What Makes Supporters Believe Jeremy is Innocent?

[Patti]

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 think a lot of people on here are quite happy to discuss the case in general whether they support Jeremy or not.

If there were any evidence Mat to support that Jeremy was innocent I doubt very much it would come from this forum for we are not privy to all the documents of this case.  Plus, we are not experts we are people discussing a case and have the right to do so whether we support Jeremy or not.

I think at times that you might ignore some of the evidence that has unfolded because your belief is Jeremy is guilty.  I never see any debate from you other than critasium towards those that do support him.

[guest154]

I think at times that you might ignore some of the evidence that has unfolded because your belief is Jeremy is guilty.

Such as??? Present it and I will debate it. I think its become too easy to just say "you don't debate" at me as an insult - but I do debate when something is put forward that's new/different take on the case. But the same old discredited window/neville phonecall/ etc isn't something you can debate without repeating yourself every time it comes up and I hate to repeat myself.

[guest154]

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

If the next appeal goes awry you'll throw your hands up? What do you mean Lookout? Why would the next appeal (if there is one) failing change your mind - and not all the ones previously?

[Caroline]

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.

Can I just ask you Lookout - if the next submissions are rejected will you still support him?

[John]

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.

Mat is totally correct in what he posted, there is no evidence to support an innocent Jeremy regardless of all your bleatings on his behalf.  What I really don't understand is why you feel the need to persist with this charade when you are so obviously out of your depth and WRONG?

[Adam]

I've given Lookout several chances to change stance.

Offering her moral support and giving her the option of sending me a pre stance change PM. Both several months ago, and then when she failed to reach the 26th February 2015 deadline in explaining how Sheila committed the massacre.

[Caroline]

I've given Lookout several chances to change stance.

Offering her moral support and giving her the option of sending me a pre stance change PM. Both several months ago, and then when she failed to reach the 26th February 2015 deadline in explaining how Sheila committed the massacre.

I'm sure she'll be eternally grateful - if hell ever freezes over! 

[lookout]

If the next appeal goes awry you'll throw your hands up? What do you mean Lookout? Why would the next appeal (if there is one) failing change your mind - and not all the ones previously?

I actually didn't mean it like that,because he will be allowed an appeal and he will win this time round. What I meant was if the tiniest bit of FORENSIC evidence pointed his way,then I'd throw the towel in,and I'd be the FIRST to admit defeat,but other than that,I don't envisage any problems in the next submission.

[Patti]

Such as??? Present it and I will debate it. I think its become too easy to just say "you don't debate" at me as an insult - but I do debate when something is put forward that's new/different take on the case. But the same old discredited window/neville phonecall/ etc isn't something you can debate without repeating yourself every time it comes up and I hate to repeat myself.

OK What is your take on Draw-back in the silencer. What is your take on the possibility of the silencer being planted or not used in the shooting of Sheila? Fowler who is an gun expert has said in his opinion that the silencer was not used to shoot Sheila. So what is your take on that Mat?

[Adam]

I'm sure she'll be eternally grateful - if hell ever freezes over! 

It is very surprising that Lookout does not accept the police, relatives, experts, Julie, submitted evidence, the courts, appeal courts and CCRC in this case.

[Adam]

I actually didn't mean it like that,because he will be allowed an appeal and he will win this time round. What I meant was if the tiniest bit of FORENSIC evidence pointed his way,then I'd throw the towel in,and I'd be the FIRST to admit defeat,but other than that,I don't envisage any problems in the next submission.

There is a lot of forensic evidence against him. Which has been posted on here. You just ignore it and say there is none.

There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence. A motive, opportunity and no alibi.

[lookout]

Can I just ask you Lookout - if the next submissions are rejected will you still support him?

As I've just explained to Mat,IF the next submission should fail,and I've every confidence that it WON'T, then depending on whether there happens to be ANY forensic evidence,then yes,I'll continue to support him. As proven forensic evidence is a certainty in bagging a killer. Until then,just leave me be.

Why would/should the next submission fail ? I can't see it myself with the new evidence they've got.

[lookout]

Mat is totally correct in what he posted, there is no evidence to support an innocent Jeremy regardless of all your beatings on his behalf.  What I really don't understand is why you feel the need to persist with this charade when you are so obviously out of your depth and WRONG?

Just explain why I'm wrong. What's it got to do with you or anyone else what my view is.? Believe me,I'm NOT out of my depth at all. Who are you to judge ??

[Adam]

As I've just explained to Mat,IF the next submission should fail,and I've every confidence that it WON'T, then depending on whether there happens to be ANY forensic evidence,then yes,I'll continue to support him. As proven forensic evidence is a certainty in bagging a killer. Until then,just leave me be.

Why would/should the next submission fail ? I can't see it myself with the new evidence they've got.

What new evidence ?

[lookout]

I've given Lookout several chances to change stance.

Offering her moral support and giving her the option of sending me a pre stance change PM. Both several months ago, and then when she failed to reach the 26th February 2015 deadline in explaining how Sheila committed the massacre.

You know what you can do with your stance/changes.