Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on September 04, 2021, 12:13:AM
-
Both were crimes committed against his family.
Both highlighted contempt & hatred towards the family.
Both were for money.
Julie knew about both of them.
He involved Julie for the caravan break in. After the massacre he rang her straight away. Julie was the first to know about both.
Bamber involving Julie in the caravan break in, made him feel comfortable in discussing massacre plans with her.
Bamber spent some of the proceeds of both crimes on Julie.
Both involved staging a scene.
He would have done reconnisance work before each crime. Aware there was money at the caravan site & aware everyone was at WHF.
Both involved implicating someone else - burglar/Sheila.
Both were crimes that could not be repeated. Bamber would have been disinherited if robbing the caravan site again.
Bamber knew the layout of both locations.
Bamber knew how to enter/exit both locations.
The relatives were suspicious of Bamber for both crimes.
Both crimes effected other family members - AE, RB, AP etc.
If Nevill/June were aware Bamber committed the caravan break in, it would have brought him closer to being disinherited. Motivating him to commit the massacre.
If Nevill/June were aware it was Bamber, he may have been told he has to repay the money. Motivating him to commit the massacre.
Inheritance killers do commit more minor crimes against their families beforehand.
Bamber testified he robbed the caravan site & spent the money out of greed. The same reason he was convicted for the massacre.
The police were not aware he had robbed from the family business. Reducing the risk of being a suspect after the massacre.
The success of the caravan break in gave him confidence to escalate.
The caravan break in gave him instant money & a short term lavish lifestyle. He liked the feeling & wanted it again.
He quickly started spending money after both the caravan break in & massacre.
The massacre was less than 6 months after the caravan breakin. Perhaps at his first opportunity when everyone was at WHF.
The massacre was Bamber's only escalation route to get rich after the caravan break in. He was not a hardened high quality criminal & had no special skills. His only other option was continuing his life at WHF.
-
The caravan break in is very damaging to Bamber.
Julie's minor cheque book fraud with SB is really nothing to do with the case. The defence bringing it up out of desperation.
-
Julie told the police about the caravan break in as it relates to the massacre.
Bamber & Brett smuggling drugs from Amsterdam was then brought up by her while compiling her WS. The drug smuggling was done directly after the massacre.
Bamber agreeing he did both.
Julie did not bring up the minor cheque book fraud with SB as it was nothing to do with the massacre. It was also months beforehand. This does not excuse that it was a crime & worthy of a caution.
-
The defence went through Julie's WS 'brick by brick'. However they could not find a flaw that would bring everything crashing down.
They had to focus on the minor cheque book fraud. Although it was nothing to do with the massacre & committed months earlier.
-
The defence went through Julie's WS 'brick by brick'. However they could not find a flaw that would bring everything crashing down.
They had to focus on the minor cheque book fraud. Although it was nothing to do with the massacre & committed months earlier.
Two children murdered and she does nothing, that is one huge flaw to me!
-
Two children murdered and she does nothing, that is one huge flaw to me!
Did nothing?
Do you agree the caravan break in & massacre relate to each other?
-
Did nothing?
Do you agree the caravan break in & massacre relate to each other?
No not really, you said there was no flaw in JM's statement? not coming forward when she heard two children have been murdered together with three adults is a huge gaping hole to me anyway.
-
No not really, you said there was no flaw in JM's statement? not coming forward when she heard two children have been murdered together with three adults is a huge gaping hole to me anyway.
She did come forward.
-
Two children murdered and she does nothing, that is one huge flaw to me!
Who murdered them Rob?
-
Who murdered them Rob?
At the moment Steve I think it was SC but I am open minded, if it was JB then in my view the case has not been proven?
The actions of the police disturb me, and for this reason alone I believe he was framed.
-
At the moment Steve I think it was SC but I am open minded, if it was JB then in my view the case has not been proven?
The actions of the police disturb me, and for this reason alone I believe he was framed.
What did the police do? It is the experts who submitted the forensic evidence.
Have you got your Sheila scenario yet. It should not be hard to provide a scenario to match the bullet casing/body locations, kitchen fight and two phone calls.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4108.0.html
The minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby was in 1984. So between 8-20 months before the massacre.
So really nothing to do with the massacre. But desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
What did the police do? It is the experts who submitted the forensic evidence.
Have you got your Sheila scenario yet. It should not be hard to provide a scenario to match the bullet casing/body locations, kitchen fight and two phone calls.
What did the police do? come on Adam the police's handling of the case has been a joke, a group of 5 year olds could have done better, and withholding so much information why?? Their actions tell a story and that is JB is innocent.
-
What forensic evidence, Adam ?
-
What did the police do? come on Adam the police's handling of the case has been a joke, a group of 5 year olds could have done better, and withholding so much information why?? Their actions tell a story and that is JB is innocent.
What did the police do that was not police protocol at the time?
The forensic evidence was submitted by independent experts.
-
What forensic evidence, Adam ?
Do you have difficulty remembering things?
-
It looks like Rob is not going to do a Sheila scenario. Which is disappointing.
The crime scene evidence is not disputed by either side. So a scenario should fit it like a glove. At least it does with Bamber.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4108.0.html
The minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby was in 1984. So between 8-20 months before the massacre.
So really nothing to do with the massacre. But desperate times call for desperate measures.
It would be good to know the exact date of the minor cheque book fraud.
If it was early 1984, it is very surprising that it was brought up at the 1986 trial. Up to 18 months/3 years after Julie/SB committed the fraud.
Maybe NGB can enlighten us more.
-
What did the police do that was not police protocol at the time?
The forensic evidence was submitted by independent experts.
I expect the highest levels of honesty and integrity from a police officer, it's up to the jury to decide on a case with all the facts not the evidence the police wants them to see.
-
Do you have difficulty remembering things?
Not at all, but it would seem that you do.
-
Wasn't it Stan Jones who'd said " we've nothing on him ?" This would include evidence as well as forensic.
-
Not at all, but it would seem that you do.
I have posted it for you 5-10 times before.
-
I have posted it for you 5-10 times before.
All you post is gobble-de-gook. You're programmed like a zombie.