Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: bigdave1975 on February 19, 2013, 11:08:PM
-
This poll is for innformation purposes only.please answer objectively.please.
-
Whoever is viewing this feel free to make a comment.
-
1 - Why on earth should Julie be forced to undergo a lie detector test? Are u suggesting that every single time there is some element of doubt over whether a witness at trial is telling the absolute 100% truth, they should be forced to undergo a lie detector test?! That is an absolutely ridiculous proposition.
2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!
3 - This is an impossible question to answer as nobody on this forum knows the full extent of the new evidence. If the event occurred today then DNA would prove one way or the other whether JB was guilty.
4 - Again an impossible question to answer, as we do not know the reason why certain documents are withheld under pii. There may very well be genuine reasons for witholding from the defence in which case they should not be released. I think it would be very helpful for public perception if Essex police provided a document list of what was being withheld for the defence and the reasons for doing so. Without this it just gives people an excuse to jump on the bandwagon and assume that all withheld evidence points to JBs innocence. This could well not be the case.
-
Can anybody give me some examples of why material may be withheld under PII?
-
Can anybody give me some examples of why material may be withheld under PII?
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/public-interest-immunity.htm
-
Thanks Petey.
-
Can anybody give me some examples of why material may be withheld under PII?
Just watched a very interesting documentary on Sky Crime channel about the MOJ of Steven Johnston. This man was deliberately fitted up by police and documents pointing to his innocence were deliberately withheld from his defence. Just goes to show - it happens and this guy served 10 years as a result!!
http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html
He has since been released thanks to the SCCRC and the detective inspector (Richard Munro) has been convicted for withholding evidence from prosecutors. Sadly because of ineptitude, the real killers were never brought to justice!!
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html
-
1 - Why on earth should Julie be forced to undergo a lie detector test? Are u suggesting that every single time there is some element of doubt over whether a witness at trial is telling the absolute 100% truth, they should be forced to undergo a lie detector test?! That is an absolutely ridiculous proposition.
2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!
3 - This is an impossible question to answer as nobody on this forum knows the full extent of the new evidence. If the event occurred today then DNA would prove one way or the other whether JB was guilty.
4 - Again an impossible question to answer, as we do not know the reason why certain documents are withheld under pii. There may very well be genuine reasons for witholding from the defence in which case they should not be released. I think it would be very helpful for public perception if Essex police provided a document list of what was being withheld for the defence and the reasons for doing so. Without this it just gives people an excuse to jump on the bandwagon and assume that all withheld evidence points to JBs innocence. This could well not be the case.
"2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!"
You don’t seem to understand the basic dynamics of this case. There is simply no scenario which could be imagined where Jeremy is proven to be innocent without that implying wrongdoing on the part of the police and the relatives. The three are inseparable and are the basic reason why no evidence which Bamber can put forward, henceforth, will be accepted as strong enough to justify referring the case to the Court of Appeal. Avoiding such a scandal defines the real position of the CCRC who have almost certainly been told by the government not to refer the case. You are basically representing the pro guilt position, but somewhat dishonestly.
The commitment to supporting the police implies the commitment to supporting the guilty verdict in the face of any evidence to the contrary (apart from a “game over” situation such as policeman actually admitting that Bamber was framed.) Such a requirement is much stronger than would normally be required for a conviction to be deemed unsafe.
A referral to the Court of Appeal is virtually impossible in such a circumstance, because any evidence not strong enough to bring about an immediate acquittal will be rejected and rejected without an explanation if there is none to give.
Two bodies found on entry.
The logs, in which it is clearly stated several times that two bodies were found on entry to the house, don’t seem to carry any weight with pro guilt people, probably because they have made a commitment to supporting authority. If those logs are correct, then the policemen who’s statements they contradict have lied. So you have to say that a number of references to two bodies and to further details consistent with Sheila having shot herself downstairs are all just mistakes. That’s where you dig your trench!
How likely is it that such a set of mutually corroborative entries are all mistaken? Random mistakes are not just unlikely to produce a logically consistent narrative. It is absurd that they should do so.
Let me see you try to explain the reporting of “One murder and one suicide.” at a time prior to when Sheila’s body was allegedly found upstairs. I know what the usual pro guilt answer is. They merely remind us that the CCRC have rejected that evidence which proves that it wasn’t as strong as Bamber’s supporters thought it was. And then, possibly, remind us that he was found guilty in a court of law and so on and so on.
