Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on May 04, 2015, 07:56:AM
-
Would other criminals have confessed ?
The recently posted video twice says 'despite all the evidence Jeremy continued to protest his innocence'.
This suggests that historically, other criminals with a similar amount of incriminating evidence against them, would have confessed.
It is true that there is a mountain of incriminating circumstantial and forensic evidence against Jeremy. Together with several motives, an opportunity and no alibi. Everything fits.
Unlike most other cases, there is another suspect, created by Jeremy on the massacre night, which is the thing he can cling to. To support this he can make unproven but very public claims that Julie lied, the police were corrupt and the relatives framed him.
Jeremy has been unsuccessful in proving his innocence.
There are lots of reasons why he protests his innocence and a thread has already been created. The video suggested another reason - psychopathy. Other people have suggested he has narsarcisstic immunity.
Do other people believe most other criminals would have admitted their guilt if faced with a similar volume of convincing evidence ?
-
Not if they didn't do it.
-
Not if they didn't do it.
Or if they were a psychopath and didn't feel any remorse.
-
Would other criminals have confessed ?
Some people confess when caught dead to rights others don't.
Some refuse to face they have been caught dead to rights and are convinced the evidence is lacking.
Some will continue asserting their innocence deluded into thinking that if they do so their conviction will somehow be overturned.
How deluded is Jeremy? Well he does have a following he has persuaded and that encourages him to continue with his efforts the same way scam artists are encouraged by success. A scam artist called me the other day saying he was an old high school buddy who needed to be bailed out of jail. I asked his name and eventually he provided one. He insisted he knew me though I said I never knew anyone by his name ever let alone in high school. Even after I told him his scam was pathetic he tried pressing it and I had to hang up to get rid of him.
Persistence is necessary for scam artists to be successful and sometimes it does pay off. Just read about the money scams in offtopic section on the DR Phil show.
Jeremy is a classic BS artist. Whether that means he has a personality disorder or what have you is pretty irrelevant. All that matters is he is a classic BS artist.
-
Jeremy's case is rather unusual compared to most. If Jeremy is guilty his motives for protesting his innocence there are several possibilities.
1. He knows the prosecution has been corrupted and evidence tampered/manufactured because he knows exactly what he has done and how he done it. His biggest dilemma is the try and prove it without incriminating himself. Him saying for example "The silencer is false evidence because I never used it when I killed them or I buried the silencer I used" will prove the corruption but defeat the object. So the flaws that he is aware of could motivate him to try and crack his conviction.
2. Major aspects of the incriminating evidence against him can be cast into doubt
a) Julie Mugfords dealings with the police indicating possible coercion in exchange for immunity.
(http://s1.postimg.org/rz9mlki1r/mugford.jpg)
(http://s13.postimg.org/4cf3ajqzb/mugord_2.jpg)
b) The extended family who came forward with the evidence against him stood to Inherit the Bamber estate if he was convicted. In todays money worth £1.3 Million Pounds ($2,000,000) giving them possible motive to corrupt or falsify evidence.
c) The police investigation was flawed (however to be fair Essex Police had never had a situation like this before)
The above 3 points don't prove innocence by any means but does harm the credibility of the evidence against him. This will motivate him to continue to fight for freedom
3. One other possibility is that Jeremy is oblivious to the fact that he done it. His subconscious mind may have emotionally repressed most the memory of that night as a form of psychological defence mechanism to protect him from reality. And he now only has false instilled memories that come from the defence version of events. In other words he is living on planet Jeremy literally thinking he is innocent!
-
Wether he is guilty or not we must stick to the facts. Kerry daines the phscologist that confirms he's a psychopath later had to admit that she had never met jeremy or examined him. A very unethical thing to do. What we need to do is ask ourselves this. If this case was tried today and you were a member of the jury confronted with circumstantial evidence only... Would you convict, I'm guessing the answer would be NO
-
Well how on earth can that psychologist state that Jeremy is a psychopath when she's never met him ?
Same goes for those on here who've never met the man.
-
Wether he is guilty or not we must stick to the facts. Kerry daines the phscologist that confirms he's a psychopath later had to admit that she had never met jeremy or examined him. A very unethical thing to do. What we need to do is ask ourselves this. If this case was tried today and you were a member of the jury confronted with circumstantial evidence only... Would you convict, I'm guessing the answer would be NO
There is a mountain of forensic evidence. As well as a mountain of circumstantial evidence.
There is a motive, opportunity and no alibi. Together with JM's testimony, which is supported by several other testimonies.
-
The expert said he ticks a lot of boxes to be a psychopath.
How would she know ? By using her expertise and researching the case.
-
There is a mountain of forensic evidence. As well as a mountain of circumstantial evidence.
There is a motive, opportunity and no alibi. Together with JM's testimony, which is supported by several other testimonies.
Do tell us about the forensic evidence,I'm all ears/eyes.
-
Wether he is guilty or not we must stick to the facts. Kerry daines the phscologist that confirms he's a psychopath later had to admit that she had never met jeremy or examined him. A very unethical thing to do. What we need to do is ask ourselves this. If this case was tried today and you were a member of the jury confronted with circumstantial evidence only... Would you convict, I'm guessing the answer would be NO
I feel certain that there may be many others who have been adjudged psychopathic without having ever been seen. The fact that they can murder in cold blood remorselessly give a large clue to it.
-
Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a mountain of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
There is the silencer evidence which shows beyond doubt it was Bamber.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night.
There is the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside.
No one can explain how Sheila could have committed the massacre to match the crime scene.
-
Sorry Adam but your talking rubbish. My gp won't give me a sick certificate for my injured arm untill he's examined me. That's because he's an ethical proffesional. Kerry daines had to apologise for her diagnosis on the grounds that she was being paid by the documentary makers and the fact that it's wrong to comment on someone she had never met. By the way .. I think tony Blair is a psychopath and I've never met him... Wrong isn't it!
-
The expert said he ticks a lot of boxes to be a psychopath.
How would she know ? By using her expertise and researching the case.
