outlandish Theory's

[Jane]

Do you believe Julie went to the police because she was jilted ?

She was then one warped, savage, confident, brave, and vindictive 21 year old woman. And her outright lies were amazingly believed.

It is inconclusive whether she was jilted. And even more inconclusive that she was bothered. Anyway jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.

Several threads on this.

But it WAS established in court that she'd been "very much in love with him and had hoped to marry him". She had also accepted his proposal of marriage on to have him renege on it. I think, as far as it went, she told the truth......................but not the whole truth.

[Adam]

Posters can join the forum whenever they want.

Before joining I read the most acclaimed available book and all the internet articles. I also read this forum for a few weeks before joining. It was pro Jeremy but none of the arguments convinced me.

While Susan said she joined the forum after watching one documentary.

Wiggy is in between the two and has done a bit of reading. But her arguments about why Bamber shouldn't have been convicted have been discussed and dismissed before, so posters are having to repeat things.

[Adam]

Lol i love how you manage to judge other peoples reactions in the way you may react. Im afraid we all react in a different way we cant judge how others would react.

You keep trying to make out that i think e is innocent i have never said that i have no idea whether he is my gut would be that yes he probably did it.

But you keep saying there is all this forensic evidence ect there is not. You seem to think im just an idiot and although i would not profess to be as clever as any of you pro guilt folk there is still no evidence that allows for reasonable doubt.

Im sorry if you cant see there is any room for doubt.  This would not even get to court these days. There was so much incompetence from the police the conviction was tainted straight away.

The silencer would be inadmissible as evidence having been removed from the crime scene. JMs testimony would be stricken if the defense had argued she had received immunity plus was in negotiations to sell her story on a guilty verdict. There would have been no trial.

There are over 30 pieces of forensic evidence. Which I have already posted.

The police changed stance after one month. After further investigation. It was really only Bamber and the media promoting murder/suicide from day one. Which they are allowed to do, just as the police are allowed to act on new information.

The silencer being removed from the crime scene was allowed. Otherwise it would not have been a piece of evidence.

The jury were aware of Julie's and SB's minor cheque book fraud committed two years earlier.

[Jan]

One of the bits of her evidence I find really strange is the bit about the fingerprints on the rifle . Now we know the story about the hitman was a load of rubbish but this particular piece of evidence still seems to fit the scenario,  the police did not use gloves when handling the gun or it was wiped - so this bit of info fitted in well with the situation the police were in.  Now I know Adam is going to say she told her friends before the police but if the police were in contact with her earlier than we thought then perhaps they had sown that seed. I still think at one stage they did think a third person was involved.

I would love to think the police would not lie to get a conviction - but unfortunately they have admitted that in the 80s they did ):

[wiggy]

i think its quite rude you have no idea what i have or haven't read.

And just because something has been dismissed before by yourself doesn't make it any less valid.

If you believe the crime scene was not contaminated and that it was ok for the silencer to be removed from the scene and that JM testimony had nothing to do with being jilted and then selling her story on a guilty verdict then your not as bright as some of your posts suggest.

Again i agree with most of what you say but in British law there should not have been a trial with the evidence presented.

There are areas of doubt in every aspect of what was presented.

Please expalin why you have no doubts based on the facts.

[Jan]

Posters can join the forum whenever they want.

Before joining I read the most acclaimed available book and all the internet articles. I also read this forum for a few weeks before joining. It was pro Jeremy but none of the arguments convinced me.

While Susan said she joined the forum after watching one documentary.

Wiggy is in between the two and has done a bit of reading. But her arguments about why Bamber shouldn't have been convicted have been discussed and dismissed before, so posters are having to repeat things.

That's ok Adam - don't repeat things . There are plenty of other posters who are willing to debate if you don't want to.

How do you know Wiggy is female?

[Adam]

i think its quite rude you have no idea what i have or haven't read.

And just because something has been dismissed before by yourself doesn't make it any less valid.

If you believe the crime scene was not contaminated and that it was ok for the silencer to be removed from the scene and that JM testimony had nothing to do with being jilted and then selling her story on a guilty verdict then your not as bright as some of your posts suggest.

Again i agree with most of what you say but in British law there should not have been a trial with the evidence presented.

There are areas of doubt in every aspect of what was presented.

Please expalin why you have no doubts based on the facts.

How was the crime scene contaminated ?

I am not a lawyer. But a person bringing a silencer to the police does not make that piece of evidence useless. In 1985 anyway, otherwise it would not have been presented at court.

Well the evidence gathered got through the DPP, got a guilty verdict which still stands despite 30 years of appealing. So not sure why this case wouldn't get past first base now.

[Jan]

i think its quite rude you have no idea what i have or haven't read.

And just because something has been dismissed before by yourself doesn't make it any less valid.

If you believe the crime scene was not contaminated and that it was ok for the silencer to be removed from the scene and that JM testimony had nothing to do with being jilted and then selling her story on a guilty verdict then your not as bright as some of your posts suggest.

Again i agree with most of what you say but in British law there should not have been a trial with the evidence presented.