A historian who argued in such a manner would be laughed at. “People who criticise Henry VIII should remember that he was the head of state at that time and, therefore, should show a little more respect for the decisions he made.”
And then there is this kind of drivel.
“Oh well, in all the confusion it was natural that mistakes would be made”
Let me ask a question. Why do you think the police did not report finding a beached whale downstairs? Well the answer is obvious isn’t it. The basic idea is to report what you did find, not what you didn’t find.
-
Just watched a very interesting documentary on Sky Crime channel about the MOJ of Steven Johnston. This man was deliberately fitted up by police and documents pointing to his innocence were deliberately withheld from his defence. Just goes to show - it happens and this guy served 10 years as a result!!
http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html
He has since been released thanks to the SCCRC and the detective inspector (Richard Munro) has been convicted for withholding evidence from prosecutors. Sadly because of ineptitude, the real killers were never brought to justice!!
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html
Thanks for the links Caroline, I will have a look at this case. Looks very interesting.
-
"2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!"
You don’t seem to understand the basic dynamics of this case. There is simply no scenario which could be imagined where Jeremy is proven to be innocent without that implying wrongdoing on the part of the police and the relatives. The three are inseparable and are the basic reason why no evidence which Bamber can put forward, henceforth, will be accepted as strong enough to justify referring the case to the Court of Appeal. Avoiding such a scandal defines the real position of the CCRC who have almost certainly been told by the government not to refer the case. You are basically representing the pro guilt position, but somewhat dishonestly.
The commitment to supporting the police implies the commitment to supporting the guilty verdict in the face of any evidence to the contrary (apart from a “game over” situation such as policeman actually admitting that Bamber was framed.) Such a requirement is much stronger than would normally be required for a conviction to be deemed unsafe.
A referral to the Court of Appeal is virtually impossible in such a circumstance, because any evidence not strong enough to bring about an immediate acquittal will be rejected and rejected without an explanation if there is none to give.
"Two bodies found on entry."
The logs, in which it is clearly stated several times that two bodies were found on entry to the house, don’t seem to carry any weight with pro guilt people, probably because they have made a commitment to supporting authority. If those logs are correct, then the policemen who’s statements they contradict have lied. So you have to say that a number of references to two bodies and to further details consistent with Sheila having shot herself downstairs are all just mistakes. That’s where you dig your trench!
How likely is it that such a set of mutually corroborative entries are all mistaken? Random mistakes are not just unlikely to produce a logically consistent narrative. It is absurd that they should do so.
Let me see you try to explain the reporting of “One murder and one suicide.” at a time prior to when Sheila’s body was allegedly found upstairs. I know what the usual pro guilt answer is. They merely remind us that the CCRC have rejected that evidence which proves that it wasn’t as strong as Bamber’s supporters thought it was. And then, possibly, remind us that he was found guilty in a court of law and so on and so on.
A historian who argued in such a manner would be laughed at. “People who criticise Henry VIII should remember that he was the head of state at that time and, therefore, should show a little more respect for the decisions he made.”
And then there is this kind of drivel.
“Oh well, in all the confusion it was natural that mistakes would be made”
Let me ask a question. Why do you think the police did not report finding a beached whale downstairs? Well the answer is obvious isn’t it. The basic idea is to report what you did find, not what you didn’t find.
A superlative post, Martin. Well done.
-
Martin,,,,you truly are " something else ". Another meaty post. Superb.
-
A murder and a suicide? Which Davidson took to mean one or two bodies?
Two bodies found on entry? It is never recorded like that, it is recorded as a male and a female, which is explained by Collins mistaking the gender of Ralphs body (why won't Mike post Collins statements by the way? ).
There is no evidence of Sheila moving after receiving the first shot, let alone running up and down staircases.
Of course if we're just making things up, they did indeed discover a beached whale in the bathroom, they fingerprinted his flippers and everything. ::)
-
A murder and a suicide? Which Davidson took to mean one or two bodies?
Two bodies found on entry? It is never recorded like that, it is recorded as a male and a female, which is explained by Collins mistaking the gender of Ralphs body (why won't Mike post Collins statements by the way? ).
