Facts

[Caroline]

Because ALL my posts would disappear if it was a staunch,guilty supporter.

I don't think so Lookout, it's not like they're crucial to getting him released! 

[Roch]

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?

They were terrified of their own perceived understanding, regarding the consequences of Jeremy inheriting. They are terrified of an appeal because of the information that has become disclosed since 2002. They are terrified of the prospect of losing assets, for example in a future civil action. They are terrified of having to answer questions at another appeal. When they say they are terrified of Jeremy Bamber - it's code for being terrified of all these other things.

As for the sound moderator / focussing on an exhibit etc. You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction?

[guest7363]

They were terrified of their own perceived understanding, regarding the consequences of Jeremy inheriting. They are terrified of an appeal because of the information that has become disclosed since 2002. They are terrified of the prospect of losing assets, for example in a future civil action. They are terrified of having to answer questions at another appeal. When they say they are terrified of Jeremy Bamber - it's code for being terrified of all these other things.

As for the sound moderator / focussing on an exhibit etc. You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction?

In fairness Roch, Steph is pointing out they were terrified at the time and not now. 

[JackiePreece]

They were terrified of their own perceived understanding, regarding the consequences of Jeremy inheriting. They are terrified of an appeal because of the information that has become disclosed since 2002. They are terrified of the prospect of losing assets, for example in a future civil action. They are terrified of having to answer questions at another appeal. When they say they are terrified of Jeremy Bamber - it's code for being terrified of all these other things.

As for the sound moderator / focussing on an exhibit etc. You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction?

The truth will always come out in the end.  You cannot expect to mislead a jury and get away with it for ever

[Roch]

In fairness Roch, Steph is pointing out they were terrified at the time and not now.

I saw your post before you edited it. 'Being terrified' is what they wheel out as a generic response. A bit like the generic response that EP wheel out, every time they have to officially respond to a question.

[guest7363]

I saw your post before you edited it. 'Being terrified' is what they wheel out as a generic response. A bit like the generic response that EP wheel out, every time they have to officially respond to a question.

Thanks Roch, I thought the edited part wasn't warranted, although I have met them a few times I could not be 100 per cent.

[Adam]

The relatives thought Bamber was guilty from day one.

They found a silencer when at WHF with Basil Cock & BW. The silencer was tested and together with a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence, helped convict Bamber.

There is nothing else to it.

[Jane]

They were terrified of their own perceived understanding, regarding the consequences of Jeremy inheriting. They are terrified of an appeal because of the information that has become disclosed since 2002. They are terrified of the prospect of losing assets, for example in a future civil action. They are terrified of having to answer questions at another appeal. When they say they are terrified of Jeremy Bamber - it's code for being terrified of all these other things.

As for the sound moderator / focussing on an exhibit etc. You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction?

Perhaps we should examine, more closely, just WHY they may have had reason to be "terrified" of Jeremy.

They'd have had a good chance to observe him, the youngest of them being his senior by some 10(?) years. Certainly, they'd have been unlikely ever to have been friends. The age gap being to great. I have to ask what sort of character did the see emerging -I noted yesterday, the EXTREME hostility Lookout displayed towards her own Grandchild for the behaviours he displayed. Strange how she defends Jeremy against EXACTLY the same treatment from his family. Perhaps, they, like her felt justified.

 The Boutflours seem to have had a strong work ethic -however wealthy they were, it's relative to how wealthy was Nevill and it was always Jeremy who was the heir. It was he who would hold their future in his hands- this quality appears to have been lacking in Jeremy. We ALL have known those we wouldn't trust further than we could throw them. If Jeremy's character, through his life, had emerged in such a way, they'd have been justified in fearing for their futures.

I, previously, have defended Jeremy against his relatives, but the fact remains that they didn't SUDDENLY turn against a family member for whom they'd formerly felt great affection. Who of us would feel much warmth towards a family member/work colleague who didn't pull their weight/left us with the lion's share of work/was experienced as being dishonest, duplicitous, greedy? How much more strongly might we feel if our future success/failure rested in this person's hands?

[nugnug]

a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!

spot on your dont have to think somones incont just that the case hasnt been proved.

[Stephanie]

They were terrified of their own perceived understanding, regarding the consequences of Jeremy inheriting. They are terrified of an appeal because of the information that has become disclosed since 2002. They are terrified of the prospect of losing assets, for example in a future civil action. They are terrified of having to answer questions at another appeal. When they say they are terrified of Jeremy Bamber - it's code for being terrified of all these other things.

As for the sound moderator / focussing on an exhibit etc. You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction?

When was the last time you read all the key witness statements objectively Roch. It's Jeremy Bamber who comes across as money orientated. It's there in black and white.