And what expert would that be ? Someone who hasn't met him ? How do they do it ? Through a medium ?
-
Jeremy's case is rather unusual compared to most. If Jeremy is guilty his motives for protesting his innocence there are several possibilities.
1. He knows the prosecution has been corrupted and evidence tampered/manufactured because he knows exactly what he has done and how he done it. His biggest dilemma is the try and prove it without incriminating himself. Him saying for example "The silencer is false evidence because I never used it when I killed them or I buried the silencer I used" will prove the corruption but defeat the object. So the flaws that he is aware of could motivate him to try and crack his conviction.
2. Major aspects of the incriminating evidence against him can be cast into doubt
a) Julie Mugfords dealings with the police indicating possible coercion in exchange for immunity.
(http://s1.postimg.org/rz9mlki1r/mugford.jpg)
(http://s13.postimg.org/4cf3ajqzb/mugord_2.jpg)
b) The extended family who came forward with the evidence against him stood to Inherit the Bamber estate if he was convicted. In todays money worth £1.3 Million Pounds ($2,000,000) giving them possible motive to corrupt or falsify evidence.
c) The police investigation was flawed (however to be fair Essex Police had never had a situation like this before)
The above 3 points don't prove innocence by any means but does harm the credibility of the evidence against him. This will motivate him to continue to fight for freedom
3. One other possibility is that Jeremy is oblivious to the fact that he done it. His subconscious mind may have emotionally repressed most the memory of that night as a form of psychological defence mechanism to protect him from reality. And he now only has false instilled memories that come from the defence version of events. In other words he is living on planet Jeremy literally thinking he is innocent!
All you have done is point out the baseless allegations that Jeremy has resorted to in an effort to claim he is innocent.
The allegations amount to his desperately spinning to try to establish his innocence including the nonsense claim that Bonnett's log establishes Nevill called 999 after calling Jeremy. Instead of accepting his lot he thinks he can spin his way out and desperately tried to do so.
Does he honestly believe he has a chance of spinning his way out or is he just deluding himself to give himself false hope so he can survive? I think the former but it doesn't really matter either way.
His situation is not unusual. A sizable number of prisoners maintain their innocence even though they are guilty thinking that if they do so they eventually might convince an appeal court and get out. Many who do it don't have life terms. They plan to tell everyone when they are out they are innocent and were wronged because they think it will be better that way for the than to admit guilt and say they changed and learned their lesson. He's a lifer the only way he is getting out is if he can convince a court he is innocent. So he has a reason to maintain his innocence. He wants people to help him try to get out.
-
Sorry Adam but your talking rubbish. My gp won't give me a sick certificate for my injured arm untill he's examined me. That's because he's an ethical proffesional. Kerry daines had to apologise for her diagnosis on the grounds that she was being paid by the documentary makers and the fact that it's wrong to comment on someone she had never met. By the way .. I think tony Blair is a psychopath and I've never met him... Wrong isn't it!
Sorry Keepers, you are talking rubbish.
Experts talk on documentaries all the time. Whether they were involved in the issue or not.
I suspected she had never met him. But it's easy for her to research the case and find out about him. Then give an opinion, as an expert.
Please provide the source where she apologised and was paid. I thought documentary makers don't pay people to comment.
-
Research her and you'll see. No so called expert can give a qualified opinion on research alone. Why do you think the trial judge threw out the case against Colin stagg? The reason being the so called expert was talking total rubbish and doing what his paymasters were asking of him!
-
You are supposed to provide the source. As it is you're claim.Not do what Lookout does and tell me to 'find it yourself'.
She was an expert. Which is why she was asked to contribute. She gave her opinion after researching the case. And her views suggest Jeremy is a psychopath
-
Well how on earth can that psychologist state that Jeremy is a psychopath when she's never met him ?
Same goes for those on here who've never met the man.
What would you call a man who murdered five members of his family; including to little boys?
-
What would you call a man who murdered five members of his family; including two little boys?
-
Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a mountain of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
There is the silencer evidence which shows beyond doubt it was Bamber.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night.
There is the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside.
No one can explain how Sheila could have committed the massacre to match the crime scene.
I can't believe that you said that Jeremy's prints will be everywhere---------------he lived there. ::)
-
I can't believe that you said that Jeremy's prints will be everywhere---------------he lived there. ::)
No, he visited.
-
Adam... Why did they not ask the expert that actually examined jeremy? Why did they not ask the expert that conducted the lie detector test? Answer is , it didn't provide for the documentary they were making. As for my source.. It's the Internet. Your assuming that I'm a supporter of Jeremy's innocence. I'm just a supporter of the truth being proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you can convince me I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong. The fact is you can't!
-
No, he visited.
Lived,being in the past tense.
-
Adam... Why did they not ask the expert that actually examined jeremy? Why did they not ask the expert that conducted the lie detector test? Answer is , it didn't provide for the documentary they were making. As for my source.. It's the Internet. Your assuming that I'm a supporter of Jeremy's innocence. I'm just a supporter of the truth being proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you can convince me I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong. The fact is you can't!
They interviewed De Stefano. I thought the lie detector test was after 2005.
-
Lived,being in the past tense.
And they had a regular cleaner. Jeremy hadn't been in residence there for several years. I imagine prints would have been limited to certain areas. Your meaning would have been clearer had you said he HAD lived there.
-
And they had a regular cleaner. Jeremy hadn't been in residence there for several years. I imagine prints would have been limited to certain areas. Your meaning would have been clearer had you said he HAD lived there.
I know I should have said had lived there. There was still " his room " where EP could have had the time of their lives gathering prints,etc.
-
Wether he is guilty or not we must stick to the facts. Kerry daines the phscologist that confirms he's a psychopath later had to admit that she had never met jeremy or examined him. A very unethical thing to do. What we need to do is ask ourselves this. If this case was tried today and you were a member of the jury confronted with circumstantial evidence only... Would you convict, I'm guessing the answer would be NO
Kerry Daynes didn't give the impression that she had met or examined Jeremy Bamber nor was it implied. Knowing what I know now, I would most certainly convict - without question.
