Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Jerry on June 23, 2011, 08:21:AM
-
It appears from everything that I have read that this is Jeremy's last chance of ever having his conviction overturned. It seems that on previous occasions he has held back certain material as he did not have the confidence that any appeal would succeed.
Given what has been discussed on this forum and the wonderful detective work done by both sides I fail to see what if any evidence can support his innocence. I fear he is doomed to another 26 years behind bars unless something substantial is uncovered and soon.
-
Hi jerry alot goes on behind the scenes that we don't hear about, regarding submissions to the CCrc by jb defence team. Just see what happens, time will tell.
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
-
Hi jerry alot goes on behind the scenes that we don't hear about, regarding submissions to the CCrc by jb defence team. Just see what happens, time will tell.
Must have missed your post Andrea sorry. I fear that little will come out of the newly provided photographs that hasn't already been discussed at length on this forum. Only new fresh evidence will set Jeremy free and after 26 years I fail to see any of that.
-
Hi jerry alot goes on behind the scenes that we don't hear about, regarding submissions to the CCrc by jb defence team. Just see what happens, time will tell.
Must have missed your post Andrea sorry. I fear that little will come out of the newly provided photographs that hasn't already been discussed at length on this forum. Only new fresh evidence will set Jeremy free and after 26 years I fail to see any of that.
I fear a different kind of problem. Nobody's interested in what comes out of anything, the photos or otherwise... other than for the purposes of adjusting their own plans for damage limitation. The law doesn't count if you are Jeremy Bamber?
-
Do you think he is innocent Rochford?
-
Do you think he is innocent Rochford?
80/20 innocent at present. Still open to guilty arguments. I do think that I am blinkered by wanting him to be innocent, so I am probably not as open minded as I should be.
-
Do you think he is innocent Rochford?
80/20 innocent at present. Still open to guilty arguments. I do think that I am blinkered by wanting him to be innocent, so I am probably not as open minded as I should be.
Why do you believe he may be innocent?
-
Do you think he is innocent Rochford?
80/20 innocent at present. Still open to guilty arguments. I do think that I am blinkered by wanting him to be innocent, so I am probably not as open minded as I should be.
Why do you believe he may be innocent?
I find the prosecution version of events little more than an attempt to conceal what actually happened. I find the defence version of events a journey to claw back from the prosecution, exactly what did happen.
-
Do you think he is innocent Rochford?
80/20 innocent at present. Still open to guilty arguments. I do think that I am blinkered by wanting him to be innocent, so I am probably not as open minded as I should be.
Why do you believe he may be innocent?
I find the prosecution version of events little more than an attempt to conceal what actually happened. I find the defence version of events a journey to claw back from the prosecution, exactly what did happen.
I don't understand what you mean here Rochford. Are you not letting semantics play a large part in your beliefs?
-
Do you think he is innocent Rochford?
80/20 innocent at present. Still open to guilty arguments. I do think that I am blinkered by wanting him to be innocent, so I am probably not as open minded as I should be.
Why do you believe he may be innocent?
I find the prosecution version of events little more than an attempt to conceal what actually happened. I find the defence version of events a journey to claw back from the prosecution, exactly what did happen.
I don't understand what you mean here Rochford. Are you not letting semantics play a large part in your beliefs?
I'm satisfied that there are too many coincidences for there not to be false prosecution case. This chain of coincidences includes the logs on entry (which had to be won back by taking EP to court), the wet pools of blood and smudges upon Sheila caffell's neck (that are not in the line of flash reflection), the falsification of woodcock's statement contemporaneous with the events relating to entry to the farmhouse (among other falsified and altered material), the fight for the right to take a lie detector test, the passing of the lie detector test, the repeated requests for all evidence to be released, the bland statements but effective coming from police, the long drawn out game of cat and mouse with E.P. etc etc
-
your either a liar or a gullible fool to believe JB to be guilty Jerry....
I am not a gullible fool to beleive the prosecution case and find JB to be innocent...his version of what he did is credible yet the prosecution case is bullshit overload that quite frankly should offend people when they are asked to believe such nonsense.
