Is Jeremy Bamber Innocent?

[Steve_uk]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8339.0;attach=48765

If I've got this right these are Robert Boutflour's notes regarding him needing proof of Sheila's fingerprints on the shell casings. Since 25 bullets were fired it's really a worthless source.

[Jan]

If I've got this right these are Robert Boutflour's notes regarding him needing proof of Sheila's fingerprints on the shell casings. Since 25 bullets were fired it's really a worthless source.

David I expected better from you.

I agree that is ambiguous but a strange note to take whilst in a conversation with the police ?

So you read it as he is telling the police they should be checking for her prints?

But he makes notes about prints on specific casings ?

[Jan]

Found this

I read that until recently [2008] it was very difficult to retrieve fingerprints from spent bullet casings because of the high temperature during firing.

[Steve_uk]

I agree that is ambiguous but a strange note to take whilst in a conversation with the police ?

So you read it as he is telling the police they should be checking for her prints?

But he makes notes about prints on specific casings ?

I have read that source before. What I object to is David dressing it up as proof that all bullets fired that morning were loaded by Sheila.

[Adam]

The answer to Mike's thread question is 'yes'. Obviously it would mean -


The police were corrupt & mightily efficient in creating false evidence. 

The experts lied through perjury & forgery to create false evidence.

The relatives were greedy & created false WS's.

Julie was jealous & psychotic.

Mary Mugford was protective & brave.

James Richards was mistaken when testifying.

Bamber's expensive defence team were not good enough.

The huge amount of accepted evidence were just coincidences.

The judge was biased.

The COA is out of date.

The police complaints commission were wrong which justifies Bamber's dirty protest.

The CCRC are scared.

 

[Jan]

The answer to Mike's thread question is 'yes'. Obviously it would mean -


The police were corrupt & mightily efficient in creating false evidence.  - not necessarily completely true non disclosure can be just as damaging

The experts lied through perjury & forgery to create false evidence.  -  which "experts " specifically? And don't forget about the fact that the forensics were not an independent lab.

The relatives were greedy & created false WS's.  They did appear to lie about the benefits to them ? And if you read the Dickinson report they made every effort possible to blacken Jeremy's name , in ways that would not be allowed today .

Julie was jealous & psychotic.   She herself threatened to smother Jeremy with a pillow , so yes perhaps a bit jealous 

Mary Mugford was protective & brave.   Why brave ?  She made sure she was with her daughter to seal theNOW deal

James Richards was mistaken when testifying.  ?

Bamber's expensive defence team were not good enough.   . Well there were definitely a few angles they did not query enough imo

The huge amount of accepted evidence were just coincidences.  . Even the Dickinson reported said if it was not for two things , Julie and the silencer then there was no other convincing evidence

The judge was biased.  His summing up to the jury was apparently misleading in respect of the silencer evidence , so if he did not understand it then how were the jury supposed to ?

The COA is out of date.

The police complaints commission were wrong which justifies Bamber's dirty protest.  Not sure why you keep going on and on about this ?

The CCRC are scared. No. They just cant immediately disbelieve the police , that's not their job .

[Adam]

So Bamber is innocent.

Shame on EP, the experts, relatives, Julie, Mary Mugford, James Richards, Bamber's lawyers,  the judge, the COA, the police complaints commission & the CCRC.

[Jan]

So Bamber is innocent.

Shame on EP, the experts, relatives, Julie, Mary Mugford, James Richards, Bamber's lawyers,  the judge, the COA, the police complaints commission & the CCRC.

 No one said the judge was involved ? And the subsequent appeals will always believe the police over a convicted criminal unless there is proof of a cover up .

If there was nothing to hide then they would have realised Everything years ago . And by not doing so they have made themselves look guiltily. There were plenty of ways they could have put an end to all the speculation. They chose not to .