Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on May 22, 2014, 11:16:PM
-
People have said Jeremy must be innocent as he has always protested his innocence. However there are lots of reasons why he protests his innocence.
After having the determination to committ the massacre, there was no way Jeremy was going to crack under police pressure. He had told Julie he was 'watertight' & it was an open & shut case. Jeremy was confident any trial would result in him being a free man. He was nearly right.
The police criticism after the trial & the slim chance Sheila was guilty saw Jeremy make a quick, rejected appeal.
After protesting his innocence & appealing, there was no way Jeremy was going to make an embarressing u turn & admit his guilt. This stance became stronger after the 1994 'Life means Life' order. Jeremy knowing a release will only happen by going through the COA.
The internet has given Jeremy some momentum. And he now has a small amount of fiercely loyal supporters who can support his innocence claims.
Other reasons Jeremy has protested his innocence -
He thought he was clever enough to committ the perfect crime. So is embarressed to admit he was not.
A release could result in huge compensation. Jeremy could also claim back the inheritence he lost. At 25 upon conviction he could have resumed to living the high life as young play boy in the 80's & 90's. Now he would enjoy being a rich media celebrity.
Jeremy had complete contempt for his family. So feels he should not be in prison for his crime . Espescially not for 29 years.
Jeremy really believes he is innocent. A defence psychiatrist said Jeremy showed the perfect signs of a certain kind of psychopath. Able to blank out the crime completely. So 29 years later he really believes in his innocence.
His family said Jeremy protests his innocence because he has nothing better to do. He would not be the first prisoner to be bored.
Jeremy likes the attention. Roger Wilkes book said Jeremy enjoyed the attention at trial. He no doubt enjoys the attention he gets on the internet & in the media.
The final reason is Jeremy may really be innocent. And a very unlucky man.
-
Could you sit in a police car like Jeremy did for hours,,knowing that you had committed the massacre,while the police were talking to you,,and you answering as though you hadn't known what had gone on inside ?
You'd have to be pretty damn mercenary in order to face police under those circumstances. Even the SAS would struggle to stay as composed.
-
Could you sit in a police car like Jeremy did for hours,,knowing that you had committed the massacre,while the police were talking to you,,and you answering as though you hadn't known what had gone on inside ?
You'd have to be pretty damn mercenary in order to face police under those circumstances. Even the SAS would struggle to stay as composed.
People do it all the time. How many people have killed someone and played innocent? Hundreds of cases. Daily occurence.
People have said Jeremy must be innocent as he has always protested his innocence. However there are lots of reasons why he protests his innocence.
After having the determination to committ the massacre, there was no way Jeremy was going to crack under police pressure. He had told Julie he was 'watertight' & it was an open & shut case. Jeremy was confident any trial would result in him being a free man. He was nearly right.
The police criticism after the trial & the slim chance Sheila was guilty saw Jeremy make a quick, rejected appeal.
After protesting his innocence & appealing, there was no way Jeremy was going to make an embarressing u turn & admit his guilt. This stance became stronger after the 1994 'Life means Life' order. Jeremy knowing a release will only happen by going through the COA.
The internet has given Jeremy some momentum. And he now has a small amount of fiercely loyal supporters who can support his innocence claims.
Other reasons Jeremy has protested his innocence -
He thought he was clever enough to committ the perfect crime. So is embarressed to admit he was not.
A release could result in huge compensation. Jeremy could also claim back the inheritence he lost. At 25 upon conviction he could have resumed to living the high life as young play boy in the 80's & 90's. Now he would enjoy being a rich media celebrity.
Jeremy had complete contempt for his family. So feels he should not be in prison for his crime . Espescially not for 29 years.
Jeremy really believes he is innocent. A defence psychiatrist said Jeremy showed the perfect signs of a certain kind of psychopath. Able to blank out the crime completely. So 29 years later he really believes in his innocence.
His family said Jeremy protests his innocence because he has nothing better to do. He would not be the first prisoner to be bored.
Jeremy likes the attention. Roger Wilkes book said Jeremy enjoyed the attention at trial. He no doubt enjoys the attention he gets on the internet & in the media.
The final reason is Jeremy may really be innocent. And a very unlucky man.
It's his only way out, admitting guilt and trying to come across as being rehabilitated won't work due to his whole life tariff. His only hope is proving innocence - all he has left. Admitting guilt would favour him in no way.
-
Why admit guilt at this late stage ? Why admit guilt at all if he didn't do it,,or he'd have tried that stint ( like they ALL do ),from the very beginning,,or certainly not beyond 10 years.
-
Could you sit in a police car like Jeremy did for hours,,knowing that you had committed the massacre,while the police were talking to you,,and you answering as though you hadn't known what had gone on inside ?
You'd have to be pretty damn mercenary in order to face police under those circumstances. Even the SAS would struggle to stay as composed.
I agree Lookout, I cannot believe that anyone but a total narcissistic psychopath could have behaved the way Jeremy did that night, if he was guilty of carrying out the killings. We are told he has been tested 27 times plus tests to check he isn't over compensating, all tests were negative showing no signs of psychopathy, personality disorders or mental illness. Neither has he a history of violence with animals, girlfriends, children or people in general. That is what I always come back to, don't see how a rational well balanced young man could be guilty of this crime.
-
I agree Lookout, I cannot believe that anyone but a total narcissistic psychopath could have behaved the way Jeremy did that night, if he was guilty of carrying out the killings. We are told he has been tested 27 times plus tests to check he isn't over compensating, all tests were negative showing no signs of psychopathy, personality disorders or mental illness. Neither has he a history of violence with animals, girlfriends, children or people in general. That is what I always come back to, don't see how a rational well balanced young man could be guilty of this crime.
