Sheila killed the family. And herself. Even Jeremy's supporters cannot explain how Sheila could have done it. Although the crime scene is well known. Enough chances have been given. But point blank refusals are made. Most supporters refusing to even say what Sheila was doing when Neville made his phone call/s.
Myself, CAL and the police are quite happy to give point by point explanations on how Bamber could do it. Supporters try to pick fault with how Bamber could have done it, while still refusing to say how Sheila did it. Guilters being quite happy to assist and explain away the attempted minor obstacles created for Bamber by supporters.
There are also a lot of reasons why Sheila would not shoot her mother, father, two sons. And herself.
Verdict: Laughable.
Neville called Bamber: The last thing Neville would do is call Bamber. Even if they were 'mates' as Bamber is now claiming. Anyone who knows about the case, knows they had a poor relationship. And that Bamber also had a poor relationship with Sheila. So a double reason not to call from the start.
There are several reasons why Neville would not call him, 40 in fact.
Verdict: Laughable.
Neville called the police: Even a lot of supporters do not believe this happened. It is a wild accusation.
Verdict: Laughable.
There are withheld documents which show Bamber is innocent: Bamber has often boasted about how he has millions of documents in his cell. The long build up to the trial, the two appeals, the CCRC appplication and 30 years of lawyers, has failed to get a release. So it is now not surprising the focus has moved to documents being withheld.
However even supporters can't agree on whether he has everything or not.
Documents being withheld that '
would show Bamber is innocent'. The police force's reputation would surely never recover if this was true.
Verdict: Laughable.
Bamber has been framed by the police, relatives and Julie: If innocent, he would have to be framed X 3.
This wild accusation has Julie framing him because she was jilted and the relatives framing him because they wanted the money. Very serious offences.
While the police were framing him because they shot Sheila but were too ashamed to admit it. So changed stance a month later. Although under no pressure to do so. Or is it because the relatives pressurised them ?
Verdict: Laughable.
Other reasons: Things such as the two bodies in the kitchen, movement inside WHF and conversations about fostering all have perfectly valid explanations.
In conclusion there are not really any plausible grounds showing potential innocence. It's all laughable
.
Do other people agree that the main planks of an innocent claim are laughable ?
