Facts

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5358.msg238056.html#msg238056

[Jan]

There is a thread on why he protests his innocence.

Lots of reasons. Extra recent reasons from the recent video being he is a psychopath.

And they are all assumption and bluff - there is no substance to any of them - only one person knows the truth about that subject - and it is not you.

[scipio_usmc]

Scip i have read the appeal etc etc. Im left feeling 50 50 now.

Can anyone tell me why he has been claiming innocence for 30 years . Please dont anyone say because hes a physopath.

How does a human being spend 30 years doing that! Why doesnt he just get on with whatever life he has inside if hes guikty.

it does NOT make sense

You are asking us to get inside the head of criminals.  Why are some people willing to admit their errors while others are not?  Why are some caught lying willing to admit they lied while others refuse to admit it and still insist they are right despite evidence proving they lied?  There are a sizable number of people caught dead to rights who refuse to admit their guilt nonetheless.  In one case a guy who was convicted of murder insisted for more than a decade he was innocent.  He got implicated in a prison bomb plot and to avoid severe punishment for that crime he agreed to tell where he buried the body of a victim so that the parents could finally put her in a cemetery. 

Why did he refuse to admit his guilt for so long?  I doubt he did it in order to keep a trump card of where the body was buried to use later.  Indeed he could have admitted guilt and still saved that trump card to play at a later date.  He never admitted why he killed her. He never even explicitly admitted killing her he simply told where the body was thus giving away that he must have killed her.

We can look at possibilities of why Jeremy is acting as he is but there is no way to know for sure.

1) He could like the publicity and care about his image in history- trying to have a legacy by being known as someone who some feel was given a raw deal

2) He could like the attention he gets from supporters and is afraid if he tells the truth then no one will write to him anymore or pay any attention to him

3) He could have believed he actually stood a real chance of fooling the appeal courts and getting his conviction vacated

4) He could feel that since he will never get paroled he has nothing to lose in maintaining his innocence and keep hoping to find a way to fool the courts to get out and feel that even if it is unsuccessful the hope gives him something to do and something to live for.

5) He could be embarrassed by his actions (some criminals are proud and brag about their crimes while others do not) so no matter what doesn't want to admit to them

Maybe it is one or more of these maybe it is just his ego or something else. he only way to ever find out would be if he decided to explain his motivation.

Since there are so many people who never admit their guilt even though the evidence is overwhelming one can't look at such to assess whether they are innocent one needs to look at the evidence itself to judge.

[lebaleb]

One other possibility: He is innocent.

[nugnug]

yes theres also that as well.

[lookout]

One other possibility: He is innocent.

Of course he's innocent. Can you give me a list on what EP had him convicted on ?

[nugnug]

mind you hes never had any reall incentive to say he was anything elese im mean if he was guilty what good would admiting guilt do him.

mind you theres a diffrence bettween not admiting guilt and vigrously protesting your innocence wich he has done.

[guest154]

mind you hes never had any reall incentive to say he was anything elese im mean if he was guilty what good would admiting guilt do him.

Wouldn't do him any good.
People say he has been claiming innocence for 30 plus years & he wouldn't do this if he wasn't TRULY innocent... but he was sentenced in 1986 and given the whole life tariff in 1994. That's only  That's eight years in which he was appealling and had the first stab at it, which obviously failed. He wasn't going to admit his guilt in this time frame because he was having his first chance to appeal.

The truth is AFTER 1994 admitting his guilt would do absolutely NO good to Bamber because he was serving a whole life tarriff. So the only option is to win appeal.

[scipio_usmc]

One other possibility: He is innocent.

That's not possible the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.

[lookout]

What evidence of his guilt ? Have we seen any notes on the findings by EP ?

[scipio_usmc]

What evidence of his guilt ? Have we seen any notes on the findings by EP ?

The evidence that Sheila didn't load a gun, fire a gun, beat Neville, or kill herself but rather was murdered for starters. The evidence that Nevill would not have called Jeremy and could not have called Jeremy establishes he is the one who did it and framed Sheila.  This is confirmed by Julie's testimony that he planned their murders, framing Sheila and that he admitted to being responsible. There was a host of evidence regard various lies he told and things he did to further the frame job like lying about leaving out the gun and extra bullets.  All of this was used to establish his guilt.

[lookout]

Who said ? Sheila was brought up with guns.She'd have known how to load one from the age of 10 probably. As for firing a gun-------------a child of 10 and under can do that ( these are LAME excuses ) A person in charge of a weapon such as a rifle has the upper hand.A couple of shots to Neville would have put him out of action,but the real reason he didn't fight back was because he was confronted by a woman. Had it been Jeremy,then Neville would definitely have stood up to him,feeling less helpless man to man rather than having to face a woman,his own daughter. Then Jeremy would have shown signs of having had a clout or two.
Neville must have been in a quandary as to what would pan out when he phoned Jeremy. Which he DID.
There was NO planning of any murders. Psychotic episodes such as Sheila had,are unpredictable,and as it happened,she was very very sick.
If you believed everything that JM said,then there's nothing down for you, if you can't tell spin from the truth.

[lookout]

Frame Sheila ? Jeremy couldn't frame a picture !

[scipio_usmc]

Who said ? Sheila was brought up with guns.She'd have known how to load one from the age of 10 probably. As for firing a gun-------------a child of 10 and under can do that ( these are LAME excuses ) A person in charge of a weapon such as a rifle has the upper hand.A couple of shots to Neville would have put him out of action,but the real reason he didn't fight back was because he was confronted by a woman. Had it been Jeremy,then Neville would definitely have stood up to him,feeling less helpless man to man rather than having to face a woman,his own daughter. Then Jeremy would have shown signs of having had a clout or two.
Neville must have been in a quandary as to what would pan out when he phoned Jeremy. Which he DID.
There was NO planning of any murders. Psychotic episodes such as Sheila had,are unpredictable,and as it happened,she was very very sick.
If you believed everything that JM said,then there's nothing down for you, if you can't tell spin from the truth.

Nevill only owned shotguns as she was growing up. He purchased his first semi-auto at Jeremy's insistence in November 1984. Sheila didn't have any interest in the shotguns and had none int he rifle, she didn't want to know how to load it.

on top of her having no interest in guns and not knowing how to load and operate the Anschutz it is obvious she didn't load it, fired it or beat Nevill with it because there would have been evidence on her clothing and body had she done such.  The fact she was murdered and can't have killed herself makes it clear the others were murdered by the same person she was.  When everything combined is taken into account the case against Jeremy is too strong to overcome.

[lookout]

Like most of these type of killings, and where a mentally ill person is involved,it's the authorities who've let the people down badly.
One such case was on the news this morning where parents were separated/divorced,and where the father had full custody of the children. One of the children was allowed to stay with its mother for a weekend, and she burnt the place down with the little boy,and,including herself. The other children had stayed miles away with their father,who'd said that his little son should never have been allowed to stay with his mother. He's in tears still,poor man.