The main prosecution forensic case

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio do you know the story of the Romeo killer Chris Porco or something he reminds me so much of Jeremy Bamber and he was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence and got 50 years or so. Same nature and popular like Jeremy.

That case had less evidence.  They did have a motive he forged his parent's signature for loans and was caught shortly before the murders.  They had a recanted claim by his mother that it was him as opposed to Julie's steadfast testimony.  The only other evidence was evidence a car just like his left his college campus the evening of the murders and returned early in the morning. Also that a car like his went through the toll booths coming and going.  They didn't have licence plate evidence it was his car.  His car was somewhat unusual but not one of a kind.

He pretended he didn't know about the murders as opposed to making up a phone call like Jeremy did.  he amazing thing to me is that even after what he did his mother ended up wanting to lie for him and get him released.

 

[lookout]

 No forensic evidence !

Not a bead of sweat, fibres,spit,nothing at all was detected on several pieces of rug/carpet that had been cut from various areas where the bodies were found. Nothing whatsoever to report. Not even Jeremy's blood on the Bible,or we'd have heard soon enough,though someones' blood was on that Bible---------but whose was it ? I've got my own thoughts on that,however.

[Caroline]

No forensic evidence !

Not a bead of sweat, fibres,spit,nothing at all was detected on several pieces of rug/carpet that had been cut from various areas where the bodies were found. Nothing whatsoever to report. Not even Jeremy's blood on the Bible,or we'd have heard soon enough,though someones' blood was on that Bible---------but whose was it ? I've got my own thoughts on that,however.

Why would Jeremy's blood be there? He didn't shoot himself! Fibres can only be matched to whatever he was wearing at the time and he's hardly likely to supply those clothes for testing - he had over a month to dispose of them.

[lookout]

Why would Jeremy's blood be there? He didn't shoot himself! Fibres can only be matched to whatever he was wearing at the time and he's hardly likely to supply those clothes for testing - he had over a month to dispose of them.

Didn't AP say that he saw cuts/scratches on Jeremy's hand.Or was it muck ?
Unless Jeremy had really old clothes I can't see him disposing of all his designer gear. Our friend JM would have definitely mentioned about destroying/throwing away clothes. JM didn't miss a trick,and wouldn't have done for the time they were together after he'd " murdered " his family.
How could she ??

Fibres can't be seen with the naked eye,nor can they be seen dropping from clothes. 

[Caroline]

Didn't AP say that he saw cuts/scratches on Jeremy's hand.Or was it muck ?
Unless Jeremy had really old clothes I can't see him disposing of all his designer gear. Our friend JM would have definitely mentioned about destroying/throwing away clothes. JM didn't miss a trick,and wouldn't have done for the time they were together after he'd " murdered " his family.
How could she ??

Fibres can't be seen with the naked eye,nor can they be seen dropping from clothes.

No, but that have to be MATCHED to something - I doubt anyone would turn up to murder someone wearing designer clothes Lookout and Jeremy didn't tell Julie everything - for obvious reasons!!

[lookout]

No, but that have to be MATCHED to something - I doubt anyone would turn up to murder someone wearing designer clothes Lookout and Jeremy didn't tell Julie everything - for obvious reasons!!

" For obvious reasons " is right.In case she got it wrong-----------which she did. The MM debacle.

[Caroline]

" For obvious reasons " is right.In case she got it wrong-----------which she did. The MM debacle.

In case she blabbed - which she did - but you have to ask why she would mention MM in the first place? Why him? Someone planted the thought 

[lookout]

In case she blabbed - which she did - but you have to ask why she would mention MM in the first place? Why him? Someone planted the thought 

One of Jeremy's jokes I suspect,which JM would not normally have taken seriously under normal circumstances,but she had to think of something to justify her presence at the police station,didn't she ?

[Mr. Gee]

In case she blabbed - which she did - but you have to ask why she would mention MM in the first place? Why him? Someone planted the thought 

So Bamber told her his plans in case she blabbed. But she did anyway. Well that was smart of him wasn't it? It can't be just a simple lie on her part. So it must be Bamber who told her in the first place. Good bit of reasoning there.

[Caroline]

So Bamber told her his plans in case she blabbed. But she did anyway. Well that was smart of him wasn't it? It can't be just a simple lie on her part. So it must be Bamber who told her in the first place. Good bit of reasoning there.

But those weren't his plans!! MM had nothing to do with it!! 