I have never seen a statement by a defence psychiatrist who said that Jeremy was a psychopath?
-
If he admits it, he has no chance of getting out now because his denial has gone on for too long and ANY public sympathy he might have had - hell lose most of it. The campaign keeps him busy and there is always a chance he might just find something that will open his cell. He would also lose any rights to any compensation so IF he did manage to make parole - he'd be penniless.
-
I have never seen a statement by a defence psychiatrist who said that Jeremy was a psychopath?
Hi grahame, think Adam is alluding to a psychiatrist who the defence at Jeremy's trial consulted. This psychiatrist didn't meet or interview Jeremy just surveyed him from afar and stated he believed he was a psychopath who had forgotten he'd committed the crime. :-\ Cannot see how he could diagnose personality disorders etc. without even speaking to him??
-
If he admits it, he has no chance of getting out now because his denial has gone on for too long and ANY public sympathy he might have had - hell lose most of it. The campaign keeps him busy and there is always a chance he might just find something that will open his cell. He would also lose any rights to any compensation so IF he did manage to make parole - he'd be penniless.
If he admits it now in order to try to get paroled then what?
He would have to convince a parole board he is truly sorry and regrets his actions, recognizes his actions were wrong and takes responsibility for his actions.
In light of his vehement denials is he likely to be able to convince the of such? No
Does he have much of a chance of getting out if he keeps up his denails? Not really but in his mind he sees more hope and chance in this than he does in getting pareoled for admitting the truth.
He likes attention not only in the press but letters and things to keep him busy and cares about his image to the extent that if he admits guilt then he will go down in hisotry as for sure a murderer as opposed to one who maintained innocence and all those writing and giving him attention will stop doing so.
So either way he will not get out but he has more to lose in the form of people who pay attention to him and give him something to do and he likes having the hope he could get out one day.
People like his sometimes confess on their deathbed for the sake of relatives of victims and they no longer have to worry about what supporters think but i don't even see any of that applying here.
I even think he has tried to convince himself he is innocent and didn't do it and tries to block out what really happened.
I see a greater chance of hell freezing over than him ever confessing.
-
If he admits it now in order to try to get paroled then what?
He would have to convince a parole board he is truly sorry and regrets his actions, recognizes his actions were wrong and takes responsibility for his actions.
In light of his vehement denials is he likely to be able to convince the of such? No
Does he have much of a chance of getting out if he keeps up his denails? Not really but in his mind he sees more hope and chance in this than he does in getting pareoled for admitting the truth.
He likes attention not only in the press but letters and things to keep him busy and cares about his image to the extent that if he admits guilt then he will go down in hisotry as for sure a murderer as opposed to one who maintained innocence and all those writing and giving him attention will stop doing so.
So either way he will not get out but he has more to lose in the form of people who pay attention to him and give him something to do and he likes having the hope he could get out one day.
People like his sometimes confess on their deathbed for the sake of relatives of victims and they no longer have to worry about what supporters think but i don't even see any of that applying here.
I even think he has tried to convince himself he is innocent and didn't do it and tries to block out what really happened.
I see a greater chance of hell freezing over than him ever confessing.
Did you read my post? I said he is UNLIKELY to admit it now and would almost certainly NOT get parole if he did because his denial has gone on for too long. You have gone on to say the same thing I already did but less succinctly. :)
-
Did you read my post? I said he is UNLIKELY to admit it now and would almost certainly NOT get parole if he did because his denial has gone on for too long. You have gone on to say the same thing I already did but less succinctly. :)
I expounded upon what you wrote. I weighed the 2 choices to show which offered the greater potential gain. I think people underestimate how much criminals care about their legacy and enjoy attention from others. How many marry in prison? They love receiving mail and visitors. This is what he has to lose most.
In terms of odds of his freedom he actually has a better chance at parole than his conviction being overturned but that slim chance would make him lose attention he likes. With his celeb status gone if he did get out who would want to help him? He doesn't want to work as a dishwasher somewhere for peanuts till he dies.
-
People do it all the time. How many people have killed someone and played innocent? Hundreds of cases. Daily occurence.
A massacre of a family of 5 is hardly a daily occurrence.
If Jeremy Bamber carried out such a massacre and was able to coldly dissasociate himself from it so quickly and completely he must have extreme personality disorders which we are told he doesn't present with but rather that he is mentally balanced without any signs of such problems.
People who kill and are able to coldly disassociate DO present personality disorders and psychopathy, it is fact that the majority of prisoners especially those with a record of violence have some kind of PD.
-
Hi grahame, think Adam is alluding to a psychiatrist who the defence at Jeremy's trial consulted. This psychiatrist didn't meet or interview Jeremy just surveyed him from afar and stated he believed he was a psychopath who had forgotten he'd committed the crime. :-\ Cannot see how he could diagnose personality disorders etc. without even speaking to him??
I went to a place where a member of my family was being assessed by a psychiatrist. I remember I had to park the car. The member of my family who was being assessed went in before me and I was about 5 minutes late. When I spoke one of the psychiatrists to ask which door he had gone in he looked at me with a strange look on his face and his head cocked to one side. I mmediately though he was a patient because of his strange actions. But he was one of the psychiatrist. I thought to myself, "Heaven help us. Even the psychiatrists were crazy".
-
Why does Jeremy protest his innocence. Well without sounding naive I would say because he IS innocent, I have often thought to myself what I would do if locked up for a serious crime that I didn't commit. And quite hinestly if I was innocent I simply could not admit to that crime I did not commit no matter how much it may benefit me. I don't think I would have the strength to confess to such a lie. But then, that's me.
