Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on May 07, 2015, 12:26:AM
-
30 Years have now passed and Jeremy's supporters have failed to free him.
The forensics point to him in all directions despite the police errors and inconsistencies. Therefore you must find the only potential evidence that could free him (if it exists)
The Following is pivotal
1) Find smoking gun evidence of a police conspiracy
1a) Ensure the police and co conspirators in the police force confess to the conspiracy
1b) Gather enough police testimony that the conspiracy theory is a conspiracy fact
2) Find smoking gun evidence of gross misconduct and incompetence of the expert witnesses
2a) For example collaborating with the police conspiracy
2b) Being to incompetent to notice the police conspiracy
3) Find smoking gun evidence of extended family conspiracy to set him up
3a) Such as audio recordings or data interpreted from telephone calls (Spying/Hacking not advised)
3b) Evidence of police incompetence to not notice the conspiracy of a set up.
Once you have obtained all from the list above you can then proceed to final part of the To Do List
4) Arrange Jeremy's release and freedom party
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For non supporters you just have to wait and see if anything is produced and ticked off the list.
-
Is it really up to us to do that.. ;)
Personally I do not think there will be any new evidence after 30 years. However, I do believe there was gross misconduct shown when the powers to be destroyed evidence when DNA was about to make a scientific breakthrough. Evidence that might have made nailed his innocence or further proved his guilt.
-
Is it really up to us to do that.. ;)
Personally I do not think there will be any new evidence after 30 years. However, I do believe there was gross misconduct shown when the powers to be destroyed evidence when DNA was about to make a scientific breakthrough. Evidence that might have made nailed his innocence or further proved his guilt.
Yes, Its all well and good saying he is innocent but at the end of the day one must prove the points I have made above.
Too long have Jeremy supporters just repeated the same inconsistencies and oddities around the case thinking that if they repeat it enough times he will be released but that is not feasible. For Jeremy to be released they must prove a conspiracy or moral motivated corruption has produced the evidence that convicted him in order to secure his release.
-
(Ultimate to do) - Stop living in denial - the man is 100% guilty
-
Yes, Its all well and good saying he is innocent but at the end of the day one must prove the points I have made above.
Too long have Jeremy supporters just repeated the same inconsistencies and oddities around the case thinking that if they repeat it enough times he will be released but that is not feasible. For Jeremy to be released they must prove a conspiracy or moral motivated corruption has produced the evidence that convicted him in order to secure his release.
They won't because they can't.
-
(Ultimate to do) - Stop living in denial - the man is 100% guilty
If one accepts that, then they are not bound by the supporters to do list as they will no longer be a supporter
-
They won't because they can't.
If they believe he is innocent its the only way ;)
-
Yes, Its all well and good saying he is innocent but at the end of the day one must prove the points I have made above.
Too long have Jeremy supporters just repeated the same inconsistencies and oddities around the case thinking that if they repeat it enough times he will be released but that is not feasible. For Jeremy to be released they must prove a conspiracy or moral motivated corruption has produced the evidence that convicted him in order to secure his release.
I wish! A slightly convincing argument would be a breath of fresh air.
David, you've made some really good topics lately btw.
-
If they believe he is innocent its the only way ;)
Well, lets see what they come up with but bet the topic of off topic in no time and the 'to do' list will be lost in the ether.
-
I wish! A slightly convincing argument would be a breath of fresh air.
David, you've made some really good topics lately btw.
Yes I agree with that .
David has made some good posts and threads. He does genuinely try to look at things from both sides which is the whole point of discussion.
-
How easy just to say he's a murdering b'stard. End of.
Whatever I post gets shot down in flames immediately,so I don't see the point in further explaining my reasons for saying that he's not guilty.
-
How easy just to say he's a murdering b'stard. End of.
Whatever I post gets shot down in flames immediately,so I don't see the point in further explaining my reasons for saying that he's not guilty.
Lookout, I suspect the reason for it lays in that the only solid reason you give for that belief is "knowing" from the start that he didn't do it and the only way in which you seek to prove right your belief is by labelling as lying bar-stewards EVERYONE else connected with the crime. You have never yet addressed satisfactorily the question of WHY?
-
Yes, Its all well and good saying he is innocent but at the end of the day one must prove the points I have made above.
Too long have Jeremy supporters just repeated the same inconsistencies and oddities around the case thinking that if they repeat it enough times he will be released but that is not feasible. For Jeremy to be released they must prove a conspiracy or moral motivated corruption has produced the evidence that convicted him in order to secure his release.
