Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Jan on May 02, 2015, 11:29:PM
-
What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?
what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?
What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?
could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?
If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?
-
What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?
what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?
What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?
could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?
If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?
I believe the family believed he was guilty from the onset., They did not believe that Sheila could have killed her family for they believed that she was not familiar with guns. The family also believed that Jeremy's behavior of going out on the town and taking holidays was not the behavior they would expect someone to behave having lost his whole family. To be honest I can relate to that Jan. On the other hand he was high on drugs at the time and was probably influenced by his friends edging him on to enjoy himself rather that grieve. I think I would have questioned the way he was behaving too.
Facts are he is convicted of the crimes. The moderator is the key to all of this. Yet there is no proof that it was on the rifle, nor is there any proof it wasn't. The paint sample could have got on the moderator at any time during the year. I just find it hard to believe that three spots of blood landed in the same spot to cause a flake....There is no way I think the family had anything to do with fitting Jeremy up at all. They believed what they did and that is that...
Now of course modern science has revealed that it may have been Sheila's DNA in the moderator. May being not sure.
Fact is that it is June's DNA inside the moderator and no matter how you look at it, it is what it is....How it got there could have two tales...Jeremy is indeed guilty or someone planted the blood inside the moderator....I doubt even contamination could cause blood to have gotten between two baffles....The other scenario is the test firing.... :-\
-
What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?
what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?
What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?
could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?
If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?
The only way Jeremy is innocent is if evidence was doctored intentionally and Julie lied. There is no evidence to establish either though let alone both. Moreover, numerous unlikely things had to happen such as Nevill calling Jeremy, Jeremy calling Julie then looking up phone numbers and the killer using around 20 bullets from the supply in the kitchen but deciding to get at least 5 bullets from the closet instead of using all 25 from the kitchen supply. It's simply not credible that all these unlikely things happened.
-
What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?
what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?
What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?
could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?
If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?
Yes, the only way Jeremy can be innocent is if the extended family manufactured evidence and convinced the police to chance stance. It's an easy accusation to make but probably impossible to prove.
-
Yes, the only way Jeremy can be innocent is if the extended family manufactured evidence and convinced the police to chance stance. It's an easy accusation to make but probably impossible to prove.
David if the evidence was manufactured it could be because the ones responsible knew he was guilty but had no evidence.
-
Nobody " manufactured " evidence. Nor was anything planted. Both would have to be proved.
Jan,I am almost certain that the family were convinced that Jeremy murdered his family.It's human nature to think on those terms after hearing about his escapades of drink and debauchery and generally the high life. I'd probably think the same myself,as would thousands of others,but there were other foibles within the family that neither the relatives nor many in the world outside WHF would know about.
In this case,EP didn't know,or know anything about the family, so were working " blind ",but the relatives " knew",obviously ( and also knew of the land deal before Jeremy did ) except they only knew Jeremy as being a thorn in their sides,as well as the most hateful person that walked the earth. So that was off to a bad start as regards a character reference.
Julie did want revenge and wanted to show Jeremy that she meant business,but things went further than what she'd thought,so an outpouring of the conversations that took place over the time they were together,followed.
I know that over the years,life hasn't always been kind to JM and the years have brought uncertainty on more than one occasion because of that day at the trial.
I do think that between EP and JM,a " deal " was struck to avoid prosecution to JM,but as I've already said,it came at a price for JM and her husband, and the ball is in her court now,which is all I'm prepared to say on the matter.
One officer who was at the scene,who I do know of,knew that mistakes had been made,is 100% certain of Jeremy's innocence,but how would he feel if he opened up ? He knows what he's had to live with the same as JM and her husband,but at 30 years on,it's the thought of repercussions in keeping things quiet,plus a possible jail sentence.
What I've heard over recent months is far from moral.
-
What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?
what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?
What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?
could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?
If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?
The truth is being twisted by the OS so it doesn't bode well. I'm not sure how you argue those questions from both sides and they all reflect an 'innocent' Jeremy and lead to a conspiracy by the family and police.
What if - Jeremy is just guilty?
-
What if-----------he isn't ?
-
What if-----------he isn't ?