-
Kerry Daynes didn't give the impression that she had met or examined Jeremy Bamber nor was it implied. Knowing what I know now, I would most certainly convict - without question.
There is no law that an expert has to meet someone before giving an opinion on a documentary. Although Keepers is complaining about Daynes.
-
Kerry Daynes didn't give the impression that she had met or examined Jeremy Bamber nor was it implied. Knowing what I know now, I would most certainly convict - without question.
I wonder how many of those experts who made pronouncements on the psychopathy of other infamous prisoners, had the dubious pleasure of being in their company.
-
There is a mountain of forensic evidence. As well as a mountain of circumstantial evidence.
There is a motive, opportunity and no alibi. Together with JM's testimony, which is supported by several other testimonies.
what is the forensic evidence that JB is guilty?
-
All you have done is point out the baseless allegations that Jeremy has resorted to in an effort to claim he is innocent.
The allegations amount to his desperately spinning to try to establish his innocence including the nonsense claim that Bonnett's log establishes Nevill called 999 after calling Jeremy. Instead of accepting his lot he thinks he can spin his way out and desperately tried to do so.
Does he honestly believe he has a chance of spinning his way out or is he just deluding himself to give himself false hope so he can survive? I think the former but it doesn't really matter either way.
His situation is not unusual. A sizable number of prisoners maintain their innocence even though they are guilty thinking that if they do so they eventually might convince an appeal court and get out. Many who do it don't have life terms. They plan to tell everyone when they are out they are innocent and were wronged because they think it will be better that way for the than to admit guilt and say they changed and learned their lesson. He's a lifer the only way he is getting out is if he can convince a court he is innocent. So he has a reason to maintain his innocence. He wants people to help him try to get out.
Baseless and unwarranted from a prosecutors perspective maybe. But substantial and adequate from a defence perspective.
He was only told he was going to die behind bars in 1994 before then he still protested while having a minimum 25 year sentence. I did not mean him protesting innocence is unusual more his case altogether hence the national interest.
Its most probable he is guilty but has suppressed all memory of it and convinced himself he is innocent and all the outside support over 30 years has contributed to this and still exacerbates the problem to this day. Had he confessed within the first 10 years of his sentence then undertook offender rehabilitation courses He would be eligible for parole now but I recon he would have to have served at leased 35-40 years before they consider to parole him. Its too late now thou he has gone too far down the rabbit hole. Staying inside the prison regime is in his best interest weather he knows it or not
-
I feel certain that there may be many others who have been adjudged psychopathic without having ever been seen. The fact that they can murder in cold blood remorselessly give a large clue to it.
Every Psychiatrist sais you simply cannot diagnose someone without examining him in person.
TV 'psychologists' will say anything on screen, Like Emma Kenny she is not even fully qualified apparently
-
No, he visited.
No, he worked there. Bet my fingerprints are all over my work-place!
-
Every Psychiatrist sais you simply cannot diagnose someone without examining him in person.
TV 'psychologists' will say anything on screen, Like Emma Kenny she is not even fully qualified apparently
It´s a good career booster.
-
No, he worked there. Bet my fingerprints are all over my work-place!
No, he worked on the farm. He visited the house.
-
No, he worked on the farm. He visited the house.
Well according to Adam he was not speaking to his mother - so he must have visited the house as part of his work :)
-
Well according to Adam he was not speaking to his mother - so he must have visited the house as part of his work :)
Some of Adam's pronouncements are, shall we say, a little fluffy ;)
-
No, he worked on the farm. He visited the house.
Farmhouse. I am sure he had work related dealings in the house - toilet visits for one.
-
What would you call a man who murdered five members of his family; including to little boys?
evil beyond belief
-
Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a mountain of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
There is the silencer evidence which shows beyond doubt it was Bamber.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night.
There is the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside.
No one can explain how Sheila could have committed the massacre to match the crime scene.
this is what makes me really cross about you .You repeat things which you know are not proven as fact.
He did not have a month to dispose of the evidence. The family were watching like a hawk and the police were round his house immediately. Mentioning the blood on his clothes is pathetic - if you are old enough to shave I am willing to bet I would find blood on your clothes.
The court said it did not have to be proven the window could lock from the outside -therefore it was not proven. And even if it was it only shows opportunity not a forensic fact.
supposed evidence that Sheila did not do it is not forensic evidence that Jeremy did it.
Lets go back to the mountain of forensic evidence that Jeremy did it . It has been used against killers who have killed in their own homes before - so start again please.
-
I'm waiting for a list of this mountainous heap of forensic evidence.
-
Baseless and unwarranted from a prosecutors perspective maybe. But substantial and adequate from a defence perspective.
He was only told he was going to die behind bars in 1994 before then he still protested while having a minimum 25 year sentence. I did not mean him protesting innocence is unusual more his case altogether hence the national interest.
Its most probable he is guilty but has suppressed all memory of it and convinced himself he is innocent and all the outside support over 30 years has contributed to this and still exacerbates the problem to this day. Had he confessed within the first 10 years of his sentence then undertook offender rehabilitation courses He would be eligible for parole now but I recon he would have to have served at leased 35-40 years before they consider to parole him. Its too late now thou he has gone too far down the rabbit hole. Staying inside the prison regime is in his best interest weather he knows it or not
I agree with you on that - If he is guilty I do think he believes for whatever reason that he is innocent.
And if he got out on a technicality I think his life outside would be hell anyway .
-
Farmhouse. I am sure he had work related dealings in the house - toilet visits for one.
As I said. He visited the house.
-
A mountain of forensic evidence- would equate to - his foot prints in blood in the house
his fingerprints in blood in the house.
A trace of the victims blood on him - his clothes - the bike.
his fresh dirty foot print on the window sill as he got in or left.
His print in the blood on the silencer.
his hair or other fibres from his clothes on Sheila - left when he moved the body.
Finding his clothes that he had "hidden " on the way home.
etc etc.
