts..There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Just because someone has been convicted it does not necessarily mean they are guilty in the eyes of those that do not believe the conviction is sound.  If everyone had the same opinion, then those that were innocent at the time of conviction would never stand a chance or that conviction being overturned.

I do agree that Jeremy is a convicted killer in the eyes of the law, but when there are doubts, surely people have the right to say so without being ridiculed. 

The problem is that most Jeremy supporters can't raise any reasonable doubts.  Mike makes up nonsense and lookout demonstrates day in and out she is wildly ignorant of the facts of the case.  She constantly posts made up things from people as being facts.  Worst of all though, she always claims there was no evidence against Jeremy, and when the evidence is recounted to her in great detail she doesn't refute any of it she just responds saying it doesn't amount to evidence in her eyes. 

That doesn't  amount to debating the case it amounts to her living in denial and propagandizing in favor of Jeremy merely. When pushed to shove Lookout says that Jeremy is innocent because Jeremy is a great guy who would never do such a hideous thing as to kill his family.  That's her argument at its core.

If people want to be Jeremy advocates more power to them but when they decide to take on that responsibility it would be nice if they would be effective ones who could articulate rational cogent reasons for believing he is innocent and try to effectively challenge the case made against Jeremy instead of ineffective ones who just post made up claims, red herrings and instead of trying to refute the evidence simply deny the evidence exists or denies it proves anything. 
 

 

[Caroline]

Never mind about choosing the easy way out.I asked you for this mountain of evidence,not Jeremy.
When you can furnish me with the evidence,then I'll tell you why he's innocent.

The evidence that proves Sheila wasn't responsible shows points to Jeremy as the only other suspect because of the phone call. Jeremy put himself in the frame by inventing the phone call. People can ask why he would invent the call, why didn't he just say nothing? The answer is obvious;because he wanted the police to believe he was tucked up in bed when it all kicked off and if he was home, he couldn't have been at WHF killing his family. He simply didn't think it through or realise that if there was suspicion, the phone call put him in the frame.

[Patti]

Naughty! Hilarious, but naughty! 




The evidence can be found on this board, Lookout. In the COA documents in the CCRC's rejections. Just because it isn't YOU agree with doesn't mean it's not evidence.

What evidence would that be Mat? Where is the evidence that places him at the crime scene? Where are his fingerprints in the bedrooms? Where are his fingerprints on the windows? Where are the witnesses? Where are the fibers/hairs? Where is his fingerprints on the silencer? Show me that he was there!

People keep asking Lookout for proof of evidence when clearly there is none. Not one piece of forensic evidence which places him at the crimes scene.

The evidence that convicted him was the statement from a rejected girlfriend who lifted her dress showing her knickers for the News of the World on the day of his conviction, earning herself 25,0000.

Oh and the blood inside a silencer....a silencer that was not found by the police, which was removed from the crime scene, handled, placed into a bag, then handed over to Jones who sat most of the night drinking whisky with the family.  The silencer was then taken to the police station where it was once again looked at handled before it went to the lab....Is it possible it was contaminated, yes beyond a doubt...any cough, sneeze or anyone handling that silencer could have contaminated it.

From the onset he was guilty, by those who thought he was. The invention that he rode a bike in a wet suit, without flippers is extraordinarily bizarre.  "Why was he not killed himself" another bizarre comment.
Sheila did not know how to use a rifle...is pure poppycock!  Colin himself said she would never allow the children to play with toy guns, yet there was toy gun in the living room...I suppose that belonged to one of the farm workers......Just sayin!!

[Caroline]

What evidence would that be Mat? Where is the evidence that places him at the crime scene? Where are his fingerprints in the bedrooms? Where are his fingerprints on the windows? Where are the witnesses? Where are the fibers/hairs? Where is his fingerprints on the silencer? Show me that he was there!

People keep asking Lookout for proof of evidence when clearly there is none. Not one piece of forensic evidence which places him at the crimes scene.

The evidence that convicted him was the statement from a rejected girlfriend who lifted her dress showing her knickers for the News of the World on the day of his conviction, earning herself 25,0000.