If he was/is - he couldn't need to keep changing his story or seek out technicalities to make a desperate bid for freedom. There is only one truth and it doesn't change when you have a new idea about a CCRC submission!
-
If he was/is - he couldn't need to keep changing his story or seek out technicalities to make a desperate bid for freedom. There is only one truth and it doesn't change when you have a new idea about a CCRC submission!
He " changes his story " as he remembers it.I'd rather someone do that than to repeat and rattle it off parrot fashion. Nothing sinister in suddenly remembering something else,as it's only at a later date that people think more clearly about past events. Much the same as the brain's thinking in old age when one can remember vividly things from the past rather than last week.
-
I rather fancy that Jeremy wasn't alone in changing what he'd said or written.
-
What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?
what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?
What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?
could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?
If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?
Jan you have to stop supporting Jeremy.
You know he is guilty and refused to say how Sheila could have committed the crime. Despite all the crime scene evidence being available.
-
He " changes his story " as he remembers it.I'd rather someone do that than to repeat and rattle it off parrot fashion. Nothing sinister in suddenly remembering something else,as it's only at a later date that people think more clearly about past events. Much the same as the brain's thinking in old age when one can remember vividly things from the past rather than last week.
So he remembers the STORY, 30 years after the event BETTER than hours and days later?? ;D ;D ;D ;D. Memory fades with time Lookout. I'm not talking about remembering 'something else' - the time of his fathers phone call doesn't alter because he suddenly wants up to believe Nevill called the police - it changed to fit in this call - he HAS to change the times or it doesn't make sense but it also doesn't make sense, if he has to change what he originally said.
-
Being a more understanding person------------it does to me. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The truth is being twisted by the OS so it doesn't bode well. I'm not sure how you argue those questions from both sides and they all reflect an 'innocent' Jeremy and lead to a conspiracy by the family and police.
What if - Jeremy is just guilty?
Of course that is a possibility which is why I asked that it be looked at from both sides :)
We don't have to spell that out because he is in jail.
The point that I was making is that the family could have genuinely been convinced he was guilty and by embellishing certain points they felt they were morally doing the correct thing - they could have been correct and they in that case were more clever than the police.
But that does not mean they were correct.
Julie - I really do not believe in the beginning she did think JB did it - I don't buy the excuses for not going to the police straight away and the 32 interviews were "coaching" . Could it be that she was persuaded by the police to "do the right thing" and put him away , rather than revenge ?
Still might mean she was right to do so and he is in the right place - and morally some people could think that is justifiable - but should lies put a man in jail?
Again and again we come back to the silencer its the only concrete thing there is , if you believe any of the families or julies testimony was only based on a "ring of truth" Sorry Adam pinched your favourite quote.
-
If he was/is - he couldn't need to keep changing his story or seek out technicalities to make a desperate bid for freedom. There is only one truth and it doesn't change when you have a new idea about a CCRC submission!
If there is only one truth in your mind then how can you discuss ?
-
Jan you have to stop supporting Jeremy.
You know he is guilty and refused to say how Sheila could have committed the crime. Despite all the crime scene evidence being available.
You are like groundhog day Adam
And I have told you over and over again what my answer is to that comment. Its not my fault you can not seem to absorb answers you don't want to hear. That's your problem - not mine.
-
He's definitely on a mission. You don't tell someone to stop supporting,it's ludicrous,besides being manipulative,which Jeremy has been blamed for umpteen times.
-
David if the evidence was manufactured it could be because the ones responsible knew he was guilty but had no evidence.
Yes. This is what is referred to as Noble Cause Corruption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_cause_corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_cause_corruption)
If Jeremy was responsible, manufacturing evidence and police corruption would be in the interest of Justice.
This could explain why he keeps protesting his innocence, For example he might be fully aware he didn't use a sound moderator or he did use one but destroyed it and knows the one used to convict him was a fraud so he knows he is onto a winner if he can prove the corruption
-
Yes. This is what is referred to as Noble Cause Corruption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_cause_corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_cause_corruption)
If Jeremy was responsible, manufacturing evidence and police corruption would be in the interest of Justice.