Any of those Adam?
-
Any advance on the mountain of forensic evidence ?
-
As I said. He visited the house.
Haha, you grabbed that one! ;) ;)
That is how you word it in English....
Anyway, I don´t say I visit my workplace.
-
this is what makes me really cross about you .You repeat things which you know are not proven as fact.
He did not have a month to dispose of the evidence. The family were watching like a hawk and the police were round his house immediately. Mentioning the blood on his clothes is pathetic - if you are old enough to shave I am willing to bet I would find blood on your clothes.
The court said it did not have to be proven the window could lock from the outside -therefore it was not proven. And even if it was it only shows opportunity not a forensic fact.
supposed evidence that Sheila did not do it is not forensic evidence that Jeremy did it.
Lets go back to the mountain of forensic evidence that Jeremy did it . It has been used against killers who have killed in their own homes before - so start again please.
RWB also had a private detective following him and Brett Collins.
-
He had been to the house on the day and handled the gun - fact
What we are looking for is proof he was in there in the crime scene at the time. Fact
-
Some of Adam's pronouncements are, shall we say, a little fluffy ;)
You're 30 year belief of Jeremy's innocence was 'a little fluffy'.
-
Well according to Adam he was not speaking to his mother - so he must have visited the house as part of his work :)
No according to MM, Wilkes and Jeremy himself.
BW said he taunted her with rats and by cycling around her.
Keep up.
-
Haha, you grabbed that one! ;) ;)
That is how you word it in English....
Anyway, I don´t say I visit my workplace.
I think we may both be overly pedantic here. I can't imagine that, after Jeremy moved out, WHF turned from being family home to place of work but on the other hand it would have been a rather strange place for him to be anyway, given Adam's assertion that he hadn't spoken to June since he was at school. One wonders how he managed to make all those financial demands on her. Maybe he wrote notes to her or asked Nevill to ask on his behalf.....................when he popped in to use the loo ;)
-
I think we may both be overly pedantic here. I can't imagine that, after Jeremy moved out, WHF turned from being family home to place of work but on the other hand it would have been a rather strange place for him to be anyway, given Adam's assertion that he hadn't spoken to June since he was at school. One wonders how he managed to make all those financial demands on her. Maybe he wrote notes to her or asked Nevill to ask on his behalf.....................when he popped in to use the loo ;)
Yes, that is a bit of a mystery!
Perhaps Adam has a suggestion as to how they communicated about all the money Jeremy sucked out of her.
Or how he managed to taunt her verbally (didn´t someone say that in the documentary), but without talking to her.
-
No according to MM, Wilkes and Jeremy himself.
BW said he taunted her with rats and by cycling around her.
Keep up.
So why are you saying he visited the house then. And what is your theory for why BW changed her opinion between statements?
-
No according to MM, Wilkes and Jeremy himself.
BW said he taunted her with rats and by cycling around her.
Keep up.
That's is not proof he was a murderer. Sheila was scared she was a danger to her sons . She told her doctor. We have no idea if Jeremy even knew that?
-
Baseless and unwarranted from a prosecutors perspective maybe. But substantial and adequate from a defence perspective.
He was only told he was going to die behind bars in 1994 before then he still protested while having a minimum 25 year sentence. I did not mean him protesting innocence is unusual more his case altogether hence the national interest.
Its most probable he is guilty but has suppressed all memory of it and convinced himself he is innocent and all the outside support over 30 years has contributed to this and still exacerbates the problem to this day. Had he confessed within the first 10 years of his sentence then undertook offender rehabilitation courses He would be eligible for parole now but I recon he would have to have served at leased 35-40 years before they consider to parole him. Its too late now thou he has gone too far down the rabbit hole. Staying inside the prison regime is in his best interest weather he knows it or not
Adequate and substantial in what defense perspective? From the perspective of the defense attorney the claims are pitiful and have no evidentiary support.
I have repeatedly been asked to help put together a good basis to appeal. I can't because the evidence publicly available provides no basis to put together any competent defense. His claims all sack of desperation.
He has people still willing to help him because he is telling them he is innocent. He hopes that eventually they can come up with something that will result in his conviction being vacated. His hope is unrealistic given the facts and evidence but his choices are to give up all hope or try to keep hope alive. Many people with no hope end up killing themselves or having someone else do it for them. When you have nothign to live for it is far easier to attack someone so they kill you or to hang yourself etc.
-
I think we may both be overly pedantic here. I can't imagine that, after Jeremy moved out, WHF turned from being family home to place of work but on the other hand it would have been a rather strange place for him to be anyway, given Adam's assertion that he hadn't spoken to June since he was at school. One wonders how he managed to make all those financial demands on her. Maybe he wrote notes to her or asked Nevill to ask on his behalf.....................when he popped in to use the loo ;)
Oh no if he wanted money, he would engage with June or Neville. According to RB he rather crudely demanded money from June in writing while abroad.
-
I suppose it made up for the massive drug bill that Sheila had owed.
-
this is what makes me really cross about you .You repeat things which you know are not proven as fact.
He did not have a month to dispose of the evidence. The family were watching like a hawk and the police were round his house immediately. Mentioning the blood on his clothes is pathetic - if you are old enough to shave I am willing to bet I would find blood on your clothes.
The court said it did not have to be proven the window could lock from the outside -therefore it was not proven. And even if it was it only shows opportunity not a forensic fact.
supposed evidence that Sheila did not do it is not forensic evidence that Jeremy did it.
Lets go back to the mountain of forensic evidence that Jeremy did it . It has been used against killers who have killed in their own homes before - so start again please.
He had amble time to dispose of his clothes. He went to Amsterdam, Burnham, London, Eastbourne and St Tropez. Did the relatives go as well ? I have closed this issue in another thread.
The window issue has also been closed. I gave you 17 sources. Most of them being you're demanded 'primary'.
There is a mountain of 'forensic' evidence Sheila did not commit the massacre. So Jeremy is guilty.
