Prominent injustice campaigner Bob Woffinden changes his view to "guilty"

[slaters]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

It's only The Daily Mail, but this development has surprised me.

Does it matter?

[andrea]

very, very interesting

[andrea]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

It's only The Daily Mail, but this development has surprised me.

Does it matter?

it absolutely matters yes, he makes a good point.

[slaters]

I seem to remember the location of the various phones has been examined and explained away previously, is it really new evidence that points in a particular direction? I can't see why Sheila couldn't have disabled them for the same reasons Woffinden asserts Jeremy did. People experiencing a psychotic episode can still plan and act methodically, can't they? She needn't have been in a chaotic state.
He raises the issue of how Jeremy could have shot Sheila at that particular angle without really answering it himself.

But the sequence of events he describes makes sense to me for the first time. If it was Jeremy and he was wearing a wetsuit (and possibly a mask) I can imagine Sheila - already withdrawn and disturbed - terrified by the murderer's physical appearance into absolute compliance.

[Hartley]

Doesn't a wet suit allow water in, then body heat warms the water and gives insulation. Surely he would mean a dry suit?

Also you wouldn't 'cross' the landing to get from the twins room to the master bedroom, the doors are on the same side. That could just be a bad descrption though.

The phones have been discussed before at great length.

Also no mention of the sound moderator which interesting.

I'm not sure how much this matters, it's just another persons view/opinion. What's more interesting is the change of view at this stage rather than the view itself.

If I was cynical then I might think that he's seen the way things are going and putting himself on the winning side to retain his own image and credibility.

[slaters]

If I was cynical then I might think that he's seen the way things are going and putting himself on the winning side to retain his own image and credibility.

I agree with you, Hartley, that the curious thing is why he's changed his view at this stage, but I don't think the explanation can be that he's seen the way the wind is blowing because he's not had a problem in the past opposing the prevalent view in cases like James Hanratty, Sion Jenkins, Charles Ingram, Jonathan King, and Barry George. It's pretty brave of him to recant on his original opinion; right or wrong, I don't think Woffinden's opinion is cowardly by any means.

The timing is definitely odd. Either flip flop when the CCRC made the provisional decision, or wait a few months when their final decision's known and do a new opinion piece then. This could really hurt Jeremy and comfort his enemies.

[Paul]

Interesting view Hartley, but he's stuck his neck out at least. Lets see how many other papers follow in the next couple of days.

[Hartley]

Yes it is odd though, I could understand this revelation more if it was because of new evidence, but the reasons given are based on information which is old news.

[Paul]

At a guess, would you think he knows more than he's written in that article?

[slaters]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507801/The-lost-clues-clear-Bambi-killer-gunning-family.html

This is one of the articles he wrote between 2007 and 2008 suggesting a miscarriage of justice.

Maybe it's just for the sake of argument, but both then and now he seems to have a habit of presenting leaps of imagination as fact.

[Hartley]

At a guess, would you think he knows more than he's written in that article?

No idea. The article conveys his change in stance, but actually doesn't say anything else which is new.

The news in the article is all about his u-turn, without that, there is no news as such.

[andrea]

Wonder why woffingden didn't come to this conclusion a while ago? As Hartley said it's not new evidence about the phones, how long was he a supporter of  jeremys?

[slaters]

The Jeremy Bamber Wikipedia article says:

Bob Woffinden argued in 2007 that Sheila shot her family, and was watching from an upstairs window as police gathered outside the house, which explains why they thought they saw someone inside. At some point she went down to the kitchen where her father lay dead, and shot herself once, intending to take her own life; the shot was not fatal, but she lost consciousness. The police looked through the kitchen window and saw two bodies. As they broke down the back door, she regained consciousness, and slipped upstairs using one of the back staircases. One of the officers said he heard a sound upstairs, and shouted to Sheila, assuming it was her. Woffinden argued that, hearing this, Sheila went into her mother's bedroom and shot herself a second time, this time fatally. Because the muzzle was pressed again her skin, Woffinden wrote that it may have muffled the sound enough to explain why none of the officers heard it

[Alias]

I'll have to think a bit about the telephones - interesting theory.
However I cannot buy into that Jeremy would have shot the twins first (and I can see why people think that, because they seemingly hadn't been awakened) - why would he? They posed the least threat to his "mission".  And by shooting them first, he risked and probably would wake up three adults! It just doesn't make sense to me.
The wet (dry?) suit is just too bizarre. But what do I know, this whole thing is highly bizarre. Still, I have a hard time seeing that.

[Alias]

Bob Woffinden theorizes: He then re-loaded, fired four bullets into Nevill’s face and head, and went back upstairs. Sheila had by now moved into her parents’ bedroom to tend to her wounded mother.

She would have been with her twins, not her mother. My opinion of course.

BW, further: At the original trial, there was a great deal of evidence, for example from Barbara Wilson, the farm secretary, which could not be given because it was hearsay. Today, that evidence would be admissible. Her testimony about what Nevill told her — that he believed Jeremy intended to kill him and had said: ‘I must never turn my back on that young man’ — would be disastrous for him.

And yet Nevill had firearms and ammunition practically all over the house - for anyone to use at any moment? Would you do that if you were afraid someone was going to kill you?