Police V family

[Caroline]

Manipulation ?

Motive.

[Lucy522]

Any one of the things the "family" found Is easily fabricated

[JackiePreece]

Any one of the things the "family" found Is easily fabricated

Of course

[notsure]

You're listing undisputed facts. Silencer, bike, window.

It does not matter who found them, it incriminates Bamber.

The police working with witnesses to solve a crime. Hold the front page.

these facts are disputed adam, the silencer wasn't used imo, not shielas blood in it imo, bike no evidence at all, windows locked.

It does matter who brought these things up as the relatives had a motive to frame him.

[notsure]

The relatives were already rich. Source supplied.

I agree Bamber had no interest in farming. Which is a reason he committed the massacre.

Witnessses who were relatives supplying the police with information is nothing new. The relatives are usually the closest people to the deceased & in this case, suspect.

Julie was not a relative & also brought up the bike & window. Together with loads of other things.

the family were not rich, he didn't comits the massacre and certainly not because he didn't like farming. He had already done what he wanted to do and it was his decision to go back to it. He was always going to inherit and although he had had struggles with his family ( nothing new in any famiky) it doesn't poin't to him wanting to kill them all.

If you believe the bike theory ! Well that's as nuts as the person who brought that theory into play in the first place  no evidence

[nugnug]

Who found incriminating evidence against JB?
Police a big fat zero.
The family.
1. The silencer.
2. Scratch marks on the mantle.
3. Blood and hair [missing] on the silencer.
4. Method of entry, and exit from the farm
5. Bicycle.
This list is not exhaustive, and I think others will remember more.
Are we to believe that the family were better than seasoned cops?
                               

well you dont have to be sherlock holmes to search a cupboard 4 times and find a silencer if its actully there the only conclusion i come to about that is ethere the police were lying about searching the cupboard or the silencer wasnt there.

[Roch]

Motive.

Protecting the integrity of the force with regard to the decisions made in the farmhouse and the resulting consequences.

The desire and a sense of urgency to get relatives off their back.

Greed and alarm on the part of the relatives. 

Openness to being corrupted by a relative. 

Power: the fact that it was doable.

Lack of morals.

A combination of ignorance about Sheila and disdain towards Jeremy.

[Lucy522]

Protecting the integrity of the force with regard to the decisions made in the farmhouse and the resulting consequences.

The desire and a sense of urgency to get relatives off their back.

Greed and alarm on the part of the relatives. 

Openness to being corrupted by a relative. 

Power: the fact that it was doable.


Money talks
And I don't think the relatives ever thought of Jeremy as "blood" they wanted what they thought they were entitled to and went to great lengths to get it in my opinion.

Lack of morals.

A combination of ignorance about Sheila and disdain towards Jeremy.

[Caroline]

Protecting the integrity of the force with regard to the decisions made in the farmhouse and the resulting consequences.

The desire and a sense of urgency to get relatives off their back.

Greed and alarm on the part of the relatives. 

Openness to being corrupted by a relative. 

Power: the fact that it was doable.

Lack of morals.

A combination of ignorance about Sheila and disdain towards Jeremy.

Protecting integrity by knowingly framing an innocent man thus putting the force in a worse position?

According to you, they had proof that Sheila was responsible - that would have gotten the relatives off their back.

The relatives had no power, especially if there was evidence of Sheila's guilt.

There is no motive for such openness.

Just because they could isn't really a convincing argument.

There wouldn't need to be ignorance towards Sheila if there was proof.

[nugnug]

internal polce poltics prove the boss is wrong and you were right and yor carertakes off.

and whos to say that jones dident belive the relatives and think jeremy was guilty he wouldent of been the first copper to manfacture angianst somone he thought did it.

[Roch]

Protecting integrity by knowingly framing an innocent man thus putting the force in a worse position?
How would members of the public know that Jeremy was an innocent man?  Most people wouldn't necessarily know this (though some may have felt that he was).  I'm not referring to the inner consciousness of individual police officers.  I'm referring to perceptions among the public, the integrity of the force.

According to you, they had proof that Sheila was responsible - that would have gotten the relatives off their back.
But it didn't though did it?  Two relatives accpeted Sheila could have been the killer, after DCI Jones explained to them in no uncertain terms.  But that didn't stop the mission of the relatives.  Jeremy's uncle Bobby was prepared to incorporate anything in to a Jeremy scenario.

The relatives had no power, especially if there was evidence of Sheila's guilt.
They had police officers carrying out 'experiments' on the kitchen window behind DCI Jones' back.  They had another leading officer (who just happened to be the direct persecutor of Jeremy and the leading coach of Julie) drinking whiskey at the farm - before driving away with the main exhibit - which they introduced to the case.  They employed the head of the second investigation after he retired early.  They got the original head of the investigation sidelined and had him replaced with a future consultant employee. They had power in spades.


There is no motive for such openness.
Early retirement is a motive.  A nice fat police pension and some consultancy work.

Just because they could isn't really a convincing argument.
Power corrupts.  People get cocky and start acting like 'God'.

There wouldn't need to be ignorance towards Sheila if there was proof.
Not sure what this means.

[David1819]

But it didn't though did it?  Two relatives accpeted Sheila could have been the killer, after DCI Jones explained to them in no uncertain terms.  But that didn't stop the mission of the relatives.  Jeremy's uncle Bobby was prepared to incorporate anything in to a Jeremy scenario.

RWB was told about Sheila's prints being on the shell casings. Despite that he still tried to invent a way to explain it.

[Steve_uk]

It's strange that people can quote reams on the relatives not knowing anything about the Bambers and yet when it suits their case claim that they were experts on whether Sheila could have committed the massacre or not. DC Barlow conducted his own experiment on the windows and his assertion that a window could be banged shut tallies with Julie's statement of what Jeremy told her.

The biggest flaw in the Defence argument is why on earth would Police risk their careers by concocting a story that Jeremy was responsible when they could just have said that Sheila turned a gun on them and they had to shoot, though why a bullet in those circumstances would end up in her neck remains a mystery.

[Steve_uk]

RWB was told about Sheila's prints being on the shell casings. Despite that he still tried to invent a way to explain it.

Jeremy had access to Sheila's body and could have staged the scene exactly as he wished.

[nugnug]

Jeremy had access to Sheila's body and could have staged the scene exactly as he wished.

hell could well of done just at the relatives could of planted the evidence when they had acese to the house.