-
I'm satisfied that there are too many coincidences for there not to be false prosecution case. This chain of coincidences includes the logs on entry (which had to be won back by taking EP to court), the wet pools of blood and smudges upon Sheila caffell's neck (that are not in the line of flash reflection), the falsification of woodcock's statement contemporaneous with the events relating to entry to the farmhouse (among other falsified and altered material), the fight for the right to take a lie detector test, the passing of the lie detector test, the repeated requests for all evidence to be released, the bland statements but effective coming from police, the long drawn out game of cat and mouse with E.P. etc etc
But none of this is evidence of his innocence Rochford merely theories in a possible conspiracy after the event. I believe on a 80/20 basis that he did it and the evidence bears this out. I am quite willing to be proven wrong however and will be the first to say so if any new evidence is ever produced.
-
you have not given any evidence that you are innocent of the murders jerry...?
who do people prove innocence of things they did not do?
silly point eh...
its for the prosecution to prove guilt which they fail to do as the prosecution case is a huge pack of lies .
-
you have not given any evidence that you are innocent of the murders jerry...?
who do people prove innocence of things they did not do?
silly point eh...
its for the prosecution to prove guilt which they fail to do as the prosecution case is a huge pack of lies .
That is illogical....... Jeremy was found guilty by a jury who heard both the defence and prosecution cases.
At the time of the original trial the prosecution won the case.
It is now up to Jeremy to establish an unfair trial by due process. In so doing he cannot use evidence that was available at the time of the original trial.
It is no good just stating the prosecutions case was a pack of lies as this statement as it stands is unfounded without evidence to back it up.
That is what all this is about.
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
-
you have not given any evidence that you are innocent of the murders jerry...?
who do people prove innocence of things they did not do?
silly point eh...
its for the prosecution to prove guilt which they fail to do as the prosecution case is a huge pack of lies .
That is illogical....... Jeremy was found guilty by a jury who heard both the defence and prosecution cases.
At the time of the original trial the prosecution won the case.
It is now up to Jeremy to establish an unfair trial by due process. In so doing he cannot use evidence that was available at the time of the original trial.
It is no good just stating the prosecutions case was a pack of lies as this statement as it stands is unfounded without evidence to back it up.
That is what all this is about.
Do you think this is fair CE. One arm up his back.
You are happy to go along with the prosecution, but disregard any counter arguments.
You come across as someone who believes the cops would not lie.
You are so wrong. How many times has the police beem caught in a lie.
my daughter was going out with a cop and I can tell you they close ranks
I will not go into details, but suffice to say they will make the crime fit the details.
In my mind the police are corrupt. and will do anything to secure a conviction, I hope you are never in a position where you need the police.
Read Mikes story, Do you not see that the story was cobbled together, and that was just for burgulary.
Stop thinking that the police are these nice people.
By the way you midnight smiters F*** off, and grow up. This is a mature site, and not for you babies.
-
Hi jerry alot goes on behind the scenes that we don't hear about, regarding submissions to the CCrc by jb defence team. Just see what happens, time will tell.
Must have missed your post Andrea sorry. I fear that little will come out of the newly provided photographs that hasn't already been discussed at length on this forum. Only new fresh evidence will set Jeremy free and after 26 years I fail to see any of that.
How can you get this evidence when everthing is witheld by PII.
Are you happy with this.
Pile of c*** release it all.
It is all very well taking the high ground, but until EVERYTHING is open then you cannot say this.
You see the problem is so much is hidden. WHY.
This will not go away until EP reveal all the information.
Two cops, and two different opinions. One cop was happy the other after the intervention of the family was not. I should add that he was rewarded for his astute reckoning.
-
you have not given any evidence that you are innocent of the murders jerry...?
who do people prove innocence of things they did not do?
silly point eh...
its for the prosecution to prove guilt which they fail to do as the prosecution case is a huge pack of lies .
That is illogical....... Jeremy was found guilty by a jury who heard both the defence and prosecution cases.