Oh and the blood inside a silencer....a silencer that was not found by the police, which was removed from the crime scene, handled, placed into a bag, then handed over to Jones who sat most of the night drinking whisky with the family.  The silencer was then taken to the police station where it was once again looked at handled before it went to the lab....Is it possible it was contaminated, yes beyond a doubt...any cough, sneeze or anyone handling that silencer could have contaminated it.

From the onset he was guilty, by those who thought he was. The invention that he rode a bike in a wet suit, without flippers is extraordinarily bizarre.  "Why was he not killed himself" another bizarre comment.
Sheila did not know how to use a rifle...is pure poppycock!  Colin himself said she would never allow the children to play with toy guns, yet there was toy gun in the living room...I suppose that belonged to one of the farm workers......Just sayin!!

It's the evidence that shows Sheila didn't do it that goes against him - because of the phone call.

[Patti]

It's the evidence that shows Sheila didn't do it that goes against him - because of the phone call.

Rubbish! Utter rubbish and here is me thinking that you of all people would be the last person to say that.

You nor me cannot prove a call was made or not. 

[guest154]

What evidence would that be Mat? Where is the evidence that places him at the crime scene? Where are his fingerprints in the bedrooms? Where are his fingerprints on the windows? Where are the witnesses? Where are the fibers/hairs? Where is his fingerprints on the silencer? Show me that he was there!

You're asking me what evidence convicted Bamber? Don't you know? No matter what side of the fence you're on  it's clear what led to the conviction.
If his fingerprints were there - then you would just say of course they were there, he spent time there. He was there the night of the murders, it was his family home.
Again, the silencer.... YOU may not believe it. But so what? You may not believe Julie's testimony but so what? It's there, it was admissable in court. You can disagree with it but it doesn't change anything. Not believing the evidence, isn't evidence.

You can say that it is bizzare for people to mention bikes and wetsuit theories but I think it's perfectly normal for relatives to have theories of what happened and how it could of happened, I don't find that bizzare.

Rubbish! Utter rubbish and here is me thinking that you of all people would be the last person to say that.

You nor me cannot prove a call was made or not. 

How is it rubbish?  If Sheila didn't do it - then the phone call implicates only Jeremy.

[guest2181]

Rubbish! Utter rubbish and here is me thinking that you of all people would be the last person to say that.

You nor me cannot prove a call was made or not. 

I think, what Caroline means, is that there were only two people who could ever possibly have been in the frame, this is due to the phone call Jeremy claims he received.

Therefore anything which indicates that Sheila was not responsible,  equally indicates that Jeremy was.

This was the courts perspective also.

[lookout]

Phone-call or not,wouldn't amount to the most important evidence. When Jeremy could no longer contact his father and if there'd been an engaged tone,he'd naturally have assumed that his father was contacting the police,which you would assume. Was it an engaged tone,or was it a drawn-out tone/signal which would indicate a handset having been left off its cradle ?
If it was an engaged tone which Jeremy had asserted,then it meant that someone was using the phone.

So Jeremy was jailed on his assumption that his father had rang the police ? Without other evidence,it's Jeremy's word against the prosecution.
 Though it was a foregone conclusion over the " blood in the silencer debacle " that the judge had brainwashed everyone into saying it was Sheila's,so what chance Jeremy anyway ? May as well add a few more probably's and maybe's to the collection.

[Patti]

I think, what Caroline means, is that there were only two people who could ever possibly have been in the frame, this is due to the phone call Jeremy claims he received.

Therefore anything which indicates that Sheila was not responsible,  equally indicates that Jeremy was.

This was the courts perspective also.

Incorrect Hartley for Caroline said that Jeremy put himself in the frame by inventing a phone call. A phone that cannot be proved either way.

[Adam]

I don't believe anyone believes Neville called Jeremy. There are 40 reasons not to -

Jeremy may not answer. Regardless of whether he heard the phone ringing or not.

Neville may not have time. Sheila was going crazy. There were five people inside WHF who were the priority.