-
If he admits it, he has no chance of getting out now because his denial has gone on for too long and ANY public sympathy he might have had - hell lose most of it. The campaign keeps him busy and there is always a chance he might just find something that will open his cell. He would also lose any rights to any compensation so IF he did manage to make parole - he'd be penniless.
Caroline,,same goes if he's released on a technicality.It means that he can't recoup any of his money unless he takes the matter to High Court----------------which costs money that he doesn't have.
This is why Jeremy hopes upon hope that it won't be on a technicality,,but rather a quashed verdict where at least he's known to have been telling the truth all along.
Should he refuse to be released on a technicality,,then that also would prove his innocence,,as who would want to remain locked up " unnecessarily ?".
-
Why does Jeremy protest his innocence. Well without sounding naive I would say because he IS innocent, I have often thought to myself what I would do if locked up for a serious crime that I didn't commit. And quite hinestly if I was innocent I simply could not admit to that crime I did not commit no matter how much it may benefit me. I don't think I would have the strength to confess to such a lie. But then, that's me.
Me too.
But its not only that he has protested his innocence , he has spent most of his time going through evidence to try and prove it. that probably has been quite futile because if there is evidence then I think it is in the original file held under the PII - or it can only come from a person willing to testify about what actually happened in the first few minutes of breaking in.
Another thing is if he was guilty why was he pleading with the police to get on with it and get into the house ? Because if he was as clever and planning as everybody makes out then the longer they took then the harder it would be to establish T.O.D .
Not that it was established any way - but it could have been for all he knew.
-
Why does Jeremy protest his innocence. Well without sounding naive I would say because he IS innocent, I have often thought to myself what I would do if locked up for a serious crime that I didn't commit. And quite hinestly if I was innocent I simply could not admit to that crime I did not commit no matter how much it may benefit me. I don't think I would have the strength to confess to such a lie. But then, that's me.
I would be exactly the same as Jeremy too. I could/would NEVER confess to doing something I didn't do. Simply because I'm that sort of a person. Quite immoveable.
-
Peter Sutcliffe apparently gets lots of mail & attention despite his terrible crimes.
So Jeremy may continue to get perverse attention if he admitted his crimes. However his loyal supporters would desert him & Jeremy would forever be branded a liar & murderer.
Jeremy also gets a lot of outside support in his campaign for freedom. As well as financial support. That would go if he admitted his guilt.
He is probably institutionalised now. He would only want to be released a rich man. Being free & poor on parole is not as attractive as staying inside.
-
Jeremys crime is beyond redemption.
He can never admit to something so horrific. Espescially after 29 years.
-
Jeremys crime is beyond redemption.
He can never admit to something so horrific. Espescially after 29 years.
What makes you SO sure that he did it ?
-
i find in most cases though by no means all that people often protest there innocence becouse there innocent.
-
Jeremys crime is beyond redemption.
He can never admit to something so horrific. Espescially after 29 years.
He also would not admit to being guilty if he was innocent - so the thread is going no-where then is it?
It is slightly different though to be sitting quiet in jail and just getting on with it , than spending a lot of your time going through documents .
If you were guilty you would be completely wasting your time.
-
Jeremys crime is beyond redemption.
He can never admit to something so horrific. Espescially after 29 years.
If he is innocent then it is doubly horrific. But never judge anyone as beyond redemption. This could happen to anyone.
-
Me too.
But its not only that he has protested his innocence , he has spent most of his time going through evidence to try and prove it. that probably has been quite futile because if there is evidence then I think it is in the original file held under the PII - or it can only come from a person willing to testify about what actually happened in the first few minutes of breaking in.
Another thing is if he was guilty why was he pleading with the police to get on with it and get into the house ? Because if he was as clever and planning as everybody makes out then the longer they took then the harder it would be to establish T.O.D .
Not that it was established any way - but it could have been for all he knew.
When did he plead with them? Only after hours passed and he didn't plead hard for them to go inside?
If he actually cared he would have went there ASAP to at least spy inside if not go in himself.
Instead he calmly talked about cars and guy stuff including claiming he would be getting a Porsche thanks to the caravan site which itself shows he knew they were dead and what he intended to use the proceeds for because no way would his dad give him one.
Moreover, he took actions to make sure they were scared to go inside he lied about her firing all guns in the house to scare them.
"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.
Armed officers from the Essex Police Tactical Firearms Unit arrived at the farm at about 5 a.m. There was further conversation with the appellant. At about 5.30 a.m. he said to PS Adams, "What if anything has happened in there, they are all the family I've got". He became visibly upset and asked to telephone his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, who was later driven to Essex from London."
He feigned being upset so he could call Julie, tell her not to go to work and instead tlak to police to help verify the story he made up.
-
Jeremy did plead with the police to let him go in and see his father,,as he wouldn't believe that he was dead. I've read this terribly sad part,and Jeremy had insisted that his father was still alive.
-
he's kept to the same story for 29 years as more details come out his story remains the same others dont.
an arrogant yuppie investigated by ammeturish police tried by biased judge defended by incompetent defence watched by greedy relatives. justice at its best I dont think.
a retrial is the only fair solution not just to the defendant but to society as a whole JUSTICE must be seen to be done.
wilf
-
I can go along with that,Wilf.
I can't believe how two-faced the relatives were in stating that Sheila didn't know one end of a gun from the other,,yet it was DB himself who taught Sheila how to shoot when they were on a shooting holiday in Scotland. For Heavens sake,,you don't forget things like that-------------or do you,if it fits in with everyone else's ideas ?