Hi David
I don't think it is up to us to prove anything one way or the other. Surely its up to Jeremy's defense team to do this, after all it is the defense team that is privy to all the case documents etc.
All we do is discuss the case and read limited documents on a forum because either we support Jeremy or do not support him, but like to discuss the case out of interest.
I think gross misconduct can be proved, but I doubt the CCRC would except it. The CCRC will only except new evidence or something that can be put forward by a change of law.
As it stands after 30 years, new modern science etc has not been able to prove anything in Jeremy's favor, nor has his legal team been able to get to a point where they have won a judicial review after the last rejection by the CCRC.
Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of killing his family, the only thing remains 30 years on is that he says he did not do it, and the only thing that will get him out is new evidence or a change in law. We wont be able to get him out, for we are closed group of people trying to discuss the case with a limited resource.
-
Lookout, I suspect the reason for it lays in that the only solid reason you give for that belief is "knowing" from the start that he didn't do it and the only way in which you seek to prove right your belief is by labelling as lying bar-stewards EVERYONE else connected with the crime. You have never yet addressed satisfactorily the question of WHY?
The reason why is evident.There was no evidence,forensic or otherwise.
It's FAR easier to say he did do it.
I could just as easily change tack to make life easier for me on here, and start calling him fit to burn,which is mainly the reason that he was convicted in the first place,but I CAN'T/WON'T do that because I made up my mind 30 years ago that it wasn't him,and like Jeremy,it's very difficult to be as satisfactorily honest when you've got Uncle Tom Cobley and all against you,and no alibi to speak of.
I'm keeping a lot of thoughts to myself as well,which I won't post.
How on earth Jeremy has kept going trying to convince the world that he didn't murder anyone,I don't know. It's some feat !
I simply and honestly can't find ANYTHING pinning him to the murders,and that's the truth.
-
i hardly think the crcc wil exept our posts as evedence.
-
Well seeing that they're behind with 700 requests I think ours are well at the bottom of the pile.
It'll probably be another 5 years before they even look at Jeremy's anyway.
-
i hardly think the crcc wil exept our posts as evedence.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well seeing that they're behind with 700 requests I think ours are well at the bottom of the pile.
It'll probably be another 5 years before they even look at Jeremy's anyway.
well they took a hell of a long time last time.
-
well they took a hell of a long time last time.
8 years,was it ?
-
30 Years have now passed and Jeremy's supporters have failed to free him.
The forensics point to him in all directions despite the police errors and inconsistencies. Therefore you must find the only potential evidence that could free him (if it exists)
The Following is pivotal
1) Find smoking gun evidence of a police conspiracy
1a) Ensure the police and co conspirators in the police force confess to the conspiracy
1b) Gather enough police testimony that the conspiracy theory is a conspiracy fact
2) Find smoking gun evidence of gross misconduct and incompetence of the expert witnesses
2a) For example collaborating with the police conspiracy
2b) Being to incompetent to notice the police conspiracy
3) Find smoking gun evidence of extended family conspiracy to set him up
3a) Such as audio recordings or data interpreted from telephone calls (Spying/Hacking not advised)
3b) Evidence of police incompetence to not notice the conspiracy of a set up.
Once you have obtained all from the list above you can then proceed to final part of the To Do List
4) Arrange Jeremy's release and freedom party
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For non supporters you just have to wait and see if anything is produced and ticked off the list.
These are some of the things people acting as his advocate must do in order to get him freed. Advocates are people who actually get off their duff and do something to aid him in some manner.
Most advocates are not interested in looking through evidence to help him submit legal briefs. They are only interested in swaying public support. They either think enough public support will result in enough pressure to free him or they simply think so long as he is going to spend his life behind bars it helps him if a lot of people think he is innocent so they try to convince people he is innocent.
Many here deny being advocates they say they simply are posting their opinion tha the is innocent. They have not done a very good job though of justifying such beliefs and when challenged at the end of the day say they have the right to believe anything they want. This is a strawman though because no one is disputing their right to believe what they want the debate is over whether their position is supported by credible evidence.
Any have what amounts to blind faith in Jeremy and a lot of that comes from these people having distrust in the law so willing to believe Jeremy was framed even though there is no evidence of such. It's ultimately up to each person whether to face reality or not or whether to have blind faith, it is not something that others can force someone to do.
This is why there is a stalemate of sorts which results in things repeating over and over.