-
He had amble time to dispose of his clothes. He went to Amsterdam, Burnham, London, Eastbourne and St Tropez. Did the relatives go as well ? I have closed this issue in another thread.
The window issue has also been closed. I gave you 17 sources. Most of them being you're demanded 'primary'.
There is a mountain of 'forensic' evidence Sheila did not commit the massacre. So Jeremy is guilty.
I see you have had 3 weetabix this today Adam ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I see you have had 3 weetabix this today Adam ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
He's bound to be sick. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No according to MM, Wilkes and Jeremy himself.
BW said he taunted her with rats and by cycling around her.
Keep up.
No you keep up
BW said he was like a son to her - that's a bit odd don't you think ? Or perhaps she is not a good judge of character.
-
I bet the son was pleased to know what she'd said at the time. :D
-
I bet the son was pleased to know what she'd said at the time. :D
Good point.Never thought of that.
-
No you keep up
BW said he was like a son to her - that's a bit odd don't you think ? Or perhaps she is not a good judge of character.
No you keep up.
I have asked you about five times for the mysterious summary you keep saying you posted of how Sheila committed the massacre.
I have even said I will apologise for calling you a liar when you do post it.
You were very quiet in my deadline thread. It is certainly not there.
If you can't say how Sheila committed the massacre, just change stance. A thank you would be nice to, as if it wasn't for me you would still be arguing against 17 sources on lockable windows.
-
No you keep up.
I have asked you about five times for the mysterious summary you keep saying you posted of how Sheila committed the massacre.
I have even said I will apologise for calling you a liar when you do post it.
You were very quiet in my deadline thread. It is certainly not there.
If you can't say how Sheila committed the massacre, just change stance. A thank you would be nice to, as if it wasn't for me you would still be arguing against 17 sources on lockable windows.
there are not 17 sources.
that is one fact . They are repeated information . And if there were ( which there are not ) why did the COA say it did not have to be proven.
you call me a liar once more and you will be making yourself look very foolish.
-
I'd also be interested in your scenario Jan, I know scenarios are only peoples opinion and we can never fully know if they are right or wrong - they are still interesting to see how a member sees things.
-
The facts are no one knows the sequence of death. There is no proof that all shots were made to each victim all at the same time.
So in other words all peoples theories are nothing but that - theories.
I will repeat what I said before - because despite what Adam says I gave a brief scenario - so he is the one in the wrong here.
I don't think a shot had been fired when NB made the call , I don't believe he thought she was about to shoot the family - perhaps as someone mentioned she was threatening to kill herself . He made the call or calls as she went upstairs for help thinking he would then try and talk her down - then he heard the shots - she had very quickly shot the twins and June as he ran upstairs into the bedroom she shot him and then he ran downstairs into the kitchen - hence his blood on the stairway . I believe he was shot again and beaten after the shots or whilst he was badly incapacitated.
I have never assumed the entire sequence- I have never made my mind up about the second call - I have never assumed at what point she committed suicide - I do think it was possible she was still alive whilst the police were outside.
I do think the silencer is a red herring in some way.
I have been completely honest about the bits I am still asking questions about - hence my recent question about whether the jury were shown photos of her hands.
This is repeated because you asked me nicely :) - not for Adam.
He is telling lies because I have given my Scenario before .It is brief and undetailed because I am still asking questions and I don't assume I know more than the experts at the time who were not able to establish exactly what happened.
-
By the way Adam this is a repeat of my post on March 2nd - and there were ones before that so you owe me a big apology - I can not abide posters who call others liars without proof - it is personal and uncalled for - so apologise.
-
By the way Adam this is a repeat of my post on March 2nd - and there were ones before that so you owe me a big apology - I can not abide posters who call others liars without proof - it is personal and uncalled for - so apologise.
Adam you do owe Jan an apology she has made her thoughts on how Sheila murdered her family prior to tonight.
-
The facts are no one knows the sequence of death. There is no proof that all shots were made to each victim all at the same time.
So in other words all peoples theories are nothing but that - theories.
I will repeat what I said before - because despite what Adam says I gave a brief scenario - so he is the one in the wrong here.
I don't think a shot had been fired when NB made the call , I don't believe he thought she was about to shoot the family - perhaps as someone mentioned she was threatening to kill herself . He made the call or calls as she went upstairs for help thinking he would then try and talk her down - then he heard the shots - she had very quickly shot the twins and June as he ran upstairs into the bedroom she shot him and then he ran downstairs into the kitchen - hence his blood on the stairway . I believe he was shot again and beaten after the shots or whilst he was badly incapacitated.
I have never assumed the entire sequence- I have never made my mind up about the second call - I have never assumed at what point she committed suicide - I do think it was possible she was still alive whilst the police were outside.
I do think the silencer is a red herring in some way.
I have been completely honest about the bits I am still asking questions about - hence my recent question about whether the jury were shown photos of her hands.
This is repeated because you asked me nicely :) - not for Adam.
He is telling lies because I have given my Scenario before .It is brief and undetailed because I am still asking questions and I don't assume I know more than the experts at the time who were not able to establish exactly what happened.
This is not saying how Sheila did it. Which is why I do not recall it. What thread was it it ?
Anyway -
The first three paragraphs state what supporters always say when asked how Sheila did it - no one knows. Together with the fact the version will be brief, to avoid heavy criticism.
The obvious statement is then made that Neville phoned Jeremy before being shot. It was impossible to speak after the first shots, and he may be rather busy.
If Sheila was threatening to harm herself with the gun, I have no idea why Neville would not disarm her. Either by himself or with June's help. Or why he would choose to ring Jeremy. Neville had lots of good options. There are 40 facts why not to call Jeremy.
If she was threatening to kill herself, why would she suddenly change tack and shoot the twins and June ? They were all sleeping and not irritating her.
Why would Neville let her go upstairs with a loaded weapon ? He must have noticed, after all things were so serious he was phoning people.
After hearing shots Neville runs upstairs, unprotected. Gets within inches of Sheila but does not physically confront her upstairs. However he is shot four times, at least twice from close range and runs straight back downstairs.