-
When did he plead with them? Only after hours passed and he didn't plead hard for them to go inside?
If he actually cared he would have went there ASAP to at least spy inside if not go in himself.
Instead he calmly talked about cars and guy stuff including claiming he would be getting a Porsche thanks to the caravan site which itself shows he knew they were dead and what he intended to use the proceeds for because no way would his dad give him one.
Moreover, he took actions to make sure they were scared to go inside he lied about her firing all guns in the house to scare them.
"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.
Armed officers from the Essex Police Tactical Firearms Unit arrived at the farm at about 5 a.m. There was further conversation with the appellant. At about 5.30 a.m. he said to PS Adams, "What if anything has happened in there, they are all the family I've got". He became visibly upset and asked to telephone his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, who was later driven to Essex from London."
He feigned being upset so he could call Julie, tell her not to go to work and instead tlak to police to help verify the story he made up.
that sounds like it has come from a book. Have you actually read the OS by the police that were with him? - even the notebooks are on this site. The police stated they were trying to keep him calm by talking about other things. The porche was a "kit car" by the way not the real thing. And the police told him to wait until they got there.
As I said before I am only interested in first hand statements , not flowery paragraphs from books. Show me the OWS from the officer that he told that she had used ALL the guns in the house and I might believe you.
-
When did he plead with them? Only after hours passed and he didn't plead hard for them to go inside?
If he actually cared he would have went there ASAP to at least spy inside if not go in himself.
Instead he calmly talked about cars and guy stuff including claiming he would be getting a Porsche thanks to the caravan site which itself shows he knew they were dead and what he intended to use the proceeds for because no way would his dad give him one.
Moreover, he took actions to make sure they were scared to go inside he lied about her firing all guns in the house to scare them.
"The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.
Armed officers from the Essex Police Tactical Firearms Unit arrived at the farm at about 5 a.m. There was further conversation with the appellant. At about 5.30 a.m. he said to PS Adams, "What if anything has happened in there, they are all the family I've got". He became visibly upset and asked to telephone his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, who was later driven to Essex from London."
He feigned being upset so he could call Julie, tell her not to go to work and instead tlak to police to help verify the story he made up.
I'll say this for you, Scipio, you sound competent at reciting facts which if they come from a book, I assume must be correct. You also score points with your ability to make sweeping statements which are probably only factual within your mindset.
You say that if Jeremy had cared he'd have rushed to WHF.
You say he talked calmly about trivialities and bragged about spending money which "shows he knew they were dead"!!!!!
You say he took actions to make sure they were scared to go inside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You say he feigned being upset so he could talk to Julie?
You have gone to great lengths to impress on us your legal qualifications. I hope they exceed your knowledge of human psychology. Since when did you reside inside Jeremy's head to be able to say with such conviction what he was feeling? The only frame of reference we have to how others feel is ourselves, beyond that, it's guess work. Much of what you have to say about Jeremy, IMO, probably reveals more of you that it does of him.
-
he's kept to the same story for 29 years as more details come out his story remains the same others dont.
Jeremy's story has changed with ever appeal. It's often said that his story remains the same, but it doesn't.
I even remember at one time he was trying to change the wording with the 'call' he had with his Dad that night.
-
Everything that Jeremy said or did was twisted beyond recognition.
The bacon butty he had was turned into a large cooked breakfast.
The Porsche car he was going to buy,,was a kit car.
The cool,calm exterior that Jeremy portrayed while waiting outside WHF,,was that he hadn't a clue what had happened inside up to that time.
He showed no emotion at the funerals,because it wasn't seen that he was falling in a heap in a corner.
His arrogance when being questioned was all about him being innocent and trying to get one over on the police when they found out that he was. ( unofficially )
The figure that Jeremy,Myall and Bews saw at the window,,turned out to be " a trick of the light ".
Officers had refused to make statements of the sighting,so as a consequence it wasn't shown to the defence. Myall knew it to be a genuine sighting but wasn't called to give evidence.
If it is said that Sheila died after 6am,,and the others were already dead,,how come that Jeremy got the blame ? He'd been outside the farmhouse with the police for hours.
-
Jeremy's story has changed with ever appeal. It's often said that his story remains the same, but it doesn't.
I even remember at one time he was trying to change the wording with the 'call' he had with his Dad that night.
I can't recall the exact words told me over the phone the night my partner died. I'm not at all surprised Jeremy can't remember. I imagine that over the years MANY versions of the "exact" words have been put in print.
-
Jeremy's story has changed with ever appeal. It's often said that his story remains the same, but it doesn't.
I even remember at one time he was trying to change the wording with the 'call' he had with his Dad that night.
But if he had planned that call to be his alibi then surely that is the one thing he would have been constant in , after all it was his only "alibi".
I did see even in Sept that he queried whether his father said She or /Sheila. And I am sure if he knew that he would have been accused of the murders he might have done an "Anne Eaton" and written everything down so that he did not forget.
But I think we do have to remember that if he is innocent the stories about him visiting the doctor and being on Valium were true and he may have been in delayed shock and also under pressure from the press , so it may be understandable if the "facts " become blurred.
People readily accept all the "changed" statements of the family . But when it comes to JB they are less forgiving . But to be honest I cant see he has changed what he said to any great extent.
-
I can't recall the exact words told me over the phone the night my partner died. I'm not at all surprised Jeremy can't remember. I imagine that over the years MANY versions of the "exact" words have been put in print.