Realistically the only way Jeremy will get a new trial is if Julie were to come forward saying she lied or a cop or lab worker came forward claiming evidence was doctored. That's the only way of the wrongdoing that is alleged actually being proven the existing evidence doesn't provide any basis at all to establish such. If one wants to have blind faith and hold out such hope it is something that might be hurting them but will not hurt others. The problem is when people misrepresent evidence exists to prove his guilt and end up fooling others who believe such without properly researching. I got involved because I believe the propaganda by Jeremy supporters little did I know I would discover the claim there were 3 different moderators collected was false and that there was such a simple explanation of why a single moderator had the prefix changed 2 times. Little did I know...
It took reading the documents and posts here and on the red board and COA decision to actually understand the facts and evidence used to convict Jeremy because so many distortions were flying around. From a legal standpoint the following would be needed to secure a new trial for Jeremy:
1) Proof Julie lied which realistically would require her coming forward to admit it
or
2) Proof that undercuts the moderator which would require:
A1) Proof Sheila's fatal wound wasn't a contact wound
or
A2) Proof that despite being a contact wound Sheila's fatal wound was in a location that would not have been virtually certain to result in drawback
or
A3) Proof that drawback had been found in the muzzle of the Anschutz but its finding had been concealed
AND
B) Proof that the blood was planted in the moderator
With Julie recanting the Courts would likely vacate the conviction and make the government decide whether to retry.
Similarly proving the blood was planted in the moderator and that blood either was in the Anschutz or would not have necessarily gotten in the Anschutz if the moderator had not been used would be sufficient to get a court to vacate the judgment and let the government decide whether it wanted to retry the case.
While some supporters pretend we are already at this state and that such evidence exists the reality is that it doesn't. If there had been some large conspiracy as would have been necessary then someone would have cracked by now or some evidence found by this point. It sees like his defenders have unrealistic false hope of such surfacing.
Even if one has such hope one should admit that currently this evidence is lacking and that at the moment nothing can be done through the system to help Jeremy. Only if such evidence were to surface would there be a basis to try filing with the CCRC.
That means there is no new news or evidence to evaluate and the debate pretty much dead. To try to keep debate alive some rehash the same claims of yesteryear. Otherwise the site would have to fully evolve and move on to something else aside from JB to survive. There are other sections but limited discussion takes place on other cases and offtopic.
-
8 years,was it ?
i think it was actully 7 years if he had been convicted of any crime other than murder he could of been out before they had finished.
-
The reason why is evident.There was no evidence,forensic or otherwise.
It's FAR easier to say he did do it.
I could just as easily change tack to make life easier for me on here, and start calling him fit to burn,which is mainly the reason that he was convicted in the first place,but I CAN'T/WON'T do that because I made up my mind 30 years ago that it wasn't him,and like Jeremy,it's very difficult to be as satisfactorily honest when you've got Uncle Tom Cobley and all against you,and no alibi to speak of.
I'm keeping a lot of thoughts to myself as well,which I won't post.
How on earth Jeremy has kept going trying to convince the world that he didn't murder anyone,I don't know. It's some feat !
I simply and honestly can't find ANYTHING pinning him to the murders,and that's the truth.
OK. You CAN'T/WON'T say he's guilty because 30 years ago you made you mind he was innocent. I do understand that to give up such a nutty/noble(?) long held belief would be hard.
-
OK. You CAN'T/WON'T say he's guilty because 30 years ago you made you mind he was innocent. I do understand that to give up such a nutty/noble(?) long held belief would be hard.
Call me nutty if you like,I don't mind. I've NEVER been hesitant about this case,and I'm as steadfast now about his innocence as I was from the start. The more I've read on here both for and against,the more convinced I've become that this is a terrible MOJ.
-
OK. You CAN'T/WON'T say he's guilty because 30 years ago you made you mind he was innocent. I do understand that to give up such a nutty/noble(?) long held belief would be hard.
why should she have to you sound like a relgious preacher.
-
why should she have to you sound like a relgious preacher.
Nugs, you're not talking to Adam here. I don't recall EVER suggesting that Lookout SHOULD have to. There is no question that long and firmly held beliefs are VERY hard to give up on. I was simply acknowledging the fact.....................incidentally, are you certain that I'm NOT a minister of religion?
-
How easy just to say he's a murdering b'stard. End of.
Whatever I post gets shot down in flames immediately,so I don't see the point in further explaining my reasons for saying that he's not guilty.
Me too. I can understand and accept why people think he's guilty, but some of you seem soooooo cross!!!
