What makes Bamber innocent?

[mike tesko]

The 'haves', and the 'have nots'...

[mike tesko]

The 'haves', and the 'have nots'...

Different levels of justice, for different types of paying, or not paying personally, defendants...

[mike tesko]

What I want to know, is why if Jeremy was potentially so wealthy, that his defence was paid for by legal aid?

[mike tesko]

What I want to know, is why if Jeremy was potentially so wealthy, that his defence was paid for by legal aid?

How, utterly remarkable that not a penny was 'forked out in costs' from the parents estate toward the costs of representing Jeremy right up to the point of him being convicted?

[mike tesko]

The relatives who all 'benefitted' as a result of Jeremy being convicted, surely would be liable to have to pay his 'legal costs' incurred up until the time he got convicted?

[mike tesko]

The relatives who all 'benefitted' as a result of Jeremy being convicted, surely would be liable to have to pay his 'legal costs' incurred up until the time he got convicted?

But, they didn't, and the legal aid board, did not pursue the relatives for these costs, even though the relatives ended up being 'hundreds of thousands of pounds in pocket' through 'inheritance'...

[mike tesko]

But, they didn't, and the legal aid board, did not pursue the relatives for these costs, even though the relatives ended up being 'hundreds of thousands of pounds in pocket' through 'inheritance'...

Relatives, had the best of both world's, they paid for 'nothing', but gained, 'everything'...

[mike tesko]

Relatives, had the best of both world's, they paid for 'nothing', but gained, 'everything'...

Make them pay now, with interest, that's what I say...

[mike tesko]

The most obvious pieces of information or evidence which guarantees his total innocence, is the fact that:-

(a) Cops, experts, and relatives had to frame him, because they 'thought' he might have had something to do with it, so they improvised the evidence, acting with a touch of 'noble cause corruption' in mind'...

(b) no evidence presented to prove that anyone had been shot prior to J making his 3.36am call to cops...

1 - Occupants of CA07 were deployed to scene prior to J making his call, evidence which confirms that cops received other intelligence and information regarding what was transpiring at the farmhouse from a different source...

(c) no evidence to place J at the scene at the time any of the victims got shot or were killed...

(d) no evidence to show that he loaded any of the 15 additional bullets required to carry out the murders into the gun which cops have identified as the murder weapon...

(e) closest cops could put J to the scene at any stage of their investigation was when the occupants of CA07 overtook him on their way to the farmhouse. At this time J was driving his astra car at 30 MPH when cops overtook his car. J was travelling toward the farmhouse, not from it. The occupants (CA07) were not deployed to the incident as a result of J's call to cops at 3.36am, they were deployed to the scene before J called cops. Occupants of CA05 were deployed to the scene as a result of J's 3.36am call, and they did not arrive there until 4.22am (30 minutes after J arrived there. So, if anything got from his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, to the farmhouse, faster than the occupants of CA05 did. But at trial prosecution presented the argument that J had been taking his time to get to the farm because the cops overtook him. Wrongs cops overtook J, just shows how devious and sly prosecution of J was...

(f) Pathologist, police doctor, Coroners officer, Senior cops, firearm officers, SOCO's, ambulance paramedics, who all attended the scene, could not confirm that any of the victims had died any sooner, or earlier than the occupants of CA07 arrived at the scene at 3.48am, that morning...

(g) cops had to do an 'officers report' about the shooting incident which took place upon first entry into the kitchen of the farmhouse. A victim was presumed 'dead' as a result of the discharge of a raid team members firearm. The person that got shot was alive before the cop shot them, the person who got shot was Sheila Caffell, therefore J could not have shot and killed her, either downstairs in the kitchen (in accordance with the specifics of the aforementioned officers report), or upstairs in the main bedroom, either whilst she was on the bed, or later when cops moved her body to the floor...

(h) J passed a lie detector test, answering 'No' to key questions relating to his potential culpability. He did not shoot his dad. He did not shoot his mum. He did not shoot his sister. He did not shoot her two young children. He was not at the farmhouse when any of them or all of them had been shot...

(I) J had no injuries consistent with him being involved in a supposed 'struggle' in a matter of life or death, with his dad, before dad succumbed to his fate...

(j) PC Mercers police dog failed to detect a presence of firearm  discharge residue upon J or his clothing whilst J was with other cops in the grounds of the farmhouse, confirming that J had not fired a firearm recently, nor had J been any closer to the farmhouse itself other than where he was stood when PC Mercers dog was brought to 'check him out'...

(k) no firearm discharge residue or lead deposits was found to be present upon J's hands or clothing, nor upon the handle bar and grips of the pushbike it was alleged J had used to make good his escape after allegedly killing everyone...

(l) dads call to cops at 3.26am...

(m) activation of Special Branch attack alarm from farmhouse at 3.29am...

(n) DS 'Stan' Jones was at the heart of everything corrupt regarding the evidence used to help convict J as the killer. He had to obtain another pocketbook and rewrite all his notes because the original contents which he originally recorded in his pocketbook would have guaranteed an acquittal had Rivlin QC ever got his hands upon it and seen its original contents...

(o) person seen at bedroom window by Bews, Myall and J, obviously at least one of the victims was still alive inside the farmhouse by that stage (around 4am)...