I think he is referring to when Jeremy changed to saying "she got the gun" and then when confronted about the change he told police he was not sure if Nevill said She or Sheila. And there was also controversy about why he would say "the" gun when there were multiples in the house.
I don't know where Jeremy was trying to go with the She angle and don't particularly care. There is so much else important that it doesn't matter.
-
But if he had planned that call to be his alibi then surely that is the one thing he would have been constant in , after all it was his only "alibi".
I did see even in Sept that he queried whether his father said She or /Sheila. And I am sure if he knew that he would have been accused of the murders he might have done an "Anne Eaton" and written everything down so that he did not forget.
But I think we do have to remember that if he is innocent the stories about him visiting the doctor and being on Valium were true and he may have been in delayed shock and also under pressure from the press , so it may be understandable if the "facts " become blurred.
People readily accept all the "changed" statements of the family . But when it comes to JB they are less forgiving . But to be honest I cant see he has changed what he said to any great extent.
and the family did change there statements a hell of a lot dident they.
-
Everything that Jeremy said or did was twisted beyond recognition.
The bacon butty he had was turned into a large cooked breakfast.
No clue who cares about this or why
The Porsche car he was going to buy,,was a kit car.
suggesting he was entitled to anything through the caravan site is suspicious and suggests he was aware he was becoming the co-owner through the deaths.
The cool,calm exterior that Jeremy portrayed while waiting outside WHF,,was that he hadn't a clue what had happened inside up to that time.
Which is why calling Julie at 3AM made no sense, calling at 6AM to tell her she would be a witness makes no sense and if he wasn't worried then it made no sense to at least go spy in the windows as opposed to waiting for police to be there just so they could see him arrive.
If he was so scared as to call police instead of investigating himself he should have been worried and concerned.
He showed no emotion at the funerals,because it wasn't seen that he was falling in a heap in a corner.
I don't personally care about this but it is brought up in many murders and is fair game.
His arrogance when being questioned was all about him being innocent and trying to get one over on the police when they found out that he was. ( unofficially )
His arrogance amounted to toying with police because he thought he was smarter than them and it was stupid to do.
The figure that Jeremy,Myall and Bews saw at the window,,turned out to be " a trick of the light ".
Officers had refused to make statements of the sighting,so as a consequence it wasn't shown to the defence. Myall knew it to be a genuine sighting but wasn't called to give evidence.
If it is said that Sheila died after 6am,,and the others were already dead,,how come that Jeremy got the blame ? He'd been outside the farmhouse with the police for hours.
Who says SHeila died at 6AM? No prosecution witnesses claim that. The prosecution asserted she died before police arrived.
Your claim that the police really saw someone is not supported by any evidence. The evidence establishes she was shot with the suppressor and her body wa smoved after and the suppressor put in the closet after. Someone else shot her. moved her bod and put the suppresso rint he closed she can't have done so.
If she had shot herself without the suppressor then her blood would have been in the muzzle of the rifle and if it happened after police arrived then police would have heard the shots.
-
I said after 6am.
-
and the family did change there statements a hell of a lot dident they.
What did they change that was significant?
Any examples of major changes like wih Jeremy saying Sheila went shooting with him and fired all weapons in the house but in his written staement saying he never knew her to fire a weapon?
or going from claiming he had not fired the gun the week before the murders changing to he fired it multiple times the week prior.
These are complete 180s not supplemental.
-
I said after 6am.
and there is no evidence at all she died when police were there let alone after 6AM. Police would have heard the shots and the ime of death was never suggested by the coroner as being after police arrived on scene.
-
The police were hiding elsewhere after they'd seen the figure at the window,,so it would have been impossible for them to have heard gunshots through 16 inch thick walls of the farmhouse as well as being yards away from it.
-
The police were hiding elsewhere after they'd seen the figure at the window,,so it would have been impossible for them to have heard gunshots through 16 inch thick walls of the farmhouse as well as being yards away from it.
I doubt the walls are 16 inches thick but windows are not for sure. The sound travels through windows. Your claim they would not have heard is nonsense.
But then again she can't have shot herself anyway nor moved her own dead body.
-
The shots are only as loud as a Christmas cracker. If there was any noise,,like the dog in the barn barking,,you'd hear nothing else. It's not exactly an explosive shot.
-
Jeremy's story has changed with ever appeal. It's often said that his story remains the same, but it doesn't.
I even remember at one time he was trying to change the wording with the 'call' he had with his Dad that night.
ok basically his story is the same........"my Dad phoned me......" then years later when the logs come to public attention his story looks as he said why wasnt the log evidence produced to prove him a lier at the time the arguement about time, clocks,who said what etc only started to try to uphold the prosecution. in my oppinion this looks like covering your back. the more I look the more this seems like cover up covering cock up mixed with a dose of self interest
wilf
-
ok basically his story is the same........"my Dad phoned me......" then years later when the logs come to public attention his story looks as he said why wasnt the log evidence produced to prove him a lier at the time the arguement about time, clocks,who said what etc only started to try to uphold the prosecution. in my oppinion this looks like covering your back. the more I look the more this seems like cover up covering cock up mixed with a dose of self interest
wilf
How do the phone logs make it look like he said? The phone logs comport with the prosecution account. The phone logs don't help him in the least. The only thing at all wrong with the log is that one cop wrote 3:36 instead of 3:26.
-
I doubt the walls are 16 inches thick but windows are not for sure. The sound travels through windows. Your claim they would not have heard is nonsense.
But then again she can't have shot herself anyway nor moved her own dead body.
