Breakdown of the forensic evidence:

[buddy]

I understand what you are saying Caroline.
What I am trying to say [badly] is there is no forensics linking Jeremy to the crime.

[Adam]

Well there are 17 pieces of evidence linking Bamber to the crime. This is because the evidence which shows it couldn't be Sheila, links Bamber, courtesy of Bamber's call to the police.

Evidence placing Bamber at the scene -

The silencer. 

The bible landing on top of Sheila's blood. 

Sheila's legs being pulled after the second shot. 

The 14 reasons why Sheila could not have committed the massacre. 

[buddy]

Well there are 17 pieces of evidence linking Bamber to the crime. This is because the evidence which shows it couldn't be Sheila, links Bamber, courtesy of Bamber's call to the police.

Evidence placing Bamber at the scene -

The silencer.

The bible landing on top of Sheila's blood.

Sheila's legs being pulled after the second shot.

The 14 reasons why Sheila could not have committed the massacre.

None of that links Jeremy to the crime.

[Adam]

If it doesn't link Sheila to the crime, who does it link it to ?

[Caroline]

None of that links Jeremy to the crime.

Jeremy linked himself to the crime when he claimed his father called him and then proceeded to contradict himself over the seriousness of the call, his reasons for not dialling 999, calling Julie first and taking an age to report it.

[Alias]

Jeremy linked himself to the crime when he claimed his father called him and then proceeded to contradict himself over the seriousness of the call, his reasons for not dialling 999, calling Julie first and taking an age to report it.

That is really wobbly "evidence" and easily explained really.

[Adam]

It is amazing that there are still Bamber supporters. Dedicated long term ones as well, who will campaign for him in the media or on forums.

There are around 30 pieces of forensic evidence. Seventeen linking Bamber directly to the crime. The rest strongly incriminates Bamber or shows he had the opportunity. Or both.

There is only one alive suspect who knew that there was something wrong at WHF. He had several motives, an opportunity and no alibi. And has been found guilty by a jury and appeal courts.

There is also a credible witness and a mountain of circumstantial evidence.

[lookout]

That is really wobbly "evidence" and easily explained really.

It is easily explained as there was NO forensic evidence.

[David1819]

It is amazing that there are still Bamber supporters. Dedicated long term ones as well, who will campaign for him in the media or on forums.

There are around 30 pieces of forensic evidence. Seventeen linking Bamber directly to the crime. The rest strongly incriminates Bamber or shows he had the opportunity. Or both.

There is only one alive suspect who knew that there was something wrong at WHF. He had several motives, an opportunity and no alibi. And has been found guilty by a jury and appeal courts.

There is also a credible witness and a mountain of circumstantial evidence.

If it amazes you that there are still Jeremy Bamber supporters, you probably don't understand the evidence against him. Every point you make serious doubt can be put on them.

You seem to be emotionally invested in the idea of Jeremy's guilt therefore won't think Objectivley. But I'm just guessing on that

[Caroline]

That is really wobbly "evidence" and easily explained really.

That's just the tip of the iceberg and when you add all of the circumstantial evidence together - it's overwhelming. You're welcome to 'explain' it though - if it's that easy but I suspect it will the the old "He was so shocked he didn't know what to do". That being the case, no one would ever react in the correct fashion and be stunned by shock in moments of emergency. We might get a brief moment of clarity that allows us to make a call to someone 'other' than the police though. 

[lookout]

Where would he have been without the "silencer and circumstantial evidence ?"

[Caroline]

Where would he have been without the "silencer and circumstantial evidence ?"

They didn't need anything else.

[lookout]

They didn't need anything else.

For a murder involving 5 people ? When we all know by now that the silencer was shonky ?
Then based on " he said, she said ? God help our justice system. No wonder there are so many MOJ's.

[Jane]

For a murder involving 5 people ? When we all know by now that the silencer was shonky ?
Then based on " he said, she said ? God help our justice system. No wonder there are so many MOJ's.

It wasn't the first. It certainly won't be the last and the majority aren't MoJ's. Jeremy put himself in the frame with the alleged call from his father and a mountain of circumstantial evidence -and some forensic which ruled out Sheila- kept him there.

[Caroline]

For a murder involving 5 people ? When we all know by now that the silencer was shonky ?
Then based on " he said, she said ? God help our justice system. No wonder there are so many MOJ's.

Not really Lookout, the evidence is a LOT more than that you just refuse to acknowledge it.