There is no evidence of Sheila moving after receiving the first shot, let alone running up and down staircases.
Of course if we're just making things up, they did indeed discover a beached whale in the bathroom, they fingerprinted his flippers and everything. ::)
In fact the evidence of the pathologist is that with a lacerated jugular and fractured vertebrae she would not have been able to, but that is all too often ignored in favour of 'the great cover up' (what did the police stand to gain from the cover up again?).
-
A murder and a suicide? Which Davidson took to mean one or two bodies?
Two bodies found on entry? It is never recorded like that, it is recorded as a male and a female, which is explained by Collins mistaking the gender of Ralphs body (why won't Mike post Collins statements by the way? ).
There is no evidence of Sheila moving after receiving the first shot, let alone running up and down staircases.
Of course if we're just making things up, they did indeed discover a beached whale in the bathroom, they fingerprinted his flippers and everything. ::)
I think possible that the words "on entry" may prove pivotal here?
-
I think possible that the words "on entry" may prove pivotal here?
It didn't and it won't, the various witness statements describe the events.
-
The thing is though,,you either saw something or you didn't,,,and it was clearly written that there were two bodies in the kitchen,,,or it wouldn't have been entered as such. Nobody can make the mistake of seeing two bodies morphed into one,,,,can they.?
"Trick of the mind " like the " trick of the light ".?
-
The thing is though,,you either saw something or you didn't,,,and it was clearly written that there were two bodies in the kitchen,,,or it wouldn't have been entered as such. Nobody can make the mistake of seeing two bodies morphed into one,,,,can they.?
"Trick of the mind " like the " trick of the light ".?
The person who wrote it didn't see anything, he wasnt there.
-
The person who wrote it didn't see anything, he wasnt there.
That's worse.
-
The person who wrote it didn't see anything, he wasnt there.
Sorry Bridget. It is well known that I am incredibly thick. The person who wrote what?
-
Sorry Bridget. It is well known that I am incredibly thick. The person who wrote what?
The log.
-
That's worse.
Well what do you expect, gun in one hand, notepad in the other?
-
The log.
Oh, you mean the log was written by the person back at the station, so he didn't see what really happened?
-
Oh, you mean the log was written by the person back at the station, so he didn't see what really happened?
Yes that's what I mean.
-
Well what do you expect, gun in one hand, notepad in the other?
Pen behind ear and fag in mouth. Yes,,,you're right. :o
-
Pen behind ear and fag in mouth. Yes,,,you're right. :o
;D Don't forget the donut in the mouth. It might explain the misheard message. ;D
-
"2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!"
You don’t seem to understand the basic dynamics of this case. There is simply no scenario which could be imagined where Jeremy is proven to be innocent without that implying wrongdoing on the part of the police and the relatives. The three are inseparable and are the basic reason why no evidence which Bamber can put forward, henceforth, will be accepted as strong enough to justify referring the case to the Court of Appeal. Avoiding such a scandal defines the real position of the CCRC who have almost certainly been told by the government not to refer the case. You are basically representing the pro guilt position, but somewhat dishonestly.
The commitment to supporting the police implies the commitment to supporting the guilty verdict in the face of any evidence to the contrary (apart from a “game over” situation such as policeman actually admitting that Bamber was framed.) Such a requirement is much stronger than would normally be required for a conviction to be deemed unsafe.
A referral to the Court of Appeal is virtually impossible in such a circumstance, because any evidence not strong enough to bring about an immediate acquittal will be rejected and rejected without an explanation if there is none to give.
"Two bodies found on entry."
The logs, in which it is clearly stated several times that two bodies were found on entry to the house, don’t seem to carry any weight with pro guilt people, probably because they have made a commitment to supporting authority. If those logs are correct, then the policemen who’s statements they contradict have lied. So you have to say that a number of references to two bodies and to further details consistent with Sheila having shot herself downstairs are all just mistakes. That’s where you dig your trench!
How likely is it that such a set of mutually corroborative entries are all mistaken? Random mistakes are not just unlikely to produce a logically consistent narrative. It is absurd that they should do so.
Let me see you try to explain the reporting of “One murder and one suicide.” at a time prior to when Sheila’s body was allegedly found upstairs. I know what the usual pro guilt answer is. They merely remind us that the CCRC have rejected that evidence which proves that it wasn’t as strong as Bamber’s supporters thought it was. And then, possibly, remind us that he was found guilty in a court of law and so on and so on.