I'm telling you that the police wouldn't have heard any shots from where they'd dossed down after seeing the figure in the window.
-
I'm telling you that the police wouldn't have heard any shots from where they'd dossed down after seeing the figure in the window.
Seeing that you als insist that from a photo you can tell Sheila was alive and have said so many other ridiculous things all in an effort to help out Jeremy, I will ignore biased, usupported claim of yours. Particuarly since I personally have fired .22s so know the sound of a 22LR round and heard shots fired inside structures even though there were noises around.
If you told me the sky was blue I'd still want to go outside and check.
-
How do the phone logs make it look like he said? The phone logs comport with the prosecution account. The phone logs don't help him in the least. The only thing at all wrong with the log is that one cop wrote 3:36 instead of 3:26.
THE ONLY THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
So ALL what you post is supported is it ? Strange that I haven't seen any ! You're not biased either,,are you ------------------much ! You only like the sound of your own voice !
What I've just posted is backed up with documentation.
Anyway,,if all you can do,,and clearly your intentions were to pick holes in my posts,,I'll fuck off then and leave you to it. Happy now ??
-
THE ONLY THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And? One cop accidentally wrote 3:36 instead of 3:26 that is a big deal how?
It most certainly doesn't suggest let alone establish that Nevill made a call to police like some tried to pretend.
-
so was she 26 or 27? what was the phone number? where? who?
-
its often said that theirs not a guilty man in prison but in my experience of talking to prisoners i find that to be true.
the majority of guilty prisoners will admit there crimes.
-
its often said that theirs not a guilty man in prison but in my experience of talking to prisoners i find that to be true.
the majority of guilty prisoners will admit there crimes.
I am informed that many prisoners in Full Sutton believe Jerermy to be innocent. Mike also knew him in prison and he is convinced of his innocence.
-
I am informed that many prisoners in Full Sutton believe Jerermy to be innocent. Mike also knew him in prison and he is convinced of his innocence.
and yet there are numerous killers who go to their deathbed convicted dead to rights who still refuse to confess.
It is not possible to claim that everyone who maintains their innocence is truly innocent.
No one expects mass murderers to be mass murderers save the likes of Osam Bin Laden and there are sitll peopel who don't even believe he was repsonsible for innocent deaths like 9/11.
-
I am informed that many prisoners in Full Sutton believe Jerermy to be innocent. Mike also knew him in prison and he is convinced of his innocence.
Is that why another prisoner attacked him ?
Who informed you. Do you have a direct phone line to the prisoners ?
-
And? One cop accidentally wrote 3:36 instead of 3:26 that is a big deal how?
It most certainly doesn't suggest let alone establish that Nevill made a call to police like some tried to pretend.
I thought the phone operator said there was only call at WHF during the massacre period. From WHF to Jeremys cottage.
The prosecution successfully claiming it was Jeremy phoning himself. The WHF phone being off the hook supports the prosecution.
-
Is that why another prisoner attacked him ?
Who informed you. Do you have a direct phone line to the prisoners ?
ONE prisoner in 29 years. Yeh, right. Says loads, doesn't it Adam!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
ONE prisoner in 29 years. Yeh, right. Says loads, doesn't it Adam!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hope Grahame gives me his source. And lets me know where he read that Sheila painted her toe nails before bed.
I actually read the prisoners do not like Jeremy much. They are jealous of the attention he gets. His horrific crime does not help.
-
Adam strange that I read Jeremy is popular with other inmates and the prison staff we must read different sources :'(
-
Hope Grahame gives me his source. And lets me know where he read that Sheila painted her toe nails before bed.
I actually read the prisoners do not like Jeremy much. They are jealous of the attention he gets. His horrific crime does not help.
Can you show your source please Adam? ;D
-
I knew someone would ask that.
I need to remember where I read it. Which at the moment I cannot.
In the meantime Susan can provide a source for the first time on here. And I look forward to Grahames.
Anyway I am going to the gym now. That's why I don't invite all you lovely ladies over to read my Roger Wilkes book with me. You will all be too busy trying to touch my sexy body.
-
Adam what source is that ;D ;D ;D ;D only do red and brown ;D
-
Hope Grahame gives me his source. And lets me know where he read that Sheila painted her toe nails before bed.
I actually read the prisoners do not like Jeremy much. They are jealous of the attention he gets. His horrific crime does not help.
Adam, despite where it may have been written, I can tell you that IF Sheila painted her toe nails before going to bed, she most ASSUREDLY didn't get INTO bed because it takes a full 24 hours before the varnish hardens to the point where it will no longer smudge.
Prison sounds rather like boarding school. Petty jealousies will be rife but if most believe that he's innocent, it's just a case of not everyone can like everyone.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3762995.stm
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=546.0
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=848.0
Does not seem like Jeremy is that popular in prison.
That makes sense. His crime must be the worst in the prison. Yet he gets all the attention because of that reason.
I am sure Grahame will provide his source showing he was popular. However that does not make him innocent. The worst prisoners behave because there are strict wardens who can take away their privileges. Prisoners will be wary of each other and will not want to mess with someone who is just as violent.
-
Adam that is not news to me the vicious attack by Jeremy on a fellow prisoner. I am not condoning the attack at all as I do not believe in violence but one attack in nearly 30 years does not sound like he is into attacking fellow inmates on a regular basis :'(
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=848.0
Does not seem like Jeremy is that popular in prison.
That makes sense. His crime must be the worst in the prison. Yet he gets all the attention because of that reason.
I am sure Grahame will provide his source showing he was popular. However that does not make him innocent. The worst prisoners behave because there are strict wardens who can take away their privileges. Prisoners will be wary of each other and will not want to mess with someone who is just as violent.