[Mr. Gee]

But those weren't his plans!! MM had nothing to do with it!! 

Precisely. You are doing exactly as I said guilters do. Mugford stated falsely that MM was the hitman, but instead of sying she lied you say that it must have been Bamber who told her. Just a bit of false reasoning there just so your belief in his guilty holds up. He wasn't the one who implicated MM it was Mugford. You need rather to see it for the lie it was.

[Caroline]

Precisely. You are doing exactly as I said guilters do. Mugford stated falsely that MM was the hitman, but instead of sying she lied you say that it must have been Bamber who told her. Just a bit of false reasoning there just so your belief in his guilty holds up. He wasn't the one who implicated MM it was Mugford. You need rather to see it for the lie it was.

And you are doing the same! I don't NEED to see something just because it's the way YOU see it. I have my own opinion. I'm not telling YOU how you NEED to see things. I'm not interested in what you think enough to the point where I would try and influence you opinion.

[scipio_usmc]

Precisely. You are doing exactly as I said guilters do. Mugford stated falsely that MM was the hitman, but instead of sying she lied you say that it must have been Bamber who told her. Just a bit of false reasoning there just so your belief in his guilty holds up. He wasn't the one who implicated MM it was Mugford. You need rather to see it for the lie it was.

Julie stated that Jeremy is the one who told her MM did it.  There is no speculation from guilters.  One of the things objective people do when evaluating claims is to look at whether someone has a reason to make up a claim. There is no evidence she wanted to frame Jeremy but even if Julie had wanted to frame Jeremy she had no reason to make up a claim about MM being involved.  If Jeremy had an alibi and she wanted to frame him then in that case she would have a reason to make a hitman confession. But he didn't have an alibi so there was no need.  Furthermore, if she were going to make up a hitman story to frame him then she would not want to actually name a hitman because that person could provide an alibi and ruin the whole thing.  It would be far better to say he never identified the hitman. 

Innocenters such as yourself refuse to do any objective analysis and just decided you want to believe Jeremy is innocent so that forced you to argue Julie is a lair and you do so without any objective look at her accounts and despite having no evidence to establish she lied.  Various evidence corroborates Julie's claims that Jeremy admitted to her that he was responsible including calling her before calling police which should send red flags to anyone objective and worse the forensic evidence that establishes Sheila didn't do it and thus that someone who fled the scene murdered them.  But you ignore that evidence as well and suggest the whole case was the most vast frameup in UK history.

[Adam]

Julie stated that Jeremy is the one who told her MM did it.  There is no speculation from guilters.  One of the things objective people do when evaluating claims is to look at whether someone has a reason to make up a claim. There is no evidence she wanted to frame Jeremy but even if Julie had wanted to frame Jeremy she had no reason to make up a claim about MM being involved.  If Jeremy had an alibi and she wanted to frame him then in that case she would have a reason to make a hitman confession. But he didn't have an alibi so there was no need.  Furthermore, if she were going to make up a hitman story to frame him then she would not want to actually name a hitman because that person could provide an alibi and ruin the whole thing.  It would be far better to say he never identified the hitman. 

Innocenters such as yourself refuse to do any objective analysis and just decided you want to believe Jeremy is innocent so that forced you to argue Julie is a lair and you do so without any objective look at her accounts and despite having no evidence to establish she lied.  Various evidence corroborates Julie's claims that Jeremy admitted to her that he was responsible including calling her before calling police which should send red flags to anyone objective and worse the forensic evidence that establishes Sheila didn't do it and thus that someone who fled the scene murdered them.  But you ignore that evidence as well and suggest the whole case was the most vast frameup in UK history.

That's a good point.

Jeremy had no cast iron alibi. So Julie could have just said 'Jeremy said he did it'.

Why bring MM into it if he would have an alibi ? Jeremy gave himself a proxy to stop Julie thinking he was complete monster. Hoping to keep Julie onside.

[Mr. Gee]

That's a good point.

Jeremy had no cast iron alibi. So Julie could have just said 'Jeremy said he did it'.

Why bring MM into it if he would have an alibi ? Jeremy gave himself a proxy to stop Julie thinking he was complete monster. Hoping to keep Julie onside.

All I have seen in scipio's post is an over willingness to believe a liar. There is no good point. How can I help it if people want to believe the lies of a jilted lover? Also an innocent man needs no alibi as you put it. Alibis are for crooks and murderers.