A historian who argued in such a manner would be laughed at. “People who criticise Henry VIII should remember that he was the head of state at that time and, therefore, should show a little more respect for the decisions he made.”
And then there is this kind of drivel.
“Oh well, in all the confusion it was natural that mistakes would be made”
Let me ask a question. Why do you think the police did not report finding a beached whale downstairs? Well the answer is obvious isn’t it. The basic idea is to report what you did find, not what you didn’t find.
Interesting attempt to patronise me there thanks.
Are you saying that in your opinion it is as black and white that either JB is guilty and is correctly convicted. Or JB is innocent and the police and relatives must have therefore both purposively conspired together to convict and defraud him?!
That if a far too simplistic approach to proffer.
-
The poll makes no sense.
Isn't a poll meant to be a question with different possible answers? Not.....a lot of different questions? :-\
For example. Shouldn't it be.
DO YOU LIKE PIZZA?
Yes.
No.
Sometimes.
Not....a bunch of questions. :-[ :o
-
The poll makes no sense.
Isn't a poll meant to be a question with different possible answers? Not.....a lot of different questions? :-\
For example. Shouldn't it be.
DO YOU LIKE PIZZA?
Yes.
No.
Sometimes.
Not....a bunch of questions. :-[ :o
I had the same problem!
-
I had the same problem!
Thank God!! Not just me then.
-
In fact the evidence of the pathologist is that with a lacerated jugular and fractured vertebrae she would not have been able to, but that is all too often ignored in favour of 'the great cover up' (what did the police stand to gain from the cover up again?).
Having already once switched from 4 murders and a suicide to 5 murders they would have looked like complete idiots to revert back to the former. Perhaps they really did think JB was guilty so just 'helped the evidence along'. It's not like this doesn't happen the more recent case of Steven Johnston is a prime example! Over zealousness and ambition can sometimes be dangerous.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html
http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html
-
Having already once switched from 4 murders and a suicide to 5 murders they would have looked like complete idiots to revert back to the former. Perhaps they really did think JB was guilty so just 'helped the evidence along'. It's not like this doesn't happen the more recent case of Steven Johnston is a prime example! Over zealousness and ambition can sometimes be dangerous.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html
http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html
Police lines of enquiry change all of the time, it's hardly going to be considered unusual let alone embarrassing to pursue a line only to find that it's a dead end. The idea that they would manufacture evidence simply to hide the fact that they were right in the first place seems to me quite preposterous.
-
Police lines of enquiry change all of the time, it's hardly going to be considered unusual let alone embarrassing to pursue a line only to find that it's a dead end. The idea that they would manufacture evidence simply to hide the fact that they were right in the first place seems to me quite preposterous.
The world is fraught with ambitious individuals seeking heighten their profile at the expense of others- the police force is not immune from such ruthless individuals!
The idea of the police trying to cover mistakes may seem 'preposterous' to you and also to me however, it does happen - read Steven Johnston's appeal document - and of course the idea is inherent in the infamous quote by Lord Justice Denning, - "It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned"
The Bamber case was high profile and those involved were under pressure.
-
The world is fraught with ambitious individuals seeking heighten their profile at the expense of others- the police force is not immune from such ruthless individuals!
The idea of the police trying to cover mistakes may seem 'preposterous' to you and also to me however, it does happen - read Steven Johnston's appeal document - and of course the idea is inherent in the infamous quote by Lord Justice Denning, - "It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned"
The Bamber case was high profile and those involved were under pressure.
I think you are conflating Denning's comments, which were concerning people already convicted and the effect apparent miscarriages can have on the integrity of the judicial system, with the process which takes place prior to a person getting anywhere near the judicial system. That is not to say that i agree with Denning's sentiments! Most right thinking people would praise the police for their diligence in getting to the truth, however circuitous the route, not mock them for having disappeared up a couple if blind alleys for a while.
-
I think you are conflating Denning's comments, which were concerning people already convicted and the effect apparent miscarriages can have on the integrity of the judicial system, with the process which takes place prior to a person getting anywhere near the judicial system. That is not to say that i agree with Denning's sentiments! Most right thinking people would praise the police for their diligence in getting to the truth, however circuitous the route, not mock them for having disappeared up a couple if blind alleys for a while.