This could explain why he keeps protesting his innocence, For example he might be fully aware he didn't use a sound moderator or he did use one but destroyed it and knows the one used to convict him was a fraud so he knows he is onto a winner if he can prove the corruption
This is what I believe.
-
Yes. This is what is referred to as Noble Cause Corruption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_cause_corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_cause_corruption)
If Jeremy was responsible, manufacturing evidence and police corruption would be in the interest of Justice.
This could explain why he keeps protesting his innocence, For example he might be fully aware he didn't use a sound moderator or he did use one but destroyed it and knows the one used to convict him was a fraud so he knows he is onto a winner if he can prove the corruption
David this is what I believe too. Some posters who thought Jeremy guilty from way back think this also as I discussed it with them.
-
David this is what I believe too. Some posters who thought Jeremy guilty from way back think this also as I discussed it with them.
I've always found it odd that Jeremy would put a blood stained silencer in a cupboard after he done it.
Then his extended family go looking in the house for clues then find the most incriminating evidence that the forensics failed to find ::)
If he is guilty I have no problem if that's what happened
-
I've always found it odd that Jeremy would put a blood stained silencer in a cupboard after he done it.
Then his extended family go looking in the house for clues then find the most incriminating evidence that the forensics failed to find ::)
If he is guilty I have no problem if that's what happened
David I have made my opinion clear on the silencer I don't think he used one had he used one he would have left it on the rifle as he may not have realised it was too long for Sheila to shoot herself. I can't even speculate on who found the silencer and why they found it and not the police it would be grossly unfair as I just don't have an answer. If he did use a silencer he was pretty stupid to put it away without cleaning it.
-
Of course a silencer was used.How do you account for the blood on it ?
-
Of course a silencer was used.How do you account for the blood on it ?
I have already accounted for the blood in it and if it was used - how did it get back into the cupboard after Sheila 'shot herself'?
-
I have already accounted for the blood in it and if it was used - how did it get back into the cupboard after Sheila 'shot herself'?
None of us know that one.
-
This is what I believe.
So do you believe the police falsified the evidence or the family - or both together?
-
None of us know that one.
But it has never 100% been proved its Sheilas blood? So how do you know she did not put it away before she shut herself ? Why try and apply logic to her situation - if she did it she was very ill and not thinking straight at all?
If not I think the silencer was just missed and was never in the cupboard at all - it could have been under the bed - and the family story was a cover up to help the police - they just provided a story in return for getting what they wanted.
Or Jeremy was one of the most stupid mass murderers ever.
-
None of us know that one.
So you believe the silencer was used and Jeremy is Innocent ???
You also believe Neville was killed when he got out the shower then managed to get into the kitchen to call Jeremy after he was killed ???
I think you need to revise the case all over again. Just saying ::)
-
So you believe the silencer was used and Jeremy is Innocent ???
You also believe Neville was killed when he got out the shower then managed to get into the kitchen to call Jeremy after he was killed ???
I think you need to revise the case all over again. Just saying ::)
Just a minute. You're posting things that I didn't say at all. I did NOT say that Neville was killed coming out of the shower. I'd said that Sheila had been waiting as he got out of the shower,hence he'd only managed to half dress himself.
Try reading the posts properly before jumping to conclusions.
-
None of us know that one.
I can have a BEST GUESS and I have one!
-
Just a minute. You're posting things that I didn't say at all. I did NOT say that Neville was killed coming out of the shower. I'd said that Sheila had been waiting as he got out of the shower,hence he'd only managed to half dress himself.
Try reading the posts properly before jumping to conclusions.
I think your reply to my post can be written in response to the above .....
"None of us know that one"
-
But it has never 100% been proved its Sheilas blood? So how do you know she did not put it away before she shut herself ? Why try and apply logic to her situation - if she did it she was very ill and not thinking straight at all?
If not I think the silencer was just missed and was never in the cupboard at all - it could have been under the bed - and the family story was a cover up to help the police - they just provided a story in return for getting what they wanted.
Or Jeremy was one of the most stupid mass murderers ever.
Fortunately a majority of criminals are stupid in one way or another. He thought dragging her flat to stick the gun on her and sticking the Bible near her would help his efforts when in fact they give away that Sheila was murdered by someone else. He thought putting the moderator away would be sufficient to conceal its use. He had no clue about drawback. But neither did the police and most people to this day have never heard of drawback. So his error is understandable The less understandable error is what was he doing sticking the Bible in a pool of blood that formed after her death.