As you not in there with him, you can't possibly know what goes on. He appears to be usefully employed. He isn't, to our knowledge separated from other prisoners or kept in solitary confinement. I would be ENORMOUSLY surprised if the crime he is said to have committed is the worst on record, but it may say much of you, that in terms of severity you see him as being worse than paedophiles.
-
Adam that is not news to me the vicious attack by Jeremy on a fellow prisoner. I am not condoning the attack at all as I do not believe in violence but one attack in nearly 30 years does not sound like he is into attacking fellow inmates on a regular basis :'(
Jeremy himself calls refers to the prisoners as nutters. And feels he should not be sharing a prison with them.
-
Jeremy himself calls refers to the prisoners as nutters. And feels he should not be sharing a prison with them.
And what qualifies you to say what others are thinking or feeling?
-
Adam if Jeremy talks like that in prison I am surprised he has not been attacked more than the one time he was.
-
Adam, despite where it may have been written, I can tell you that IF Sheila painted her toe nails before going to bed, she most ASSUREDLY didn't get INTO bed because it takes a full 24 hours before the varnish hardens to the point where it will no longer smudge.
Prison sounds rather like boarding school. Petty jealousies will be rife but if most believe that he's innocent, it's just a case of not everyone can like everyone.
That would be a reason for her to sleep on her covers instead of in them (aside from the hot weather) but that doesn't sound right that it would rub off on sheets unless they dried a full 24 hours.
-
Adam, despite where it may have been written, I can tell you that IF Sheila painted her toe nails before going to bed, she most ASSUREDLY didn't get INTO bed because it takes a full 24 hours before the varnish hardens to the point where it will no longer smudge.
Prison sounds rather like boarding school. Petty jealousies will be rife but if most believe that he's innocent, it's just a case of not everyone can like everyone.
If she painted her toe nails every night before bed, she must have laid on the top of the bed. Otherwise there is no point. Perfectly plausible, espesically in August.
Anyway, we need to see Grahames source before making any further comment.
-
And what qualifies you to say what others are thinking or feeling?
It is in the Sunday Times interview.
-
Nail varnish on toes does not have to be applied every day! It stays intact much longer than varnish on finger nails.
I have never heard of varnish that took 24 hours to dry! Half an hour tops.
Nobody sleeps on top of their bed covers because of nail varnish drying! Bullocks!
-
It is in the Sunday Times interview.
In other words, YOU don't know anything.
-
In other words, YOU don't know anything.
Thank you April.
-
Thank you April.
My pleasure, Adam :) :-*
-
Sheila was always the one who'd stick up for her brother,,as Jeremy used to be crying on the school bus as the other kids skitted him for his " well-bred " voice. He was teased mercilessly and would just burst into tears instead of fighting back. What a wimp ! ;D
-
Another reason Jeremy may protest his innocence is for his own safety.
He has already been attacked in prison. Either because the prisoners believe him guilty. Or because they are jealous of the attention he gets.
Admitting his guilt, obviously because it is his only chance of parole would result in more resentment from his fellow inmates. They would also lose respect for him. He would have to face them every day, feeling ashamed knowing that they know he is a liar. And feeling scared as a certainly guilty Jeremy is more likely to be attacked.
-
Another reason Jeremy may protest his innocence is for his own safety.
He has already been attacked in prison. Either because the prisoners believe him guilty. Or because they are jealous of the attention he gets.
Admitting his guilt, obviously because it is his only chance of parole would result in more resentment from his fellow inmates. They would also lose respect for him. He would have to face them every day, feeling ashamed knowing that he is a liar. And feeling scared as a certainly guilty Jeremy is more likely to be attacked.
You overlook the fact that he passed a lie detector test. So even if he isn't innocent he certainly believes that he is.
-
You overlook the fact that he passed a lie detector test. So even if he isn't innocent he certainly believes that he is.
Not all people who can beat a lie detector have conviced themselves they are telling the truth. If you are a calm confident liar you can beat it regardless of the skill of the person operating the equipment.
It detects that you are nervous so there are people telling the truth who still fail and people who lie who are not detected. A pathological liar can beat even the best skilled operator.
With that said a lie detector depends a great deal on its operator and the one who performed his has a history of mistakes. On TV they show tremendous changes when you lie but there are actually pretty subtle changes and what 1 operator views as deceptive another might not.
This is why a lie detector is used mainly for investigation. Often out of desperation to narrow down a large field of subjects. But on occasion that backfires and guilty people are cleared, an investigation drags on and years later they find out they had cleared the suspect already.
The only way Jeremy would ever confess were if there were something very favorable he stood to gain from it. The only benefit would be going from 0% chance of parole to a .01% percent chance of parole and being broke if he does get paroled so having to work for a living. I don't think anyone in his place would confess.
-
A pathological liar can FAIL a polygram by using inner effort to make sure his lies are the truth to him.
As can a psychopath fail too for the same reason. They are so sure of themselves,that they let themselves down by their " thought mechanism " which the polygraph picks up.
Read about both.
-
Not all people who can beat a lie detector have conviced themselves they are telling the truth. If you are a calm confident liar you can beat it regardless of the skill of the person operating the equipment.
It detects that you are nervous so there are people telling the truth who still fail and people who lie who are not detected. A pathological liar can beat even the best skilled operator.
With that said a lie detector depends a great deal on its operator and the one who performed his has a history of mistakes. On TV they show tremendous changes when you lie but there are actually pretty subtle changes and what 1 operator views as deceptive another might not.