I'll say again, the case was high profile and they were under a great deal of pressure! Of course the police should be praised for getting to the 'truth' IF the circuitous route does in fact lead them there! I'm not mocking anyone and I don;t think I have given that impression? However, neither am I happy to simply dismiss so many anomalies and contradictions and accept someone is guilty without any solid physical evidence!
-
I'll say again, the case was high profile and they were under a great deal of pressure! Of course the police should be praised for getting to the 'truth' IF the circuitous route does in fact lead them there! I'm not mocking anyone and I don;t think I have given that impression? However, neither am I happy to simply dismiss so many anomalies and contradictions and accept someone is guilty without any solid physical evidence!
Caroline, I agree. I feel a major reason for many of us no longer accepting "FOUND guilty ERGO guilty," is because we have been let down too many times by "ambitious individuals seeking to heighten their profile at the expense of others." Sadly, now, law enforcement can no longer expect our trust as an entitlement, they have to show they have earned it.
-
Caroline, I agree. I feel a major reason for many of us no longer accepting "FOUND guilty ERGO guilty," is because we have been let down too many times by "ambitious individuals seeking to heighten their profile at the expense of others." Sadly, now, law enforcement can no longer expect our trust as an entitlement, they have to show they have earned it.
Well said April!!
-
I'll say again, the case was high profile and they were under a great deal of pressure! Of course the police should be praised for getting to the 'truth' IF the circuitous route does in fact lead them there! I'm not mocking anyone and I don;t think I have given that impression? However, neither am I happy to simply dismiss so many anomalies and contradictions and accept someone is guilty without any solid physical evidence!
The point you appear to be making (or supporting) is that the police would try to cover their 'mistakes' (the mistake in this case being that they incorrectly turned their attention from Sheila to JB) by inventing or concealing evidence which would lead to the opposite (original) conclusion. You then sought to support that point using Denning's comments. To me there is a world of difference between a police force investigating various lines of enquiry before concluding that one of them is sufficient for a prosecution, and the situation on which Denning commented and which I do not believe was intended to refer to the police at all.
-
The point you appear to be making (or supporting) is that the police would try to cover their 'mistakes' (the mistake in this case being that they incorrectly turned their attention from Sheila to JB) by inventing or concealing evidence which would lead to the opposite (original) conclusion. You then sought to support that point using Denning's comments. To me there is a world of difference between a police force investigating various lines of enquiry before concluding that one of them is sufficient for a prosecution, and the situation on which Denning commented and which I do not believe was intended to refer to the police at all.
Bridget, whilst YOU may be correct, each time the public hears of ANOTHER possibility of police corruption/manipulation, as in the recent news of a police chief protecting Jimmy Saville from being investigated, faith in their integrity is further diminished. As Lugg pointed out earlier, Steve may be dropping subliminal messages regarding Jeremy's character, the police, on occasions, seem to be doing a good job of doing it on their own behalf................and it's usually when a high profile case is involved.
-
Bridget, whilst YOU may be correct, each time the public hears of ANOTHER possibility of police corruption/manipulation, as in the recent news of a police chief protecting Jimmy Saville from being investigated, faith in their integrity is further diminished. As Lugg pointed out earlier, Steve may be dropping subliminal messages regarding Jeremy's character, the police, on occasions, seem to be doing a good job of doing it on their own behalf................and it's usually when a high profile case is involved.
If Lord Denning had used the words 'justice system' instead of 'judicial system' then that is probably a wide enough description to include the activities of the police and Caroline may have been justified in using his comments to support her argument, but he didn't. I'm sure the judiciary abhor police corruption and dishonesty as much as the next person, which is why they banged up the police officer in the Steven Johnston case. Faith in the police and faith in the judicial system are two entirely separate things, although I agree that the actions of the police can tarnish both, perhaps unjustly.
I think Steve's messages are rather too loud and clear to be termed subliminal ;)
-
The point you appear to be making (or supporting) is that the police would try to cover their 'mistakes' (the mistake in this case being that they incorrectly turned their attention from Sheila to JB) by inventing or concealing evidence which would lead to the opposite (original) conclusion. You then sought to support that point using Denning's comments. To me there is a world of difference between a police force investigating various lines of enquiry before concluding that one of them is sufficient for a prosecution, and the situation on which Denning commented and which I do not believe was intended to refer to the police at all.