Why are you so livid? And what upsets you so much about people thinking he's innocent?
-
Me too. I can understand and accept why people think he's guilty, but some of you seem soooooo cross!!!
Why are you so livid? And what upsets you so much about people thinking he's innocent?
We could all be frightfully well mannered and civilized and respond with "Thank-you for sharing those thoughts with us".........................but it MIGHT be a little boring, don't you think?
-
Me too. I can understand and accept why people think he's guilty, but some of you seem soooooo cross!!!
Why are you so livid? And what upsets you so much about people thinking he's innocent?
Hello SaraT
not very long ago I was sitting where you are now and thought Jeremy so innocent and could not understand why people got angry at some of the stuff I posted now I see why. People who are as passionate about Jeremy being guilty do get angry when they think he took the lives of 5 people including two wee boys of 6 years of age. I am a firm believer that everyone on this forum is entitled to their belief's and should beable to express them but it is human nature for any of us to get heated and appear so very cross but I guess underneath the anger is sadness and we are all sensible adults who should beable to deal with each other.
-
Me too. I can understand and accept why people think he's guilty, but some of you seem soooooo cross!!!
Why are you so livid? And what upsets you so much about people thinking he's innocent?
Try changing your mind about his innocence and you'll understand how quickly people turn on you - I'm certainly not cross though and couldn't care less who thinks he's innocent. People take comments about Bambers guilt personally and they get upset when certain things are mentioned - like him being a psychopath for instance. But if he killed 5 people in cold blood with no remorse or acknowledgement - what would you call him?
-
We could all be frightfully well mannered and civilized and respond with "Thank-you for sharing those thoughts with us".........................but it MIGHT be a little boring, don't you think?
Not to mention 'gut wrenching'!
-
Hello SaraT
not very long ago I was sitting where you are now and thought Jeremy so innocent and could not understand why people got angry at some of the stuff I posted now I see why. People who are as passionate about Jeremy being guilty do get angry when they think he took the lives of 5 people including two wee boys of 6 years of age. I am a firm believer that everyone on this forum is entitled to their belief's and should beable to express them but it is human nature for any of us to get heated and appear so very cross but I guess underneath the anger is sadness and we are all sensible adults who should beable to deal with each other.
Thanks Susan,I can understand people getting heated but I still don't quite understand the anger, it's 30 years ago and none of you were related to the family. I think he's innocent but if I found out he was 100% guilty I wouldn't be cross I'd just think 'Well, bugger me!' And move on. :)
-
Hello SaraT
not very long ago I was sitting where you are now and thought Jeremy so innocent and could not understand why people got angry at some of the stuff I posted now I see why. People who are as passionate about Jeremy being guilty do get angry when they think he took the lives of 5 people including two wee boys of 6 years of age. I am a firm believer that everyone on this forum is entitled to their belief's and should beable to express them but it is human nature for any of us to get heated and appear so very cross but I guess underneath the anger is sadness and we are all sensible adults who should beable to deal with each other.
I agree Susan, they should indeed.
-
Try changing your mind about his innocence and you'll understand how quickly people turn on you - I'm certainly not cross though and couldn't care less who thinks he's innocent. People take comments about Bambers guilt personally and they get upset when certain things are mentioned - like him being a psychopath for instance. But if he killed 5 people in cold blood with no remorse or acknowledgement - what would you call him?
I don't think he did it so I would call him a victim of a MOJ
Maybe I'm just mild mannered but some of the responses on here are well over the top
-
Thanks Susan,I can understand people getting heated but I still don't quite understand the anger, it's 30 years ago and none of you were related to the family. I think he's innocent but if I found out he was 100% guilty I wouldn't be cross I'd just think 'Well, bugger me!' And move on. :)
Hahaha Sara if I found out 100% he was innocent I too would say bugger me and move on. I am not passionate about my feelings of him being guilty I use to be when I thought he was innocent . I will be honest when I changed to thinking Jeremy was guilty I felt a little sad as I did not have a cause to fight for anymore because he was in prison. Hope that makes sense. Sara I must add when I thought Jeremy was innocent I use to fight with the guilty supporters like crazy so I have no room to talk ;D
-
Me too. I can understand and accept why people think he's guilty, but some of you seem soooooo cross!!!
Why are you so livid? And what upsets you so much about people thinking he's innocent?