At the time of the original trial the prosecution won the case.
It is now up to Jeremy to establish an unfair trial by due process. In so doing he cannot use evidence that was available at the time of the original trial.
It is no good just stating the prosecutions case was a pack of lies as this statement as it stands is unfounded without evidence to back it up.
That is what all this is about.
Do you think this is fair CE. One arm up his back.
You are happy to go along with the prosecution, but disregard any counter arguments.
You come across as someone who believes the cops would not lie.
You are so wrong. How many times has the police beem caught in a lie.
my daughter was going out with a cop and I can tell you they close ranks
I will not go into details, but suffice to say they will make the crime fit the details.
In my mind the police are corrupt. and will do anything to secure a conviction, I hope you are never in a position where you need the police.
Read Mikes story, Do you not see that the story was cobbled together, and that was just for burgulary.
Stop thinking that the police are these nice people.
By the way you midnight smiters F*** off, and grow up. This is a mature site, and not for you babies.
Cliff
Thank you for your reply.
I was merely pointing out how it is and where Jeremy is in terms of the law as poor as that due process may be.
I have posted on here that I do not beleive Jeremy would be found guilty if his trial, as it was heard at the time of the original trial, was transposed to now.
As to whether our judicial system is fair and always finds those who are guilty to be guilty and those who are innocent to be innocent I do not beleive that is the case. Unfortunately it is the system we have and that is a seperate debate.
As to going along with the prosecution I try to analyse both stand points from where we are at the moment given the conviction.
My personal belief - it is extremely unlikely there is a hitman or a other shooter. This is because of the initial details contained in Jeremy's telephone call to the Police which currently is one of the only points which remains uncontested by both sides.
I beleive the guilty party is either Jeremy or Sheila.
In consequence in the extremely unlikey event of there being a hitman or other shooter, in my opinion, Sheila was not involved with a hitman or other shooter in murdering her family etc. To quantify this a hitman or other shooter implies premeditation and if Sheila murdered her family as originally suspected then it was a spur of the moment killing spree. In my opinion, a hitman or other shooter being involved implicates Jeremy as being involved in some way in the murdering of his family. in which case he is not entirely innocent.
With regard to the comments about me coming across as someone who does not beleive the police do not / or are not capable of lying........ I must be giving a very wrong impression. I know the Police, as well as we all are, are very capable of lying. It is a feature of human nature. I know also the Police will close ranks to cover each other up etc. Agian this is an element of human nature in a pack / group mentality........... us and them.
And Cliff just for the record.......... 'it was not me gov'........... I have never used the smite feature.
-
Still seems upbeat Jerry:
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
tut tut personal attack from BOB yet again...
your posts have never impressed me Bob ...you dont seem to have anything impressive to offer in my view.
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
tut tut personal attack from BOB yet again...
your posts have never impressed me Bob ...you dont seem to have anything impressive to offer in my view.
Smiffy, I know we are 'on the same side'. I'm glad you see a lot of things the same way as me. What i will say about bob is that he seems to follow a 'less is more' approach to posting. I think he would like to take a scientific / quantitative approach to some the claims being made on here. It's an interesting stance. I wonder if it could be put to further use. I suggested a while back that there could be a comparison of alterations on documents to see which defence argument had the most alterations in its related documentation.
-
Hi jerry alot goes on behind the scenes that we don't hear about, regarding submissions to the CCrc by jb defence team. Just see what happens, time will tell.
Must have missed your post Andrea sorry. I fear that little will come out of the newly provided photographs that hasn't already been discussed at length on this forum. Only new fresh evidence will set Jeremy free and after 26 years I fail to see any of that.
That crystal ball you have is malfunctioning again, Jerry :D
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
tut tut personal attack from BOB yet again...
your posts have never impressed me Bob ...you dont seem to have anything impressive to offer in my view.
With an applaud/smite ratio of +61/-347, you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over your view.
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
tut tut personal attack from BOB yet again...
your posts have never impressed me Bob ...you dont seem to have anything impressive to offer in my view.