I don't need an analysis of my words. You asked what the police stood to gain from the cover up and I gave you a 'possible' explanation. 'You' may not agree with it but is HAS been done before and will no doubt happen again in the future. I have given you an example of a recent case which is an official source but it's up to you if you wish to read it or not.
-
I don't need an analysis of my words. You asked what the police stood to gain from the cover up and I gave you a 'possible' explanation. 'You' may not agree with it but is HAS been done before and will no doubt happen again in the future. I have given you an example of a recent case which is an official source but it's up to you if you wish to read it or not.
This is a forum Caroline, like it or not people will analyse your words.
-
This is a forum Caroline, like it or not people will analyse your words.
Fair enough. Then let me just add that 'your' interpretation of Denning's words are no more valid than mine. I wasn't 'trying' to say that police would cover up their mistakes, I'm saying they have done in the past! the are plenty of examples I don't understand why you are so surprised at the suggestion? I don't know if they did so in the Bamber case but if they did, I can only hope that one day the truth will be uncovered!
-
Having already once switched from 4 murders and a suicide to 5 murders they would have looked like complete idiots to revert back to the former. Perhaps they really did think JB was guilty so just 'helped the evidence along'. It's not like this doesn't happen the more recent case of Steven Johnston is a prime example! Over zealousness and ambition can sometimes be dangerous.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html
http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html
Hi Caroline :)
I agree with you I believe the relatives did think Jeremy was guilty, for they could not believe that Sheila being a female with two small children could have picked up a rifle and shot her entire family. They thought she was incapable...Lets not forget that they suffered in this tragedy too. :(
It must have been very difficult for them to come to terms with what had happened. AE wondered why Jeremy had survived from the onset. I suppose there were no love lost between them, but if you strongly think a person is guilty, then one can make the crime fit, no matter how you look at it. One has to remember that the police themselves did not gather any evidence in his conviction. Was it a massive oversight by them, if so it could be that they were negligent. In any case they committed gross misconduct by destroying the evidence they did have in 1996 when an ongoing claim for innocence was being perused...
Its so easy to turn the tables after some of evidence was destroyed in the first 24 hours and the crime scene was neither protected or examined in the correct way. Thus, making it very difficult for forensics to have gathered any real evidence like hair or fibers, that put Jeremy in the main bedroom. Its no use talking about what would have been done today....All the evidence was there, the fact is the police destroyed it.
Out of the 38 people who are serving a whole life sentence, Bamber is the only one that says he is innocent....he well might be and it may be that a grave injustice has been done.... :) :) :) :)
-
Police lines of enquiry change all of the time, it's hardly going to be considered unusual let alone embarrassing to pursue a line only to find that it's a dead end. The idea that they would manufacture evidence simply to hide the fact that they were right in the first place seems to me quite preposterous.
But is does happen.... :) :) :) :)
hello BTW ;D
-
But it does happen.... :) :) :) :)
hello BTW ;D
So do earthquakes, but I haven't felt one today. :-\
-
Hi Caroline :)
I agree with you I believe the relatives did think Jeremy was guilty, for they could not believe that Sheila being a female with two small children could have picked up a rifle and shot her entire family. They thought she was incapable...Lets not forget that they suffered in this tragedy too. :(
It must have been very difficult for them to come to terms with what had happened. AE wondered why Jeremy had survived from the onset. I suppose there were no love lost between them, but if you strongly think a person is guilty, then one can make the crime fit, no matter how you look at it. One has to remember that the police themselves did not gather any evidence in his conviction. Was it a massive oversight by them, if so it could be that they were negligent. In any case they committed gross misconduct by destroying the evidence they did have in 1996 when an ongoing claim for innocence was being perused...
Its so easy to turn the tables after some of evidence was destroyed in the first 24 hours and the crime scene was neither protected or examined in the correct way. Thus, making it very difficult for forensics to have gathered any real evidence like hair or fibers, that put Jeremy in the main bedroom. Its no use talking about what would have been done today....All the evidence was there, the fact is the police destroyed it.