The rest of you're post says how brief you're scenario is. It has to be. David's was much more detailed and open to criticism, which resulted in a new version having to be submitted.
My version is detailed. Each point explaining how it matches the crime scene.
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy
Excuse me.?
-
The facts are no one knows the sequence of death. There is no proof that all shots were made to each victim all at the same time.
The evidence establishes who were targeted first- June and Nevill in the master bedroom with 10 shots.
The evidence establishes after the gun was empty things proceeded to the kitchen where Nevill was beaten unconscious then the gun was reloaded and Nevill was shot fatally 4 times as he was passed out.
The evidence establishes the killer then reloaded the magazine fully and went upstairs with 11 shots using 1 in between June's eyes to make sure she was dead, 8 on the boys and 2 on Sheila. It could have been in any order, boys, June, Sheila, June, Sheila boys...all we know is who the 11 shots were used on.
This info is enough to seriously undermine the case against Sheila though and Jeremy's claims of having received a phone call. Your refusal to admit it doesn't alter this at all. Living in denial doesn't in any way help establish Jeremy's innocence.
-
It does not matter one jot - not one iota what my opinion is - because the proof of order of death was never established . Hence why I have always said scenarios are a waste of time - Adam still has not explained how Sheila laid down calmly and allowed her self to be shot.
If anyone had read my posts, I said I am still asking questions and at the moment you may consider me to be in denial - that's your prerogative. As it is my prerogative to think you are ( Adam and Scipio) both a bit unstable to be posting when you know 100% in your own minds that he is guilty. If you are on a mission please don't bother with me :)
I have plenty of other people from both guilty and innocent that I prefer to converse with , because they can debate in an adult way.
-
The evidence establishes who were targeted first- June and Nevill in the master bedroom with 10 shots.
How can that be conclusive? I believe the twins where shot first, several authors and documentaries take this view also.
-
It does not matter one jot - not one iota what my opinion is - because the proof of order of death was never established . Hence why I have always said scenarios are a waste of time - Adam still has not explained how Sheila laid down calmly and allowed her self to be shot.
If anyone had read my posts, I said I am still asking questions and at the moment you may consider me to be in denial - that's your prerogative. As it is my prerogative to think you are ( Adam and Scipio) both a bit unstable to be posting when you know 100% in your own minds that he is guilty. If you are on a mission please don't bother with me :)
I have plenty of other people from both guilty and innocent that I prefer to converse with , because they can debate in an adult way.
You have not read my threads and posts about Sheila being shot.
-
How can that be conclusive? I believe the twins where shot first, several authors and documentaries take this view also.
Why shoot the twins first ?
They pose least danger. Shooting them first may wake Neville, June or Sheila. Or all three. And Jeremy would only have 2/3 bullets left.
Common sense to shoot June and Neville first. They posed the most danger.
If Sheila has woken she has to be shot after Neville/June. If she has not woken, he may have then shot the twins and Sheila last.
-
So you'd have preferred those children to have been wakened by gunshots and running around hysterical ?
It's bad enough arguing about "why they should have been shot first",but being flippant is worse !
-
So you'd have preferred those children to have been wakened by gunshots and running around hysterical ?
It's bad enough arguing about "why they should have been shot first",but being flippant is worse !
The reason the moderator was used was to make sure they didn't wake up while their grandparents were killed.
-
The reason the moderator was used was to make sure they didn't wake up while their grandparents were killed.
The moderator could have been used and Sheila could have placed it back in the cupboard before she used on herself. This could explain why June's DNA was found is the moderator. Who is to say what happened, or how it happened, its case of what you believe in and what others might believe in. :-\
-
The moderator could have been used and Sheila could have placed it back in the cupboard before she used on herself. This could explain why June's DNA was found is the moderator. Who is to say what happened, or how it happened, its case of what you believe in and what others might believe in. :-\
June had no contact wounds let alone contact wounds that were in areas that would result in drawback. June's DNA was not blood based, the blood already was removed years earlier no blood was present when it was DNA tested. June's DNA was even found in areas of the moderator where no blood had even been found in 1985 and 1986, indeed the areas were too deep for drawback to reach such areas. Furthermore, there was no way her blood could have mixed with Nevill's into the flake and yet for the flake to not have her Ak2-1 enzyme and not to have enabled the lab to know it was a mixture. The defense experts admitted that if the blood intimately mixed it is impossible for the lab to have made any such mistake and that the only way it was even possible to miss a mixture would have been if the blood failed to intimately mix but they failed to establish it would be possible for blood of 2 victims not to intimately mix in the moderator.
In any event even if June had suffered from contact wounds and her blood was found inside as well as Sheila's it still would not have helped matters nor would finding her blood inside help. The notion SHeila went crazy then went to the close to get the moderator to attach to the weapon Jeremy left out so she could silently kill everyone in their sleep then to take the moderator and put it away in the closet before killing herself is not in the least bit credible. The only way it is credible she would have used the weapon with the moderator attached is if it were attached already when she picked it up. Upon finding it inhibited her shooting herself she would not remove it and go downstairs to put it away she would just leave it in the room where she was trying to kill herself.
The moderator used period harms the claim she did it given the moderator was put away and given Jeremy claimed it wasn't attached when he left the gun out.
If he had had removed the moderator before shooting her and simply left it in the bed room and made her lie flat and had the gun across her body as she would have done to shoot herself in the chin he would have eliminated most of his problems.
1) that would eliminate the moderator problems and result in drawback in the weapon
2) it would result in soot getting on her gown
3) would eliminate having to move her body flat later which gave away she was moved by someone after her death
This assumes he could have gotten her to lie flat maybe he could not have gotten her to do it who knows. If he could not get her to lie flat then he should have just left the gun near her or on her legs as opposed to moving her body that is a no no.