There are areas of doubt in every aspect of what was presented.

Please expalin why you have no doubts based on the facts.

Apparently one of the jurors said that the reason Jeremy was convicted was because of the direction from the judge - if after they had asked for clarification about the blood evidence and the possible inheritance of monies by the family who had given evidence   they felt he was telling them the right thing  to do was convict . If he had not said those final words the consensus was he would have walked free.

So it does appear that rightly or wrongly Julie was not totally a convincing witness

[Jan]

How was the crime scene contaminated ?

I am not a lawyer. But a person bringing a silencer to the police does not make that piece of evidence useless.

Well the evidence gathered got through the DPP, got a guilty verdict which still stands despite 30 years of appealing. So not sure why this case wouldn't get past first base now.

there were 40 officers eventually at the scene - only 11 of them gave evidence.

I think it is quite obvious that the crime scene was not treated as such ? Apparently they looked in the cupboard where the silencer was found four times ? What were they looking for ? And why was the search not thorough?

Do you think it is right that a police officer does not handle the vital piece of evidence with gloves? And then sits around with the family drinking whisky? what did they discuss? Is that professional?

[Adam]

there were 40 officers eventually at the scene - only 11 of them gave evidence.

I think it is quite obvious that the crime scene was not treated as such ? Apparently they looked in the cupboard where the silencer was found four times ? What were they looking for ? And why was the search not thorough?

Do you think it is right that a police officer does not handle the vital piece of evidence with gloves? And then sits around with the family drinking whisky? what did they discuss? Is that professional?

If Bamber's lawyers wanted 40 officers to give evidence, they should have made an application.

I don't see why handling with gloves makes any difference. Both Bamber's and Sheila's finger prints will be all over WHF.

[Jan]

If Bamber's lawyers wanted 40 officers to give evidence, they should have made an application.

I don't see why handling with gloves makes any difference. Both Bamber's and Sheila's finger prints will be all over WHF.

The rifle and the moderator were handled without gloves . So you think that makes no difference?

Surely Jeremy would have pressed Sheilas prints on to the rifle amongst his to show she was the murderer so why were they not there ? The police knew that by the time Julie reluctantly came in - so the story about the glove conveniently fitted the scene - but then they found the hitman did not exist so it was conveniently forgotten .

Adam who do you think decided what evidence was given to Jeremys defence team?

[Adam]

The rifle and the moderator were handled without gloves . So you think that makes no difference?

Surely Jeremy would have pressed Sheilas prints on to the rifle amongst his to show she was the murderer so why were they not there ? The police knew that by the time Julie reluctantly came in - so the story about the glove conveniently fitted the scene - but then they found the hitman did not exist so it was conveniently forgotten .

Adam who do you think decided what evidence was given to Jeremys defence team?

It makes no difference if the rifle and moderator were handled by other people.

Julie approached the police after speaking to five people. Wilkes's book says it was a great relief to her. She had threatened to do it before, but Bamber told her he was watertight and it was an open and shut case. He said she would not be believed. Julie said on TV that Bamber seemed terribly confident.

The hitman theory has not been forgotten.

The defence can ask for whatever information they want.

[Jan]

It makes no difference if the rifle and moderator were handled by other people.

Julie approached the police after speaking to five people. Wilkes's book says it was a great relief to her. She had threatened to do it before, but Bamber told her he was watertight and it was an open and shut case. He said she would not be believed. Julie said on TV that Bamber seemed terribly confident.

The hitman theory has not been forgotten.

The defence can ask for whatever information they want.

You can not possibly believe what you have just written? It does not matter that other people have handled the rifle and moderator?

You have to realise that contamination in that way actually could have removed the absolute proof that Jeremy was the killer?

Members of the same family with the same DNA as June handled the moderator?

The evidence about the blood was misrepresented by the judge?

[Adam]

You can not possibly believe what you have just written? It does not matter that other people have handled the rifle and moderator?

You have to realise that contamination in that way actually could have removed the absolute proof that Jeremy was the killer?

Members of the same family with the same DNA as June handled the moderator?

The evidence about the blood was misrepresented by the judge?

There has already been threads on the relatives expertly contaminating the silencer.

Supporters are just repeating the same arguments. Or claiming the police are withholding documents.

The relatives would have to -

Decide to frame.

Know the silencer was not used.

Know the rifle was too long for Sheila to use with the silencer on.

Know Sheila's blood type.

Know each others blood type.

Expertly put blood into the silencer creating the rifle back splatter effect.

Expertly put red paint onto the silencer.

Not wilt or retract over the next 30 years.


All within a short period.

[Caroline]

there were 40 officers eventually at the scene - only 11 of them gave evidence.

I think it is quite obvious that the crime scene was not treated as such ? Apparently they looked in the cupboard where the silencer was found four times ? What were they looking for ? And why was the search not thorough?

Do you think it is right that a police officer does not handle the vital piece of evidence with gloves? And then sits around with the family drinking whisky? what did they discuss? Is that professional?

They weren't looking for a silencer and had no reason to assume one was used.