(p) phone suddenly became engaged when operator was checking line for cops, obviously somebody still alive using the phone inside the farmhouse, whilst cops and J were outside in the grounds or at Pages Lane, near farm cottages. Closest victim to kitchen phone when bodies of victims ended up by 10 am was dad. But the person cops shot upon entry to the kitchen may have been the person who was using the phone at the specified time, thus helping to establish that Sheila was responsible for the death of dad, mum and her kids. Sheila was the person shot by cops in the kitchen. There exists an 'officers report' confirming this which nobody should ignore. The phone suddenly became 'engaged' when the operator was checking the line for cops without so much as an explanation as to how the line had become engaged whilst the operator had control of the line?

[Steve_uk]

What I want to know, is why if Jeremy was potentially so wealthy, that his defence was paid for by legal aid?

I thought he hired Kingsley Napley, as narrated in Roger Wilkes' Blood Relations.

[mike tesko]

I thought he hired Kingsley Napley, as narrated in Roger Wilkes' Blood Relations.

Paid for by legal aid...

[David1819]

Circumstantial evidence doesn't exist? Now you really are in denial.

There is no meaningful circumstantial evidence, That is why you now refuse to list it or elaborate what it is what you come up with is too embarrassing and nothing worth considering. Pointing out things like he had a video of Fatal Vision (a popular film at the time)  is not circumstantial evidence

Yep only two sentences, what is the point in discussing anything with you? You're hell bent on arguing the case for innocence even though you don't even believe that yourself. You're doing so for your own benefit and to justify yourself.

Once again you try to blacken my character with lies, what I post on here gets in the way of your agenda so you try to undermine my credibility so people wont read my posts. You say I cant even say Jeremy is innocent, well yes there is a reason for that its called honesty, I don't make bold claims without anything to back them up.

Oh by the way, can't you read? I'm not interested in convincing anyone of any thing - east of all - YOU!

Then why are you here almost everyday trying to shove the idea of guilt down everyone's necks? 

perhaps you would like to detail the evidence that points to Sheila, other than her illness?

Since you failed to adequately answer my last two points is there even need for me to move onto number three?    How about we see you produce some evidence that points to Jeremy for a change?
Don't be shy Caroline the list is "massive" 

[sami]

There is no meaningful circumstantial evidence, That is why you now refuse to list it or elaborate what it is what you come up with is too embarrassing and nothing worth considering. Pointing out things like he had a video of Fatal Vision (a popular film at the time)  is not circumstantial evidence

Once again you try to blacken my character with lies, what I post on here gets in the way of your agenda so you try to undermine my credibility so people wont read my posts. You say I cant even say Jeremy is innocent, well yes there is a reason for that its called honesty, I don't make bold claims without anything to back them up.

Then why are you here almost everyday trying to shove the idea of guilt down everyone's necks? 

Since you failed to adequately answer my last two points is there even need for me to move onto number three?    How about we see you produce some evidence that points to Jeremy for a change?
Don't be shy Caroline the list is "massive" 

theres no agenda,its all in your head david,did you manage to ask jb how he knew how much money was in nb's wallet,the clip you posted from youtube clearly shows spent cases being ejected forward to the right in the same direction ,but you still deny it

[Adam]

Circumstantial evidence:

1:

Was there a motive - Several.

2:

Was there an opportunity - Yes.

3:

Was there an alibi - No.

4:

Did Bamber ring Julie before the police - Yes.

5:

Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes.

6:

Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes.

7:

Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes.

8:

Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes.

9:

Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes.

10:

Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes.

11:

Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes.

12:

Are there just two suspects - Yes.

13:

Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes.

14:

Does the forensic evidence round the suspects to Jeremy  - Yes.

15:

Is a multiple frame attempt unprecedented - Yes.

16:

Did Bamber have an opportunity to dispose of evidence - Yes.

17:

Are there any reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No.

18:

Did Bamber have better options, random stranger etc - No.

19:

Would the WHF dogs prevent a massacre or attempt - No.

20:

Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No.

21:

Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No. 

22:

Have there been several failed appeals - Yes.

23:

Has anyone retracted or been proved to have lied - No.

24:

Was 12 - 2pm the only time scale option for Bamber  - Yes.

25:

Did Bamber party and go on two holidays soon after the massacre - Yes.

[David1819]

1:

Was there a motive - Several.

Was there motive for Sheila - Several

2:

Was there an opportunity - Yes.

Was there an opportunity for Shelia - Certainly

Was there an alibi - No.

That alone is not circumstacial evidence

4:

Did Bamber ring Julie before the police - Yes.

NO! see 2002 appeal files and AEs notes

5:

Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes.

Have there been other psychotic killers - Yes

6:

Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes.

Was Sheila certainly in the house that night - Yes

7:

Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes

Was Sheila's medication reduced just before the massacre - Yes

8:

Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes.

Did they find any evidence of forced entry and exit? - No.
Was Sheila certainly in the house - Yes

9:

Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes.

Allegedly 

Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes.

NO

11:

Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes.

Did Sheila have access to that lethal weapon - Yes

13:

Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes

NO. Does the forensic evidence show that false evidence was made? - Yes

14:

Does the forensic evidence round the suspects to Jeremy  - Yes.

Did the police find any incriminating evidence against Jeremy? - NO!

17:

Are there any reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No.

Sheila getting hold of the gun while psychotic

20:

Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No.

Yes! see trail transcripts of Vanezis and Knight

21:

Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No. 

Could Sheila have committed the massacre - Yes.