He may not answer for a long time as was 'sleeping like a log'.

Neville may only get the answering machine.

Neville will assume the answering machine is switched on. Making it impossible for Jeremy to answer the phone within 3 - 8 rings as he was 'sleeping like a log'.

Jeremy did not like Sheila or understand her illness.  So would just make things worse when trying to talk her down.

Sheila did not like Jeremy.

Another adult, June was available at WHF.

The rifle was not powerful, being used for vermin. Neville would know this. So Neville would tackle Sheila prior to shots being fired.

Sheila had 'limited'/ no experience with guns. So Neville would tackle Sheila prior to shots being fired.

Neville could restrain Sheila easily. If fully or even partially fit.

Neville and June together could restrain Sheila easily. If fully or even partially fit.

Jeremy was three miles away and not dressed. 

The police had been called by Neville ten minutes earlier.

Neville would be putting his only son in danger.

Jeremy may be scared to go over. He told Liz Rimmington that Sheila was going 'back to the nut house' and told the police she had committed child abuse. Now Neville had told him she had 'gone crazy' with a gun.

Jeremy did not have a key to WHF so would have to smash the door down, or smash a window. Or shout through the letter box. Making Sheila more excitable.  Neville may not have been aware that Jeremy could get in through windows.

Sheila would not be pleased to see him.

Jeremy would be reluctant to rush over if answering the phone. Having poor relations with all the family.

Jeremy may refuse to go over. Being tired and upset at being woken.Lookout said it was common for Sheila to have 'one of her turns' so he may have decided to go back to bed.

Jeremy may not rush over. Maybe wasting up to 26 minutes doing strange things.

Jeremy may just ring nearby farm workers and tell them to go over. Something Neville could do himself and may consider a better option.

Jeremy may just ring the Foakes's and tell them to go over. Something Neville could do and may consider a better option. 

Neville calling someone would antagonise Sheila. She may even brutally beat someone.

Neville could call the Foakes's. Who were two adults living at WHF.

There was no time to make any calls if Sheila had 'gone' crazy with a gun. 

When there was time to make a call Neville had the option of restraining Sheila. Getting June to assist.

There was no time to wait for someone to arrive. Sheila had 'gone 'crazy'.

Relations between the two were poor and getting worse.   After Jeremy robbed the caravan site and spent the money.

Neville would be prepared to take a torso bullet in order to restrain Sheila. Knowing the gun was for shooting vermin/rabbits and a torso shot would not kill him.

The kitchen phone was downstairs. Meaning everyone would be left upstairs. Unless Sheila had accompanied him downstairs.

If the answering machine was switched off, as his supporters claim. Jeremy would not hear his downstairs phone. If his bedroom door was shut.

Neville was bigger and stronger than Jeremy and the head of the family.

Sheila would have to let Neville open the door when Jeremy arrives. Or Neville would have to put himself in danger by getting to the front door against Sheila's wishes.

Sheila is more likely to fire bullets if more people start pressurising her and arriving on the scene.

Neville would be aware that he was the person who always had most success in calming down an excited Sheila. If he couldn't, then someone who thought Sheila was a 'looney' certainly could not.

Jeremy was not known to be especially brave. So may refuse to go anywhere near the inside of WHF. Preferring to stay 50 yards from the entrance.  This is what happened.

Neville would be implicating his son if there were any injuries or fatalities. As Jeremy would be first on the scene and first witness. This is what happened.

Jeremy was not known for being especially brave. So may have just phoned the police. Neville had either already done this. Or wanted to keep things private. Jeremy did in fact call the police.

It is not standard practice to call relations on the phone at 3am when you're life is in danger. There are no other examples of this happening.

[Caroline]

Rubbish! Utter rubbish and here is me thinking that you of all people would be the last person to say that.

You nor me cannot prove a call was made or not. 

Actually Patti your comment is rubbish! I don't need to prove YOU wrong, Jeremy needs to PROVE it happened. If he can do that, he'll be a free man. You might think it's rubbish but it happens to be a fact! You can discuss windows and bullet sizes all you like - but that won't turn any keys!!