What Makes Supporters Believe Jeremy is Innocent?

[Alias]

Everyone must learn to close issues.

I had an open mind about the rumoured lockable from outside window. However after further investigation I found 15 sources that it could be locked from outside.

My mind is now closed on this issue.

Good. Now we just need you to close your gob.

[susan]

Hahaha Alias you have a wonderful way with words

[lookout]

 

[susan]

nugnug I think most posters who think Jeremy is guilty feel the evidence that convicted him was suspect.

[Caroline]

nugnug I think most posters who think Jeremy is guilty feel the evidence that convicted him was suspect.

Well, I think some of the evidence is suspect but I still think he's guilty so that's only one aspect.

[susan]

Caroline I agree with you I for one am not comfortable with the silencer and JM's evidence does not ring true to me.

[David1819]

Well, I think some of the evidence is suspect but I still think he's guilty so that's only one aspect.

Do you believe its safe to convict him on that evidence?

[Caroline]

Do you believe its safe to convict him on that evidence?

This is difficult for me to answer - but I have to give an honest answer so; because I think he's guilty, I think he deserves to be where he is. However, I think without the silencer evidence, he wouldn't have been convicted. If it 'could' ever be proven that the silencer was planted (and I don't see how it could ever be proven), I think he should have a re-trial.

It's difficult not to be biased when answering that question 

[scipio_usmc]

This is difficult for me to answer - but I have to give an honest answer so; because I think he's guilty, I think he deserves to be where he is. However, I think without the silencer evidence, he wouldn't have been convicted. If it 'could' ever be proven that the silencer was planted (and I don't see how it could ever be proven), I think he should have a re-trial.

It's difficult not to be biased when answering that question 

If there were credible evidence to establish the evidence in the moderator was planted he would have his conviction vacated and they would have to choose whether they want to retry him or not. Usually when evidence is faked they don't bother retrying a case even when they have decent evidence without it because the planting of evidence is used to question the integrity of everyone involved and many juries are unable to be objective and will simply paint everyone with the same brushstroke.   

[Adam]

There is a thread -'Was there enough evidence without the silencer'

But the situation now is it was part of the evidence that convicted him. So if one of the lab technicians said they were instructed to expertly put Sheila's blood in the silencer, he would be freed.

Jeremy focused on the silencer quite late, in the early 90's. Trying to question the blood and testing methods. While blaming his cousins.  Without success. The fact that it is human blood is damning enough.

[Caroline]

If there were credible evidence to establish the evidence in the moderator was planted he would have his conviction vacated and they would have to choose whether they want to retry him or not. Usually when evidence is faked they don't bother retrying a case even when they have decent evidence without it because the planting of evidence is used to question the integrity of everyone involved and many juries are unable to be objective and will simply paint everyone with the same brushstroke.

I doubt they will ever now be able to prove the silencer was faked - but just as I feel the phone call was fabricated, so too, do I think the silencer was planted. I don't think Jeremy will ever succeed with an appeal but IF he does, I would rather he had a retrial (given what we know so far).

[scipio_usmc]

I doubt they will ever now be able to prove the silencer was faked - but just as I feel the phone call was fabricated, so too, do I think the silencer was planted. I don't think Jeremy will ever succeed with an appeal but IF he does, I would rather he had a retrial (given what we know so far).

Unless someone comes forward claiming they planted the blood or saw someone else do it then there is no hope of Jeremy getting out. 

Most who think Jeremy is guilty trust the evidence, as I do, that is why we think he is guilty so I don't think it was planted let alone there is any hope of someone admitting it was.

 

[Caroline]

Unless someone comes forward claiming they planted the blood or saw someone else do it then there is no hope of Jeremy getting out. 

Most who think Jeremy is guilty trust the evidence, as I do, that is why we think he is guilty so I don't think it was planted let alone there is any hope of someone admitting it was.

I agree - no one will and it can't be proven but I will always argue that they planted the silencer because they 'thought' didn't have enough evidence without it. Even with it Stan Jones was worried that they STILL didn't have enough.

[guest154]

Good idea for a thread, Caroline 
Honestly, when I saw this thread this morning I thought I would log on tonight and see debate. Debate from the staunch supporters as to why they continue to support Bamber. But no, 10 pages and there isn't one arguement presented as to why a CONVICTED child killer is getting this support. Other than they believe the police case against him was flawed, but NO evidence is put forward to show this.  It's just a belief, not based on anything they can present.

The best case put forward (which in itself is poor, flawed and baseless) is lack of forensice evidence on Bamber!! What about the LACK of forensic on Sheila? This is glaringly ignored.

In 2015 there is no reason to support Jeremy Bamber, he is clearly guilty. Staunch supporters still support but can not say why. I think a lot of it is about losing face, people don't want to admit they are wrong, people feel uncomfortable about supporting a child killer online for so long and don't want to admit this is something they have unwittingly done.

[lookout]

Good idea for a thread, Caroline 
Honestly, when I saw this thread this morning I thought I would log on tonight and see debate. Debate from the staunch supporters as to why they continue to support Bamber. But no, 10 pages and there isn't one arguement presented as to why a CONVICTED child killer is getting this support. Other than they believe the police case against him was flawed, but NO evidence is put forward to show this.  It's just a belief, not based on anything they can present.

The best case put forward (which in itself is poor, flawed and baseless) is lack of forensice evidence on Bamber!! What about the LACK of forensic on Sheila? This is glaringly ignored.

In 2015 there is no reason to support Jeremy Bamber, he is clearly guilty. Staunch supporters still support but can not say why. I think a lot of it is about losing face, people don't want to admit they are wrong, people feel uncomfortable about supporting a child killer online for so long and don't want to admit this is something they have unwittingly done.

I do NOT support child killers and as you know,I'm the only one who supports the death penalty for this kind of thing,or any crime against a child. If I wasn't 100% sure,then I wouldn't be supporting such a killer,but in this case,I know I'm right in saying that Jeremy didn't kill anyone,least of all the children------------not even the dog !
You MUST have at least read my posts supporting Jeremy,but somehow choose not to mention anything,unless to " have a go ",with which you seem to have a penchant for when it comes to me.

Those who display cruelty against children and animals,are killers in my book,be it physically or psychologically,and Jeremy had never shown any such violence against animals nor children-----------but I know of one who did,and the child had the marks to show for it.

 It's not ME who's said that the police evidence was flawed,but others whose arguments are on the guilty side ( which I find strange ) I'd explained my views on this particular matter yesterday which I put down to a complete failure and ineptness on the side of the police to tackle what was,a bigger case than anticipated when it became 5 murders. Because of blunders made by them which they couldn't unravel,they bumbled along and made a bigger hash of it than first thought.
Even the big chief,Gradwell hadn't seen such a bungled investigation in his years of policing.He was the one who pinched his nose as a description of how he felt about the whole " charade ".

The trial,therefore,was unsafe because of bad policing,and a lot of people think this whether for or against.

How can you say he's " clearly guilty ".What concrete proof do you have to be 100% sure ?

Believe me,I'd be the FIRST to hold my hands up should the next "appeal " , go awry.