I don't know what you mean by "guilters" being livid. We ask people who say they believe he is guilty to give their reasoning why they feel such given the evidence of his guilt. What I see is a great deal of frustration on the part of those who insist he is innocent being able to justify their positions and some resorting to lies in order to pretend they have good cause for their beliefs.
-
Me too. I can understand and accept why people think he's guilty, but some of you seem soooooo cross!!!
Why are you so livid? And what upsets you so much about people thinking he's innocent?
It's an Internet forum with various members giving their views, there are bound to be disagreements with feelings occasionally running high. It's hardly limited to one side or the other.
I think the disagreements and outbursts are a product of the medium rather than the subject. To most members on here, the forum is a bit of a hobby rather than anything else.
It can be fun, if not a little 'trollish' winding people up though. :-[
-
Naughty Hartley. :o
-
It's an Internet forum with various members giving their views, there are bound to be disagreements with feelings occasionally running high. It's hardly limited to one side or the other.
I think the disagreements and outbursts are a product of the medium rather than the subject. To most members on here, the forum is a bit of a hobby rather than anything else.
It can be fun, if not a little 'trollish' winding people up though. :-[
Hello Hartley you are so right and sad people like me is now addicted and must be here everyday :'(
-
OK. You CAN'T/WON'T say he's guilty because 30 years ago you made you mind he was innocent. I do understand that to give up such a nutty/noble(?) long held belief would be hard.
April - I can not believe you even posted that - in the context of the case it seems inappropriate and it was not so long ago you believed he was innocent ? The interpretations you made then of for example his calls / reasons /behaviour were accepted then - nothing has changed except your belief.
-
Hello Hartley you are so right and sad people like me is now addicted and must be here everyday :'(
It because you do probably have that 1% niggle that is bugging you . So its understandable .
Also although people "explain" away Jeremys long long fight for freedom - only he knows the truth about why he is doing it- even the experts on here are not mind readers. :)
-
April - I can not believe you even posted that - in the context of the case it seems inappropriate and it was not so long ago you believed he was innocent ? The interpretations you made then of for example his calls / reasons /behaviour were accepted then - nothing has changed except your belief.
With a change in belief, you start to look at things all over again like the calls, his reasons and behaviour and mainly some of the explanations that have been put forward to try and explain away the evidence. This together with things I have asked him myself, point to an altogether different conclusion. One thing that did change completely when I changed from innocent to guilty, was the attitude of many posters who began to take any thing (and I sometimes think 'everything') I said personally.
-
Naughty Hartley. :o
Yes occasionally, but do you honestly belive all that Mike posts? I think he's amongst the biggest 'winderer upperers' on here. :-\
-
With a change in belief, you start to look at things all over again like the calls, his reasons and behaviour and mainly some of the explanations that have been put forward to try and explain away the evidence. This together with things I have asked him myself, point to an altogether different conclusion. One thing that did change completely when I changed from innocent to guilty, was the attitude of many posters who began to take any thing (and I sometimes think 'everything') I said personally.
My post was to April - but I have said to you several times I completely understand that - however I think it is not necessary to criticise others who have the same belief that you had only a few months ago - you obviously had a personal experience that made you change your mind - and I note you have now gone from 99% sure to 100% sure - that's great for you because you can look at every situation from the other angle . But there is no reason to dismiss others with such posts - if someone had said that to you when you had been defending Jeremy to the hilt I think you also would have taken offence.
I just said I was surprised - and I was .
-
April - I can not believe you even posted that - in the context of the case it seems inappropriate and it was not so long ago you believed he was innocent ? The interpretations you made then of for example his calls / reasons /behaviour were accepted then - nothing has changed except your belief.
Jan, I said it because I own that it's how I feel. Having spoken vociferously about his innocence, admitting that I was having doubts was no easy thing -in fact, I didn't- and by the time I said anything, albeit, I suspect tentatively, I was convinced of his guilt.
-
My post was to April - but I have said to you several times I completely understand that - however I think it is not necessary to criticise others who have the same belief that you had only a few months ago - you obviously had a personal experience that made you change your mind - and I note you have now gone from 99% sure to 100% sure - that's great for you because you can look at every situation from the other angle . But there is no reason to dismiss others with such posts - if someone had said that to you when you had been defending Jeremy to the hilt I think you also would have taken offence.
I just said I was surprised - and I was .
In order to debate, you have to have an opposing view. Debating isn't criticising, it's simply disagreeing. If people are rude/sarcastic to me, then they deserve the same in return. That's just the way I see things - perhaps it's a fault that I don't rise above it.