With an applaud/smite ratio of +61/-347, you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over your view.
Hi Bob. Applause and smite ratios here are entirely deceptive as certain members have been relentlessly targeted with smite attacks - in particular by one member who sat up all night systematically smiting them in order to misrepresent their views as unpopular.
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
tut tut personal attack from BOB yet again...
your posts have never impressed me Bob ...you dont seem to have anything impressive to offer in my view.
With an applaud/smite ratio of +61/-347, you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over your view.
Wonderful Bob...it says a lot for me to have gained so many "smites", shows ..not that I am irrelevant ..but that I am highly relevant ...hence the greater number of smites from the anti Bamber types aimed at me..
As ever...its great to be on the right side in which truth matters and not lies and deception which is the forte of the anti bamber brigade .
:)
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
tut tut personal attack from BOB yet again...
your posts have never impressed me Bob ...you dont seem to have anything impressive to offer in my view.
With an applaud/smite ratio of +61/-347, you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over your view.
I like you Bob, and will reward you with a + when I can.
You are mistaken though.
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
tut tut personal attack from BOB yet again...
your posts have never impressed me Bob ...you dont seem to have anything impressive to offer in my view.
With an applaud/smite ratio of +61/-347, you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over your view.
I like you Bob, and will reward you with a + when I can.
You are mistaken though.
What am I mistaken about Cliff?
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
tut tut personal attack from BOB yet again...
your posts have never impressed me Bob ...you dont seem to have anything impressive to offer in my view.
With an applaud/smite ratio of +61/-347, you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over your view.
I like you Bob, and will reward you with a + when I can.
You are mistaken though.
What am I mistaken about Cliff?
Thinking that JB is guilty Bob.
-
Managed to get the +1 on Bob.
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
tut tut personal attack from BOB yet again...
your posts have never impressed me Bob ...you dont seem to have anything impressive to offer in my view.
With an applaud/smite ratio of +61/-347, you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over your view.
I like you Bob, and will reward you with a + when I can.
You are mistaken though.
What am I mistaken about Cliff?
Thinking that JB is guilty Bob.
I've never gone more than 80% in that direction Cliff, although my posts may not always seem to reflect that. My big issue is that I can't see that Sheila could possibly have done it - this business about her battering a 6ft bloke and not getting a mark on her, reloading an unfamiliar gun 3 times without being tackled, playing dead in the kitchen with a bullet in her head only to run up the back stairs in a house full of police without being noticed etc. etc. just seems too incredible to me. And given the absence of much of a 3rd party theory, I therefore struggle to see too far beyond JB as the culprit.
-
Managed to get the +1 on Bob.
Jolly decent of you cliff.
I shall reciprocate forthwith.
-
sounding and acting very much like a notorious person I am familiar with Jerry.
Do I know you? I don't believe I have posted to you before?
Smiffy's on the case ::)
Praise the Lord. We're sure to get some well reasoned discourse now ::)
tut tut personal attack from BOB yet again...
your posts have never impressed me Bob ...you dont seem to have anything impressive to offer in my view.
With an applaud/smite ratio of +61/-347, you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over your view.
I like you Bob, and will reward you with a + when I can.
You are mistaken though.
What am I mistaken about Cliff?
Thinking that JB is guilty Bob.
I've never gone more than 80% in that direction Cliff, although my posts may not always seem to reflect that. My big issues is that I can't see that Sheila could possibly have done it - this business about her battering a 6ft bloke and not getting a mark on her, reloading an unfamiliar gun 3 times without being tackled, playing dead in the kitchen with a bullet in her head only to run up the back stairs in a house full of police without being noticed etc. etc. just seems too incredible to me. And given the absence of much of a 3rd party theory, I therefore struggle to see too far beyond JB as the culprit.
Okay Bob have you considered that Nevill may have already been shot in the arm and the shoulder.
This would make it so much easier for someone[Shiela] to overpower him.
Just a thought.
-
bob, you're ever so nearly there................