-
June had no contact wounds let alone contact wounds that were in areas that would result in drawback. June's DNA was not blood based, the blood already was removed years earlier no blood was present when it was DNA tested. June's DNA was even found in areas of the moderator where no blood had even been found in 1985 and 1986, indeed the areas were too deep for drawback to reach such areas. Furthermore, there was no way her blood could have mixed with Nevill's into the flake and yet for the flake to not have her Ak2-1 enzyme and not to have enabled the lab to know it was a mixture. The defense experts admitted that if the blood intimately mixed it is impossible for the lab to have made any such mistake and that the only way it was even possible to miss a mixture would have been if the blood failed to intimately mix but they failed to establish it would be possible for blood of 2 victims not to intimately mix in the moderator.
In any event even if June had suffered from contact wounds and her blood was found inside as well as Sheila's it still would not have helped matters nor would finding her blood inside help. The notion SHeila went crazy then went to the close to get the moderator to attach to the weapon Jeremy left out so she could silently kill everyone in their sleep then to take the moderator and put it away in the closet before killing herself is not in the least bit credible. The only way it is credible she would have used the weapon with the moderator attached is if it were attached already when she picked it up. Upon finding it inhibited her shooting herself she would not remove it and go downstairs to put it away she would just leave it in the room where she was trying to kill herself.
The moderator used period harms the claim she did it given the moderator was put away and given Jeremy claimed it wasn't attached when he left the gun out.
If he had had removed the moderator before shooting her and simply left it in the bed room and made her lie flat and had the gun across her body as she would have done to shoot herself in the chin he would have eliminated most of his problems.
1) that would eliminate the moderator problems and result in drawback in the weapon
2) it would result in soot getting on her gown
3) would eliminate having to move her body flat later which gave away she was moved by someone after her death
This assumes he could have gotten her to lie flat maybe he could not have gotten her to do it who knows. If he could not get her to lie flat then he should have just left the gun near her or on her legs as opposed to moving her body that is a no no.
Surely this begs the question on how June's LCN DNA got inside the moderator. The CAO was told that they could not tell if the LCN DNA was from blood alone. The COA excepted that Junes DNA was inside the moderator.... :-\ ;D
-
Surely this begs the question on how June's LCN DNA got inside the moderator. The CAO was told that they could not tell if the LCN DNA was from blood alone. The COA excepted that Junes DNA was inside the moderator.... :-\ ;D
The COA was told:
1) The lab removed all visible blood before Lincoln examined it
2) Defense expert Lincoln removed microscopic traces of blood on the first 8 baffles
3) chemical blood tests done in 1999 detected no blood remaining in the moderator
Thus the DNA found inside was attributable to contamination. That contamination could have been from lab personnel or Lincoln who in 1985 and 1986 failed to take any precautions to prevent transferring DNA o the baffles when the weapon was taken apart and examined, form the jury which may have taken it apart without taking any precautions, or even could have been deposited prior to the shootings as it was being cleaned because Nevill could have had her DNA on him.
The whole reason why LCN DNA is problematic is because it is easy to transfer such tiny amounts through touch. LCN DNA is thus used very cautiously in implicating people. Transferring a tiny bit of someone's DNA innocently is one thing transferring their blood is something else entirely which is why it is so important to ensure whether DNA is blood based or not. That was the key in the Knox case, Kercher's DNA on the knife found at Sollecito's and Knox's footprint found via Luminol were not blood based they tested negative for blood.
LCN DNA is most useful in cases where victims are a stranger to the perp. The perp in that case has no way to explain how his DNA got on the victim or the victim's DNA got on him. When there is no chance of innocent contamination it is in its glory the only argument that can be tried at that point is to say during the testing contamination occurred. That is why there are very strict rules to clean equipment first and to take efforts to prevent such.
-
I know Scipio and NGB have some legal experience.
Rather than there not being much evidence against Bamber, it seems there is a hell of a lot. Of everything. Rather than just one particle of gun residue as in the Barry George case.
Over 30 forensic points. Circumstantial evidence ( a lot). Several motives, no alibi, an opportunity. A witness. Only two suspects ( one dead).
If anyone else has experience of criminal trials, in comparison to other cases, do people believe there is a lot, or a small amount of incriminating evidence against Bamber ?
-
I know Scipio and NGB have some legal experience.
Rather than there not being much evidence against Bamber, it seems there is a hell of a lot. Of everything. Rather than just one particle of gun residue as in the Barry George case.
Over 30 forensic points. Circumstantial evidence ( a lot). Several motives, no alibi, an opportunity. A witness. Only two suspects ( one dead).
If anyone else has experience of criminal trials, in comparison to other cases, do people believe there is a lot, or a small amount of incriminating evidence against Bamber ?
A huge amount of the evidence is circumstancial which is the main reason the case is discussed so much . The main witness contradicts herself a lot .
What actually convicted Jeremy - a piece of evidence that had been removed from a crime scene and handled by all and sunder. A witness who had been dumped, who had criminal record and who was perfectly capable of telling lies and family members who were ( rightly or wrongly )determined to put him behind bars at all costs. What stands out to me is that the police admitted that outside business ventures the "family" who were pestering the police actually did not know Jeremy or Sheila very well. And yet Colin who should have been the first person to raise the alert that Sheila could not have done it - accepted for some time that she was capable.
-
A huge amount of the evidence is circumstancial which is the main reason the case is discussed so much . The main witness contradicts herself a lot .
What actually convicted Jeremy - a piece of evidence that had been removed from a crime scene and handled by all and sunder. A witness who had been dumped, who had criminal record and who was perfectly capable of telling lies and family members who were ( rightly or wrongly )determined to put him behind bars at all costs. What stands out to me is that the police admitted that outside business ventures the "family" who were pestering the police actually did not know Jeremy or Sheila very well. And yet Colin who should have been the first person to raise the alert that Sheila could not have done it - accepted for some time that she was capable.
Well there are well over 30 forensic things that link Bamber to the crime. And the problem is it can't be linked to anyone else in the world.
I just want to know, if on average, over 30 forensic reasons is a lot for a trial. Or a small amount.
And whether all the other issues is a lot.