Reading April's post, it sounds to me like she is saying she understands how hard it is to change your mind when you have had firm held beliefs for such a long time. I guess people are offended because she used the word 'nutty' but she also balanced that with 'noble' - I think she just means that some will think it's nutty (or stubborn) and some will think it it's noble (standing by principles). I am sure she will tell me if my analysis is incorrect though.
-
In order to debate, you have to have an opposing view. Debating isn't criticising, it's simply disagreeing. If people are rude/sarcastic to me, then they deserve the same in return. That's just the way I see things - perhaps it's a fault that I don't rise above it.
Reading April's post, it sounds to me like she is saying she understands how hard it is to change your mind when you have had firm held beliefs for such a long time. I guess people are offended because she used the word 'nutty' but she also balanced that with 'noble' - I think she just means that some will think it's nutty (or stubborn) and some will think it it's noble (standing by principles). I am sure she will tell me if my analysis is incorrect though.
Spot on, Caroline. I couldn't have put it better myself ;D
-
Spot on, Caroline. I couldn't have put it better myself ;D
And some people think I always see the bad ;D ;D ;D 8)
-
And some people think I always see the bad ;D ;D ;D 8)
Only in opposing posts. ;D ;D ;D
-
Only in opposing posts. ;D ;D ;D
Well, it's 'SNAP' on that score! ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi David
I don't think it is up to us to prove anything one way or the other. Surely its up to Jeremy's defense team to do this, after all it is the defense team that is privy to all the case documents etc.
Yes it is up to the supporters, Because the defence team can only go by the evidence/documents they have.
You will find no official documents or legal notes because the police, experts or family would not be foolish enough to document their conspiracy down into the legal framework. You will find no such legal documents signed and dated where the police discuss manufacturing evidence.
If a conspiracy has taken place it could only be unearthed by finding old letters and correspondence that where discussed secretly outside the official investigation. Or by spying on those involved and see if they implicated themselves in conversation with co conspirators and such conversation must be recorded. Hacking computers and intercepting e-mails of those involved (not advised)
Jeremy supporters must use the above methods to prove innocence, However be advised Telephone and Computer hacking is illegal, So is trespassing to obtain this information so do so at your own risk
-
Anything of that nature would have been well incinerated.
-
Yes it is up to the supporters, Because the defence team can only go by the evidence/documents they have.
You will find no official documents or legal notes because the police, experts or family would not be foolish enough to document their conspiracy down into the legal framework. You will find no such legal documents signed and dated where the police discuss manufacturing evidence.
If a conspiracy has taken place it could only be unearthed by finding old letters and correspondence that where discussed secretly outside the official investigation. Or by spying on those involved and see if they implicated themselves in conversation with co conspirators and such conversation must be recorded. Hacking computers and intercepting e-mails of those involved (not advised)
Jeremy supporters must use the above methods to prove innocence, However be advised Telephone and Computer hacking is illegal, So is trespassing to obtain this information so do so at your own risk
Hi David
I am not a member of his campaign team I am merely on a forum discussing the case with other members, its a hobby more than anything. I love to discuss the case, look at the bullets, shell cases, read statements, look at the windows :) etc. We can't and I think its impossible for us to do any more, plus I have not got the means or the courage to spy on people its not in my nature to do anything like that. Why doesn't the campaign team hire a private detective to do it? ;D
I have never been 100% sure of his guilt, I always thought it could have been someone else and that Jeremy knew who it was, but that is just a thought and there is no way of proving it one way or the other.
As it stands he is guilty in the eyes of the law.
I happen to believe that this could be wrong. :-\
-
Hello Patti have you ever wondered why Sheila was so clean also why Jeremy did not dial 999 or indeed phone the police before Julie why waste so much time looking up the number of the local police station did he not think the situation warranted such immediate action. When he arrived at WHF with the police he seemed to think the situation was quite grave. As you may know I am reading Colin's book again ;D and he has just stated Sheila knew nothing at all about guns and would not have a clue how to even reload. These are some of the reasons I changed from innocent to guilty not that you asked but thought I would tell you anyway ;D ;D ;D
-
I would tend not to take notice of anyone who has sex behind his new wife's back on their wedding day.
Where's the trust for starters ?