If he did stage the burns then he botched it by doing so in areas of the body that were uncovered solely because of the way Nevill was lying when dead. That pretty much gives away the burns were done post mortem. This botch prevented police from appreciating what he was trying to convey so the whole effort was wasted.
He even botched the highlight of his plan which was to fool police into thinking no one could have entered or exited the house so the killer had to be inside. He ended up revealing the windows were able to be used to enter and exit. That seems like a no-brainer that this is something you would not want revealed. Yet police saw him enter through the window and he ended up admitting he did it numerous ties in the past. He neglected to mention this to police previously though including when those at the scene asked him if there was any way in.
-
Fortunately a majority of criminals are stupid in one way or another. He thought dragging her flat to stick the gun on her and sticking the Bible near her would help his efforts when in fact they give away that Sheila was murdered by someone else. He thought putting the moderator away would be sufficient to conceal its use. He had no clue about drawback. But neither did the police and most people to this day have never heard of drawback. So his error is understandable The less understandable error is what was he doing sticking the Bible in a pool of blood that formed after her death.
If he did stage the burns then he botched it by doing so in areas of the body that were uncovered solely because of the way Nevill was lying when dead. That pretty much gives away the burns were done post mortem. This botch prevented police from appreciating what he was trying to convey so the whole effort was wasted.
He even botched the highlight of his plan which was to fool police into thinking no one could have entered or exited the house so the killer had to be inside. He ended up revealing the windows were able to be used to enter and exit. That seems like a no-brainer that this is something you would not want revealed. Yet police saw him enter through the window and he ended up admitting he did it numerous ties in the past. He neglected to mention this to police previously though including when those at the scene asked him if there was any way in.
So if he did them post mortem - hence why there are not marks on the pyjamas - then he was trying to indicate that Sheila was leaving some kind of delusional message? 3 burns - Holy trinity perhaps ? that's pretty deep considering the alleged other stupid mistakes he made which were his downfall. A truly complicated web he wove - tripping over it as he went.
-
So if he did them post mortem - hence why there are not marks on the pyjamas - then he was trying to indicate that Sheila was leaving some kind of delusional message? 3 burns - Holy trinity perhaps ? that's pretty deep considering the alleged other stupid mistakes he made which were his downfall. A truly complicated web he wove - tripping over it as he went.
If he did it for staging purposes then I think the most likely thing he was trying to get police to think by it was that the burns were to force Nevill to make the phone call.
You and other supporters and even the police overlook something significant.
Why would Nevill phone Jeremy even if Sheila did have the rifle?
If Sheila had already used the weapon he would have called 999 because medical help was needed. SO Jeremy didn't claim Nevill told him the gun had been used already.
If she didn't fire the gun yet and was just walking around with it why would he not try to take it away from her himself? He was the strongest and biggest one in the family. Why would he need Jeremy to disarm her? If you fear someone is going to shoot your wife, grandkids or you do you try to disarm them before they can do so or do you leave them wandering around with the gun so they could potentially shoot others and simply pray they won't do so as you waste time calling someone who will take 10 plus minutes to arrive?
If he was too scared to disarm her why would he call Jeremy to demand Jeremy come in harms way you call police.
Since he didn't get along with Sheila obviously Nevill would not phone him with the expectation Jeremy would calm her down. Jeremy had no idea police would buy his claims of the call so easily. He probably felt he needed to make it appear that Nevill made the call because he was forced and that the goal was to get Jeremy there so she could kill him too. Multiple burns were to denote Nevill resisted at firs but gave in after several burns. Police failed to read it that way but it didn't matter because they accepted Nevill would have phoned him though it makes no sense.
If it wasn't staged he most likely did it to test if he was dead I doubt he did it just for the satisfaction of mutilation.
-
In RWB's COLP statement,he states that he hadn't expected this statement to have been used in evidence,as he'd put it,he was just " brainstorming " by putting down what he was thinking at the time,down on paper. What ? So what he'd surmised became a legal document ?