This is why a lie detector is used mainly for investigation. Often out of desperation to narrow down a large field of subjects. But on occasion that backfires and guilty people are cleared, an investigation drags on and years later they find out they had cleared the suspect already.
The only way Jeremy would ever confess were if there were something very favorable he stood to gain from it. The only benefit would be going from 0% chance of parole to a .01% percent chance of parole and being broke if he does get paroled so having to work for a living. I don't think anyone in his place would confess.
But I bet if he failed the test the guilty party would make a meal of it and tell us all that the lie detector proved that he was lying? ::)
-
But I bet if he failed the test the guilty party would make a meal of it and tell us all that the lie detector proved that he was lying? ::)
If he failed we never would have heard about it in the first place. When you commission a polygraph you do so with the intention to reveal you took it and publish the result only if you pass. much like if you take an IQ test and get a low score you don't tell anyone. If you get a high score you forward the results around.
-
If he failed we never would have heard about it in the first place. When you commission a polygraph you do so with the intention to reveal you took it and publish the result only if you pass. much like if you take an IQ test and get a low score you don't tell anyone. If you get a high score you forward the results around.
You haven't thought this one through have you?
It took a number of requests before JB was allowed to take the polygraph test and it was known that the test was taking place. Category A prisoners can't just nip off to do a quick polygraph test without anyone knowing, so had he failed the results would have been known.
Google Adrian Prout who thought he could deceive the polygraph test and then tell me why he didn't just follow your advice and not tell anyone that he had failed.
You claim to use logic and reason to come to your conclusions but it is obvious you come to the conclusion first and then try to fit the logic around your preconceived notions as demonstrated above.
-
Not all people who can beat a lie detector have conviced themselves they are telling the truth. If you are a calm confident liar you can beat it regardless of the skill of the person operating the equipment.
It detects that you are nervous so there are people telling the truth who still fail and people who lie who are not detected. A pathological liar can beat even the best skilled operator.
With that said a lie detector depends a great deal on its operator and the one who performed his has a history of mistakes. On TV they show tremendous changes when you lie but there are actually pretty subtle changes and what 1 operator views as deceptive another might not.
This is why a lie detector is used mainly for investigation. Often out of desperation to narrow down a large field of subjects. But on occasion that backfires and guilty people are cleared, an investigation drags on and years later they find out they had cleared the suspect already.
The only way Jeremy would ever confess were if there were something very favorable he stood to gain from it. The only benefit would be going from 0% chance of parole to a .01% percent chance of parole and being broke if he does get paroled so having to work for a living. I don't think anyone in his place would confess.
Before the whole life tarrif was introduced Jeremy if he confessed could have been out years ago. He has protested his innocence right from the beginning. The only people who have benefitted from his conviction are the relatives (with the exception of Pamela Boutflour who refused the inheritance) and Mugford.
-
Please think hard about what had happened in Sheilas' life,prior to the murders.
Poor Neville bore the brunt of two " highly-strung " women. One of whom hadn't long been treated at Harley Street,,the other whose behaviour became more and more erratic after her birth mother left for Canada !
-
Anyone ever heard of Covert Psychological Murders ? WHF is typical of there having been such crimes.
-
This relates to the recent discussion about whether Jeremy is psychopath and the narcacisstic immunity thread.
A psychiatrist saying on a posted Youtube video that by 'sheer force of personality he thinks he can make it work'. Jeremy saying things like 'I cannot believe I won't win this'.
-
I'd shake anyones' hand if they could beat this system/establishment of red-tape,bureaurocracy and politics,guilty or not. Innocence will always be hidden under a cloak of secrecy to protect the guilty,as in Operation Hedgerow where top brass from Scotland yard feared opening a can of worms on paedophilia. A superior in the police force halted an investigation because he knew that prominent people were involved.
So don't talk to me about" protesting his innocence".The innocent have NO voice !!
If Jeremy was a monster,he'd be getting legal aid to the tune of £1million !! That's how the system works.
-
You haven't thought this one through have you?
It took a number of requests before JB was allowed to take the polygraph test and it was known that the test was taking place. Category A prisoners can't just nip off to do a quick polygraph test without anyone knowing, so had he failed the results would have been known.
Google Adrian Prout who thought he could deceive the polygraph test and then tell me why he didn't just follow your advice and not tell anyone that he had failed.
You claim to use logic and reason to come to your conclusions but it is obvious you come to the conclusion first and then try to fit the logic around your preconceived notions as demonstrated above.
Thanks for bumping this thread up - because this is a good post . Very observant. :)
-
For Jan.
-
adam were you observant enough to see what was said about JM evidence today? Now that's interesting .
-
A pathological liar can FAIL a polygram by using inner effort to make sure his lies are the truth to him.
As can a psychopath fail too for the same reason. They are so sure of themselves,that they let themselves down by their " thought mechanism " which the polygraph picks up.
Read about both.
The most important factor in a polygraph is the actual Polygraph examiner or polygrapher its the way he or she conducts the interview and reads the apparatus that determines the result. Its the examiner that determines if they pass or fail. I don't have much faith in them TBH
-
I don't have faith in them either. But it's not to say that Jeremy isn't innocent.
An EEG would be more accurate which would measure the electrical activity inside the brain. Though it's mainly used as a diagnostic tool rather than a lie-detector,but I'm sure the results would still be interesting. I've witnessed how these machines work.
-
Here is the thread you were looking for Notsure - to search in future, just pick out the main words (I searched for 'protests his innocence'). You also have to search from the 'Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion' screen - if you try to search from within a thread, it will just search that thread.