-
Hello Patti have you ever wondered why Sheila was so clean also why Jeremy did not dial 999 or indeed phone the police before Julie why waste so much time looking up the number of the local police station did he not think the situation warranted such immediate action. When he arrived at WHF with the police he seemed to think the situation was quite grave. As you may know I am reading Colin's book again ;D and he has just stated Sheila knew nothing at all about guns and would not have a clue how to even reload. These are some of the reasons I changed from innocent to guilty not that you asked but thought I would tell you anyway ;D ;D ;D
Hi Susan :)
You can tell me I don't mind. ;)
I have often wondered about why Sheila was so clean, but the defense claimed she could have washed, I suppose it could be a possibility, but I think Scip explained there would hardly be any back spatter. I disagree with that, because some shots were at close range and I find that difficult to except that there would be no spatter on her.....This is the 1 percent I can't explain.
Colin also said that Sheila would not allow the children to have toy guns, but one was found in the living/dining room at WHF....It could be that June had bought it and that Sheila had no say in it..... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Susan :)
You can tell me I don't mind. ;)
I have often wondered about why Sheila was so clean, but the defense claimed she could have washed, I suppose it could be a possibility, but I think Scip explained there would hardly be any back spatter. I disagree with that, because some shots were at close range and I find that difficult to except that there would be no spatter on her.....This is the 1 percent I can't explain.
Colin also said that Sheila would not allow the children to have toy guns, but one was found in the living/dining room at WHF....It could be that June had bought it and that Sheila had no say in it..... ;D ;D ;D ;D
hahaha Patti think you need to modify your post before I can proceed further reading it not sure what to expect ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
One thing laughed at another there.Not allowed toy guns,yet there was a cupboard full of the real thing when they stayed at WHF. ::) Where Colin dropped them off.Had he forgotten ?
-
Hi David
I am not a member of his campaign team I am merely on a forum discussing the case with other members, its a hobby more than anything. I love to discuss the case, look at the bullets, shell cases, read statements, look at the windows :) etc. We can't and I think its impossible for us to do any more, plus I have not got the means or the courage to spy on people its not in my nature to do anything like that. Why doesn't the campaign team hire a private detective to do it? ;D
I have never been 100% sure of his guilt, I always thought it could have been someone else and that Jeremy knew who it was, but that is just a thought and there is no way of proving it one way or the other.
As it stands he is guilty in the eyes of the law.
I happen to believe that this could be wrong. :-\
I'm not saying you have to do this or putting any weight on your shoulders, I'm just telling the supporters what needs to be done otherwise their efforts are futile.
I too simply like to discuss the case and debate things. We will have to see if any Bamber fanatics are prepared to actually go out and try to unearth a conspiracy that is the only option for them.
-
hahaha Patti think you need to modify your post before I can proceed further reading it not sure what to expect ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Toilet humour. ;D
-
Toilet humour. ;D
Hartley shall we report her for offensive language ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hartley shall we report her for offensive language ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I think we should, but we might get shit down in flames. :-\
-
OK. You CAN'T/WON'T say he's guilty because 30 years ago you made you mind he was innocent. I do understand that to give up such a nutty/noble(?) long held belief would be hard.
Jeremy said he didn't do it and he wrights nice things about his family on his blog - Therefore he cant have done it.
That's lookouts logic
-
hahaha Patti think you need to modify your post before I can proceed further reading it not sure what to expect ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ Read it 10 times before I spotted it.... :o
-
You're like the policeman in 'Allo 'Allo. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think we should, but we might get shit down in flames. :-\
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jeremy said he didn't do it and he wrights nice things about his family on his blog - Therefore he cant have done it.
That's lookouts logic
::) ::) ::)
-
You're like the policeman in 'Allo 'Allo. ;D ;D ;D ;D
I watched some of that the other day... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I watched some of that the other day... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hilarious.The old ones are always the best. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ Read it 10 times before I spotted it.... :o
spec savers for you my gal at least you gave me and harters a good laugh ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hilarious.The old ones are always the best. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Mrs Brown.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
spec savers for you my gal at least you gave me and harters a good laugh ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I'm watching Sheffield Utd in the play offs.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
i hardly think the crcc wil exept our posts as evedence.
Can you see the headlines if that happened!
Posts From Internet Forum Free Convict.
When asked how she felt about the outcome, stauntch supporter of Jeremy Bamber, Lookie Lookout, modestly answered, I just did what I had to do, I am no hero. I just wrote from my heart.
I always knew Jeremy was innocent of the five murders, I knew from the time I laid eyes on him on the front page of the Sun. This lad doesn´t have it in him, I thought, and that never changed through the years.
Lookie Lookout started writing her posts exactly three years ago today on May 7. 2012 and finally it paid off.
