HARD FACTS

[clifford]

How many hard facts are there to convict JB. It seems to me all the so called evidence is circumstancial.
We have the family, JM and obviously the rozers, but not a bit of hard evidence.
If we take out the afor mentioned, then there is nothing.
All of the people I have mentioned stood to gain, And I accept that JB stood to gain.
The real question is who stood to lose. Seems to me it was at least five against one, at least.
Pity there was not a death bed confession.

[Alias]

How many hard facts are there to convict JB. It seems to me all the so called evidence is circumstancial.
We have the family, JM and obviously the rozers, but not a bit of hard evidence.
If we take out the afor mentioned, then there is nothing.
All of the people I have mentioned stood to gain, And I accept that JB stood to gain.
The real question is who stood to lose. Seems to me it was at least five against one, at least.
Pity there was not a death bed confession.

I haven't heard about any hard facts. JM´s testimony is very damaging, but there were many things the jury didn't know about Julie: her crimes, her receiving 25.000 £ from a newspaper upon the conviction of JB for her story. I don't know whether the jury knew about her travelling with JB, accepting expensive gifts and dinners? If she knew Jeremy had killed his family, including two little kids, those are very strange things to do.
Julie Mugford is a strange one for sure!
The other thing that was damning for JB was of course the silencer, which in my opinion shouldn't have been allowed as evidence after the tampering of the relatives. It is a highly unreliable piece of evidence!

[clifford]

How many hard facts are there to convict JB. It seems to me all the so called evidence is circumstancial.
We have the family, JM and obviously the rozers, but not a bit of hard evidence.
If we take out the afor mentioned, then there is nothing.
All of the people I have mentioned stood to gain, And I accept that JB stood to gain.
The real question is who stood to lose. Seems to me it was at least five against one, at least.
Pity there was not a death bed confession.

I haven't heard about any hard facts. JM´s testimony is very damaging, but there were many things the jury didn't know about Julie: her crimes, her receiving 25.000 £ from a newspaper upon the conviction of JB for her story. I don't know whether the jury knew about her travelling with JB, accepting expensive gifts and dinners? If she knew Jeremy had killed his family, including two little kids, those are very strange things to do.
Julie Mugford is a strange one for sure!
The other thing that was damning for JB was of course the silencer, which in my opinion shouldn't have been allowed as evidence after the tampering of the relatives. It is a highly unreliable piece of evidence!

Abs, seems to me that there was not any hard facts, it was all circumstancial.
I agree with you totally in regards of the silencer, but Mike seems to have this in hand.

[andrea]

it seems the only hard fact they have was a finger print on the rifle, the same rifle jb said he had used the night before to shoot rabbits.

[grahameb]

it seems the only hard fact they have was a finger print on the rifle, the same rifle jb said he had used the night before to shoot rabbits.

Methinks the rozzers were telling porkies when they said there were only two fingerprints on the rifle. Especially after so many officers had handled it. Strange isn't it? Sometimes the greatest lie that anyone can tell are the things they DO NOT say.

[andrea]

to add to that grahame, they didnt wear gloves when handling the gun either!

[clifford]

to add to that grahame, they didnt wear gloves when handling the gun either!

I totally agree with you and Grahame. It seems to me that the rozers wiped the rifle, because they had handled it so much.

[sc82]

How many hard facts are there to convict JB. It seems to me all the so called evidence is circumstancial.
We have the family, JM and obviously the rozers, but not a bit of hard evidence.
If we take out the afor mentioned, then there is nothing.
All of the people I have mentioned stood to gain, And I accept that JB stood to gain.
The real question is who stood to lose. Seems to me it was at least five against one, at least.
Pity there was not a death bed confession.

I was talking about this with someone the other day. It seems to me that he was convicted on the basis of hearsay and as you say, circumstantial evidence. Am i right in saying there was absolutely no physical evidence linking Jeremy to the crimes?

[clifford]

How many hard facts are there to convict JB. It seems to me all the so called evidence is circumstancial.
We have the family, JM and obviously the rozers, but not a bit of hard evidence.
If we take out the afor mentioned, then there is nothing.
All of the people I have mentioned stood to gain, And I accept that JB stood to gain.
The real question is who stood to lose. Seems to me it was at least five against one, at least.
Pity there was not a death bed confession.

I was talking about this with someone the other day. It seems to me that he was convicted on the basis of hearsay and as you say, circumstantial evidence. Am i right in saying there was absolutely no physical evidence linking Jeremy to the crimes?

I believe so. Plus JM. RB, AE, DB, Pargetter to name a few.
I did not include the Rozers. [to many to mention]. Did,nt have a lot going for him did he.

[nugnug]

the only thing that really aagianst bamber is his story regarding the phonecalls but that shouldent be enough to convict someone.

[Roch]

Two things I've noticed on here. One is not popular at all and is like the kiss of death. It is the notion that shots were fired in the farmhouse after 7.30am and not by Sheila.  The other is Pargeter.  He's not coming across well on here.  In a sinister sense of the term. 

[chelmsey]

Two things I've noticed on here. One is not popular at all and is like the kiss of death. It is the notion that shots were fired in the farmhouse after 7.30am and not by Sheila.  The other is Pargeter.  He's not coming across well on here.  In a sinister sense of the term.

I agree with you regarding Pargeter.Something is not quite right there   

[VORTEX]

Pargeter..........has apparently suffered his only mental anguish since the murders. Apparently due to all the stress caused by all the wrangling about........yes you guessed it.......money due to him from the Bamber estate. The 2010 Sunday Times mentions he has had his own suffering - perhaps from telling lies or trying to hide something? I can imagine this would be very stressful over a long period of time.