It's all there in the statements. And his obsession with money has remained since he was convicted; you only need look back at news articles since his conviction.

"You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction? This is exactly what SH's mother attempted to do with her black evening jacket Roch (Have a look at online archived news articles).

But I don't believe that's what the relatives did in this case. There was genuine emotion coming from their evidence. You don't get that in Jeremy's evidence at all.

There won't be another appeal or civil action Roch.

[Roch]

Perhaps we should examine, more closely, just WHY they may have had reason to be "terrified" of Jeremy.

They'd have had a good chance to observe him, the youngest of them being his senior by some 10(?) years. Certainly, they'd have been unlikely ever to have been friends. The age gap being to great. I have to ask what sort of character did the see emerging -I noted yesterday, the EXTREME hostility Lookout displayed towards her own Grandchild for the behaviours he displayed. Strange how she defends Jeremy against EXACTLY the same treatment from his family. Perhaps, they, like her felt justified.

 The Boutflours seem to have had a strong work ethic -however wealthy they were, it's relative to how wealthy was Nevill and it was always Jeremy who was the heir. It was he who would hold their future in his hands- this quality appears to have been lacking in Jeremy. We ALL have known those we wouldn't trust further than we could throw them. If Jeremy's character, through his life, had emerged in such a way, they'd have been justified in fearing for their futures.

I, previously, have defended Jeremy against his relatives, but the fact remains that they didn't SUDDENLY turn against a family member for whom they'd formerly felt great affection. Who of us would feel much warmth towards a family member/work colleague who didn't pull their weight/left us with the lion's share of work/was experienced as being dishonest, duplicitous, greedy? How much more strongly might we feel if our future success/failure rested in this person's hands?

Pity the 'oh so' astute relatives weren't so astute about Sheila. Even if you were correct in what you assert above - none of it makes any difference if Sheila is capable and motivated to carry out killings. There were two siblings.

Imagine if something had befallen Jeremy, June and Nevill? In those circs, I don't know what part of the estate would have been left to Sheila (possibly nothing on the farming / land side) - but let's just say there was.  I'd bet money on Bobby and Ann going out of their way in trying to make out that Sheila was mentally unfit for such an inheritance.

[Roch]

When was the last time you read all the key witness statements objectively Roch. It's Jeremy Bamber who comes across as money orientated. It's there in black and white.

It's all there in the statements. And his obsession with money has remained since he was convicted; you only need look back at news articles since his conviction.

"You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction? This is exactly what SH's mother attempted to do with her black evening jacket Roch (Have a look at online archived news articles).

But I don't believe that's what the relatives did in this case. There was genuine emotion coming from their evidence. You don't get that in Jeremy's evidence at all.

There won't be another appeal or civil action Roch.

What you are saying about the available statements on the forum, whether they are edited, composite, unsigned or signed - is nothing that hasn't already been said, for example by John Lamberton five years ago. Where are all the statements given in his support by friends and associates? And why do touted potential prosecution witnesses like Babs Wilson provide contradictory info?

[Stephanie]

What you are saying about the available statements on the forum, whether they are edited, composite, unsigned or signed - is nothing that hasn't already been said, for example by John Lamberton five years ago. Where are all the statements given in his support by friends and associates? And why do touted potential prosecution witnesses like Babs Wilson provide contradictory info?

I wasn't aware that what I'm suggesting was said by JL five years ago. Five years ago I was too focused on SH and clearing his name. But that being the case, the guy obviously saw lots we didn't. I'm not sure why you bring JL to the argument? What point are you making to me. You'll need to spell it out Roch as I can assure you I have no idea what or why you are suggesting this?

Jeremy didn't have genuine friends Roch. Just like SH. No one really wanted anything to do with him. They most probably sensed something wasn't quite right with him.

Why do you refer to them as touted witnesses? How do you tout a witness.

And I've already suggested a reason for the contradictions. Conflicting thoughts. Which is common when you are dealing with someone who is highly disordered. They send out mixed messages on purpose. It's done to confuse and make the non disordered person appear crazy.

[Stephanie]

What you are saying about the available statements on the forum, whether they are edited, composite, unsigned or signed - is nothing that hasn't already been said, for example by John Lamberton five years ago. Where are all the statements given in his support by friends and associates? And why do touted potential prosecution witnesses like Babs Wilson provide contradictory info?

You are referring to a highly disordered individual Roch. The answers to your questions lie in Jeremy Bamber's psychology. You appear to have allowed him to get in your mind somehow. You need to be completely objective. Take away all emotion. Then you will see the case for what it is.

[lookout]

The relatives thought Bamber was guilty from day one.

They found a silencer when at WHF with Basil Cock & BW. The silencer was tested and together with a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence, helped convict Bamber.

There is nothing else to it.

Not " thought "--------HOPED !