Out of the 38 people who are serving a whole life sentence, Bamber is the only one that says he is innocent....he well might be and it may be that a grave injustice has been done.... :) :) :) :)
Thanks Patti, good post!! I agree 100%. Unfortunately you don't have to look too far to find other cases where an investigation has been pushed in a specific direction. To be fair, I imagine it's difficult to be completely unbiased during an investigation - it's when they take it too far that it becomes a problem and innocent people suffer.
-
Hi Caroline :)
I agree with you I believe the relatives did think Jeremy was guilty, for they could not believe that Sheila being a female with two small children could have picked up a rifle and shot her entire family. They thought she was incapable...Lets not forget that they suffered in this tragedy too. :(
Hi, Patti. x
Although I agree with much or your post...... I do have to say that an argument could be made that they didn't beleive Sheila shot her family simply because they knew Sheila and not just because she was a female and Mother.
-
Hi Patti
I agree I think the relatives did believe Jeremy to be guilty of the horrendous murders as they would not for one moment think Sheila capable even I now find this difficult to come to terms with as I know nothing about mental illness and therefore cannot imagine how she could have carried out these shootings. The police at the onset thought 4 murders one suicide so evidence was not collected. The crime scene not protected then it seems one big muddle from then on. :(
-
Fair enough. Then let me just add that 'your' interpretation of Denning's words are no more valid than mine. I wasn't 'trying' to say that police would cover up their mistakes, I'm saying they have done in the past! the are plenty of examples I don't understand why you are so surprised at the suggestion? I don't know if they did so in the Bamber case but if they did, I can only hope that one day the truth will be uncovered!
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, or that I'm surprised by the suggestion that it does, I'm saying that Lord Denning's comments do not support the point you are making.
-
So do earthquakes, but I haven't felt one today. :-\
That's because you didn't see me to today....lol ;) :) :) :)
-
Apologies if this is the wrong place, but have just heard that a judge was surprised at the jury's lack of judicial understanding when they passed to him a list of 10 questions. The implication was that he had never realized there was such ignorance of basic law/cout procedure. Well, unless the questions had previously been asked, how WOULD he know? This rather backs up the debate which took place a few weeks back about how reliable is the average jury likely to be.
-
That's because you didn't see me to today....lol ;) :) :) :)
You have confidence issues!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Apologies if this is the wrong place, but have just heard that a judge was surprised at the jury's lack of judicial understanding when they passed to him a list of 10 questions. The implication was that he had never realized there was such ignorance of basic law/cout procedure. Well, unless the questions had previously been asked, how WOULD he know? This rather backs up the debate which took place a few weeks back about how reliable is the average jury likely to be.
Yes I've just heard a bit about that on the radio, I'll be interested to hear the full story. Apparently they asked him whether they were permitted to come to a decision based on factors which were not argued in court and for which accordingly no evidence was presented either way. He must have explained that in his original directions to them, and he did so again when they asked the question. Apparently they then sent him another note which resulted in him discharging them.
-
Thanks Patti, good post!! I agree 100%. Unfortunately you don't have to look too far to find other cases where an investigation has been pushed in a specific direction. To be fair, I imagine it's difficult to be completely unbiased during an investigation - it's when they take it too far that it becomes a problem and innocent people suffer.
Thank you Caroline. The police have a difficult job, I am of course pro police, but they are not all the same. I have had two dealing with them in the last couple of years and neither did their jobs correctly. It wasn't until I complained that something was done in the first case. The second case I actually told the policeman off, in a nice way of course. He phoned me a few days after to tell me that his boss had sanctioned the inquiry....It was too late, I had sorted it with CEOP. I have great friends who are in the police force...but the structure of policing is based on too much paper work....and policy.
Hi Patti
I agree I think the relatives did believe Jeremy to be guilty of the horrendous murders as they would not for one moment think Sheila capable even I now find this difficult to come to terms with as I know nothing about mental illness and therefore cannot imagine how she could have carried out these shootings. The police at the onset thought 4 murders one suicide so evidence was not collected. The crime scene not protected then it seems one big muddle from then on. :(
Hi Susan :) You are right they did not fully understand her illness, which was shame... :( Many folk still don't understand....You are right, it was one big muddle.... :) :) :) :)Hi, Patti. x
Although I agree with much or your post...... I do have to say that an argument could be made that they didn't beleive Sheila shot her family simply because they knew Sheila and not just because she was a female and Mother.