For all I know Bamber may have been convicted on a tiny amount of evidence in comparison to others. Must admit I would be surprised if that was the case.
-
Well there are well over 30 forensic things that link Bamber to the crime. And the problem is it can't be linked to anyone else in the world.
I just want to know, if on average, over 30 forensic reasons is a lot for a trial. Or a small amount.
And whether all the other issues is a lot.
No they don't . the things you are talking about are allegedly showing Sheila could not have done it. And experts disagree about all of them . There is no direct evidence to link Jeremy to committing the crime
-
No they don't . the things you are talking about are allegedly showing Sheila could not have done it. And experts disagree about all of them . There is no direct evidence to link Jeremy to committing the crime
You must have missed my other points. Which I have posted several times.
-
You must have missed my other points. Which I have posted several times.
trust me I have missed nothing .
I have only decided to read your posts because you have dropped from the most rude and annoying posters to second place . I am still very annoyed with you because of you accusations and lack of apology .
-
My view is today, if there is one forensic piece of evidence linking a suspect to a crime, then that should be enough. However today we have DNA which is so conclusive all the defence can do is claim contamination.
However in 1985, similar rules must have applied. But there are over 30 forensic things with case.
-
trust me I have missed nothing .
I have only decided to read your posts because you have dropped from the most rude and annoying posters to second place . I am still very annoyed with you because of you accusations and lack of apology .
If you have missed nothing, why did you say my points are just do with Sheila ?
-
because there is no direct evidence to link Jeremy to carrying out the crime.
-
because there is no direct evidence to link Jeremy to carrying out the crime.
You and Lookout will never say there is.
There are over 30 forensic points which link Bamber to the crime. Which I have posted.
You and Lookout will dig in and say there is none. If there is just one, he is guilty.
Keep fire fighting. Jeremy needs his Xxxxx'x.
-
You and Lookout will never say there is.
There are over 30 forensic points which link Bamber to the crime. Which I have posted.
You and Lookout will dig in and say there is none. If there is just one, he is guilty.
Keep fire fighting. Jeremy needs his Xxxxx'x
that proves you are an idiot . I am not Poppy .
that is an accusation from a desperate person.
If you are so sure of his guilt you should be confident and not hitting out when you are proven wrong.
-
that proves you are an idiot . I am not Poppy .
that is an accusation from a desperate person.
If you are so sure of his guilt you should be confident and not hitting out when you are proven wrong.
I must admit Lookouts statement in the Sheila's leg being pulled thread did give me some doubts.
She said 'it was my leg being pulled'.
-
I must admit Lookouts statement in the Sheila's leg being pulled thread did give me some doubts.
She said 'it was my leg being pulled'.
perhaps we should research when that theory first came into the scheme of things ?
Do you think Jeremy did not realise that dead bodies cant move?
-
You and Lookout will never say there is.
There are over 30 forensic points which link Bamber to the crime. Which I have posted.
You and Lookout will dig in and say there is none. If there is just one, he is guilty.
Keep fire fighting. Jeremy needs his Xxxxx'x.
...
-
...
Been watchin Batman Mike?
-
Been watchin Batman Mike?
Hahaha, Yeah...
-
Been watchin Batman Mike?
Hahaha, Yeah...
Heheheheeeeee. Now we ALL can treat Jeremy being proved innocent as a joke, can't we? ;D ;D ;D
-
Heheheheeeeee. Now we ALL can treat Jeremy being proved innocent as a joke, can't we? ;D ;D ;D
;D
-
Except that it's no joke about the amount of legal people working for him right now. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Except that it's no joke about the amount of legal people working for him right now. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh yeah, those mysterious legal people. Thankfully innocence isn't judged upon the amount of legal representation a person has, if it was then best let every one convicted of a crime out of prison - because they all have laywers/barristers/solicitors.
Are you saying that this new set of laywers/barristers/solicitors better than his last set?
-
Except that it's no joke about the amount of legal people working for him right now. ;D ;D ;D ;D
You need to understand the difference between 'working for' and prioritising.
Even if jb had x amount of people in his legal team this doesn't mean that he is the number one priority for any of these who will have different priorities.
Surely u don't think Simon McKay et al work 24:7 for jb?! People spend far more time on this forum debating jb than his legal team spend 'working' for him.
-
Oh Christ-------------here we go !!
-
You need to understand the difference between 'working for' and prioritising.
Even if jb had x amount of people in his legal team this doesn't mean that he is the number one priority for any of these who will have different priorities.
Surely u don't think Simon McKay et al work 24:7 for jb?! People spend far more time on this forum debating jb than his legal team spend 'working' for him.
Anyone working full time for Bamber must have
1. A lot of time on their hands.
2. Nothing better to do, because surely there are easier ways to earn a crust.
3. A blind spot in their mind if they are willing to work full time at a case where other capable people have strongly failed to win an appeal.
-
Anyone working full time for Bamber must have
1. A lot of time on their hands.
2. Nothing better to do, because surely there are easier ways to earn a crust.
3. A blind spot in their mind if they are willing to work full time at a case where other capable people have strongly failed to win an appeal.
The QC and Barrister could be retired !
-
The QC and Barrister could be retired !
They must be slight masochists ;D
-
They must be slight masochists ;D
Not necessarily.They obviously think the case is worth pursuing.
-
Not necessarily.They obviously think the case is worth pursuing.
That's if they even all exist. Bamber has made claims in the past that haven't been true so I don't fully believe he has as many people working for him as those who support him claim.
-
That's if they even all exist. Bamber has made claims in the past that haven't been true so I don't fully believe he has as many people working for him as those who support him claim.
Suit yourself I'm not particularly interested in what you've got to say anyway. Total negativity.
-
Just read this thread. Think Adam has a problem.? Why do you say over and over again that there are 30 pieces of evidence against jb.Adam we are not children.. we are capable of reading your posts and fully understanding them first time round.
to be honest it makes you sound a bit nutty so i would suggest you try and think of something different to say as it is driving me crazy!