Facts

[Roch]

Well it has to be one or the other surely?

More likely both. Gives a new meaning to the term Joint Enterprise. If the truth comes to light, watch how each side will find a way to blame the other.

[Roch]

I don't believe the silencer evidence, that doesn't mean I believe the family were at the heart of that.

It was at the heart of what they wanted to achieve. It was a vehicle for the result they strove for. They provided it, after having also put immense pressure on ACC Simpson. If it's not a genuine exhibit, why should they be shielded or have excuses made for them?

[Stephanie]

More likely both. Gives a new meaning to the term Joint Enterprise. If the truth comes to light, watch how each side will find a way to blame the other.

Roch, Jeremy Bamber murdered 5 family members. Two of which were sleeping 6 year old boys. How can you continue to blame his relatives and the police? 

For 32 years he has denied his guilt and in the process conned many innocent people into supporting him. Why are you making allowances for Bamber and none for the police and his family? You appear to be in denial or possibly suffering congntive dissonance? Look back at some of my old posts on the SH case. I was still in denial after he confessed. Not in relation to his guilt but to his crimes. I was still making excuses for why he did what he did. That appears to be where you are at the moment.

[Stephanie]

It was at the heart of what they wanted to achieve. It was a vehicle for the result they strove for. They provided it, after having also put immense pressure on ACC Simpson. If it's not a genuine exhibit, why should they be shielded or have excuses made for them?

It is Jeremy Bamber who was responsible for the murders, not the relatives of police.

The frog in the SH case was not a genuine exhibit. It wasn't used to smash the window. The pole was. The pole was never even tested.

Who cares about the silencer if the right man is behind bars?

You cannot possibly know what they wanted to achieve, other than they knew he was guilty. They strove for justice. For him to lose his liberty for his unforgivable crimes.

[Stephanie]

It was at the heart of what they wanted to achieve. It was a vehicle for the result they strove for. They provided it, after having also put immense pressure on ACC Simpson. If it's not a genuine exhibit, why should they be shielded or have excuses made for them?

The relatives were more than likely terrified and doing all they could to help the police. Jeremy remained at large having just murdered their 5 family members. Why are you focusing on the exhibit? Why do you appear to need to get to the bottom of this more than Jeremy's guilt?

[Stephanie]

Police: Do you know how your father died?

Bamber: I had read in the papers that he was shot in the head

Police: Is that all you know about how your father died?

Bamber: I think the police or I think you in fact said he died in the kitchen in his armchair by the stove  but I've also noticed in the kitchen the broken light slip up I've read many different stories in the press so its difficult to know what's true

Police: I am asking you about your father you say you have read in the paper that he was shot 7 times, sorry in the head what else have you read in the papers, only about your father

Bamber: I've read a lot and can't and don't want to remember anything Apart from the broken lampshade

Police: How do you think your father died

Bamber: No comment

Police: Julie said that after the shooting you told her certain things before I go any further what is the significance of the broken Lamp shade you mentioned

Bamber: Jean mentioned it and I noticed it and it wasn't broken before my parents died How would he know if he left the house around 10pm? More importantly he has just been asked how he thinks his father died and refuses to answer instead is focused on an object/the broken shade

Police: I will ask you how you think it got broken

Bamber: Can't comment It's NO comment NOT can't comment - he's slipped up again - He's playing games, also referred to as dupers delight
Because there could be many reasons it got broken, may be naturally, accidentally by a stray bullet etc. I wouldn't mind a break

Police: Just a few seconds

Bamber: No I will finish now

He insists on a break at this point

"Given that individuals with strong psychopathic traits have no capacity for deep bonds, everyone is merely an object to be used in anyway they see fit. http://neuroinstincts.com/violent-psychopaths-and-crime/


The above example where Jeremy brings up the lamp shade after the police ask him how he thinks his father died, shows what he thinks of his father.

[lookout]

Don't you think it fair that folk make their OWN minds up about the case,instead of you spreading propaganda on every thread ? Because that's what it is----------propaganda. Unfounded.

[Stephanie]

Don't you think it fair that folk make their OWN minds up about the case,instead of you spreading propaganda on every thread ? Because that's what it is----------propaganda. Unfounded.

I am not misleading anyone Lookout. My posts are based on the evidence in this case and from my own experiences.

The propaganda is coming from Jeremy Bamber.

[Stephanie]

Don't you think it fair that folk make their OWN minds up about the case,instead of you spreading propaganda on every thread ? Because that's what it is----------propaganda. Unfounded.

It is your own posts that are unfounded! None of your posts are supported with evidence. I am unsure where your conclusions come from?

[lookout]

It is your own posts that are unfounded! None of your posts are supported with evidence. I am unsure where your conclusions come from?

Not from cutting and pasting that's for sure.

Wouldn't you rather wait until the legal people working in the background,have reached their decision first before plastering everywhere with your " oh so sure " verdict of guilty ? Unless of course you claim to be more knowledgeable than they ? Then of course,if you think that,then that's another problem in itself.

[Caroline]

Not from cutting and pasting that's for sure.

Wouldn't you rather wait until the legal people working in the background,have reached their decision first before plastering everywhere with your " oh so sure " verdict of guilty ? Unless of course you claim to be more knowledgeable than they ? Then of course,if you think that,then that's another problem in itself.

Why don't you wait?

[Adam]

It is your own posts that are unfounded! None of your posts are supported with evidence. I am unsure where your conclusions come from?

Lookout will be the first to admit she does more harm than good for Bamber on the forum.

What did you think of Bamber asking Mike to close down the forum ?

[lookout]

Why don't you wait?

I am waiting------patiently too.

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,385.0.html

[Stephanie]

Lookout will be the first to admit she does more harm than good for Bamber on the forum.

What did you think of Bamber asking Mike to close down the forum ?

Good questions Adam!

I was accused of doing more harm than good regarding SH's case in early 2013. I made the mistake of attempting to defend SH, not seeing what was staring me in the face. His guilt. 

SH also asked me to close down the website. I think it was Mat that picked up on this way back when.

With hindsight, SH's guilt was again being exposed and his flaws were being pointed out by others. He turned this on others, or me, never once accepting any responsibility. It was always someone else's fault.