Hi Mat :) Maybe I was a tad unkind to say that...but on saying that I can't think of any other reason they would think she was incapable...sorry! :) :) :) :)
-
Hi everybody just awoke from the land of nod.
-
Hi bigdave glad you are alive and kicking and ready to go ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi pattii.hi everyone hi lugg .and i would also like to say tjax to bridget.
-
Hi pattii.hi everyone hi lugg .and i would also like to say tjax to bridget.
tjax to you too.
-
Hi pattii.hi everyone hi lugg .and i would also like to say tjax to bridget.
Hi Dave, :) what does tjax mean? Is our Bridget getting special treatment lol :) :) :) :) :)
-
Hi pattii.hi everyone hi lugg .and i would also like to say tjax to bridget.
-
I wanted to stert a new poll and exclude the last one.thankyou.
-
I wanted to stert a new poll and exclude the last one.thankyou.
The first poll has been deleted as you asked bigdave ;) ;)
-
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, or that I'm surprised by the suggestion that it does, I'm saying that Lord Denning's comments do not support the point you are making.
In your opinion!
-
The point you appear to be making (or supporting) is that the police would try to cover their 'mistakes' (the mistake in this case being that they incorrectly turned their attention from Sheila to JB) by inventing or concealing evidence which would lead to the opposite (original) conclusion. You then sought to support that point using Denning's comments. To me there is a world of difference between a police force investigating various lines of enquiry before concluding that one of them is sufficient for a prosecution, and the situation on which Denning commented and which I do not believe was intended to refer to the police at all.
I don´t understand how they could reach any conclusion after botching up pretty much every aspect of this case.
Boggles the mind.
-
I don´t understand how they could reach any conclusion after botching up pretty much every aspect of this case.
Boggles the mind.
Certainly the investigation was very far from perfect, but I think that's a bit of an exaggeration abs (hi btw :))).
-
"2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!"
You don’t seem to understand the basic dynamics of this case. There is simply no scenario which could be imagined where Jeremy is proven to be innocent without that implying wrongdoing on the part of the police and the relatives. The three are inseparable and are the basic reason why no evidence which Bamber can put forward, henceforth, will be accepted as strong enough to justify referring the case to the Court of Appeal. Avoiding such a scandal defines the real position of the CCRC who have almost certainly been told by the government not to refer the case. You are basically representing the pro guilt position, but somewhat dishonestly.
The commitment to supporting the police implies the commitment to supporting the guilty verdict in the face of any evidence to the contrary (apart from a “game over” situation such as policeman actually admitting that Bamber was framed.) Such a requirement is much stronger than would normally be required for a conviction to be deemed unsafe.
A referral to the Court of Appeal is virtually impossible in such a circumstance, because any evidence not strong enough to bring about an immediate acquittal will be rejected and rejected without an explanation if there is none to give.
"Two bodies found on entry."
The logs, in which it is clearly stated several times that two bodies were found on entry to the house, don’t seem to carry any weight with pro guilt people, probably because they have made a commitment to supporting authority. If those logs are correct, then the policemen who’s statements they contradict have lied. So you have to say that a number of references to two bodies and to further details consistent with Sheila having shot herself downstairs are all just mistakes. That’s where you dig your trench!
How likely is it that such a set of mutually corroborative entries are all mistaken? Random mistakes are not just unlikely to produce a logically consistent narrative. It is absurd that they should do so.
Let me see you try to explain the reporting of “One murder and one suicide.” at a time prior to when Sheila’s body was allegedly found upstairs. I know what the usual pro guilt answer is. They merely remind us that the CCRC have rejected that evidence which proves that it wasn’t as strong as Bamber’s supporters thought it was. And then, possibly, remind us that he was found guilty in a court of law and so on and so on.
A historian who argued in such a manner would be laughed at. “People who criticise Henry VIII should remember that he was the head of state at that time and, therefore, should show a little more respect for the decisions he made.”
And then there is this kind of drivel.
“Oh well, in all the confusion it was natural that mistakes would be made”
Let me ask a question. Why do you think the police did not report finding a beached whale downstairs? Well the answer is obvious isn’t it. The basic idea is to report what you did find, not what you didn’t find.
I enjoyed reading that. (No disrespect meant to Petey of course). I meant the reasoning in the post.