Her posts made Jeremy Bamber a free man.
I think I should stop now!!! ;D
Lookout, it is your board birthday today, did you know that? I went to check when you registered and it said:
Date Registered:
May 07, 2012, 07:17:PM
Local Time:
May 07, 2015, 09:11:PM
I had to look twice, very strange, I think it is the first time I have checked when someone registered.
-
Can you see the headlines if that happened!
Posts From Internet Forum Free Convict.
When asked how she felt about the outcome, stauntch supporter of Jeremy Bamber, Lookie Lookout, modestly answered, I just did what I had to do, I am no hero. I just wrote from my heart.
I always knew Jeremy was innocent of the five murders, I knew from the time I laid eyes on him on the front page of the Sun. This lad doesn´t have it in him, I thought, and that never changed through the years.
Lookie Lookout started writing her posts exactly three years ago today on May 7. 2012 and finally it paid off.
Her posts made Jeremy Bamber a free man.
I think I should stop now!!! ;D
Lookout, it is your board birthday today, did you know that? I went to check when you registered and it said:
Date Registered:
May 07, 2012, 07:17:PM
Local Time:
May 07, 2015, 09:11:PM
I had to look twice, very strange, I think it is the first time I have checked when someone registered.
Alias your talents are wasted that was so so funny and as I know lookie she will take it all in good fun I just love it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Happy forum birthday Lookie ;D ;D ;D
-
Can you see the headlines if that happened!
Posts From Internet Forum Free Convict.
When asked how she felt about the outcome, stauntch supporter of Jeremy Bamber, Lookie Lookout, modestly answered, I just did what I had to do, I am no hero. I just wrote from my heart.
I always knew Jeremy was innocent of the five murders, I knew from the time I laid eyes on him on the front page of the Sun. This lad doesn´t have it in him, I thought, and that never changed through the years.
Lookie Lookout started writing her posts exactly three years ago today on May 7. 2012 and finally it paid off.
Her posts made Jeremy Bamber a free man.
I think I should stop now!!! ;D
Lookout, it is your board birthday today, did you know that? I went to check when you registered and it said:
Date Registered:
May 07, 2012, 07:17:PM
Local Time:
May 07, 2015, 09:11:PM
I had to look twice, very strange, I think it is the first time I have checked when someone registered.
Wow,Alias,you do me proud. x I didn't even know half of that myself.I was busy looking at something that the late,great Mahatma Ghandi once said " Even if you are the minority of one,the truth is still the truth ".
I have every confidence. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I wouldn't take all the credit,of course.
-
Thankyou girls.xx
-
Wow,Alias,you do me proud. x I didn't even know half of that myself.I was busy looking at something that the late,great Mahatma Ghandi once said " Even if you are the minority of one,the truth is still the truth ".
I have every confidence. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I wouldn't take all the credit,of course.
Thanks for taking it like a sport, but I know you have a sense of humour and don´t take yourself too seriously, so I really had no worries. :)
Happy board birthday! Funny that I checked your registration date exactly on the three year day!
-
Thankyou girls.xx
Happy board birthday.....Yikes has it been that long. Time flies like no moths. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Happy board birthday.....Yikes has it been that long. Time flies like no moths. ;D ;D ;D ;D
No it doesn´t! I thought I had been here ten years - feels like it! I also registered in 2012 in July. ;D
-
Thanks for taking it like a sport, but I know you have a sense of humour and don´t take yourself too seriously, so I really had no worries. :)
Happy board birthday! Funny that I checked your registration date exactly on the three year day!
You're a clever and amazing person.I couldn't/wouldn't take umbridge at that. You're right,I don't take myself seriously. ;D ;D.
-
No it doesn´t! I thought I had been here ten years - feels like it! I also registered in 2012 in July. ;D
I registered before Lookout but I have deleted my account twice since.
Alias how long as this forum been running.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Happy board birthday.....Yikes has it been that long. Time flies like no moths. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Aww,Patti.x It certainly does fly by,just like the moths do. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I registered before Lookout but I have deleted my account twice since.
Alias how long as this forum been running.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I came in April 2012 but went AWOL for a couple of hours in my little huffy so I am showing as 2012 hahaha
-
I registered before Lookout but I have deleted my account twice since.
Alias how long as this forum been running.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I left too at some point, but returned soon after. Maybe it is ten years after all! :P
-
I came in April 2012 but went AWOL for a couple of hours in my little huffy so I am showing as 2013 hahaha
-
Can you see the headlines if that happened!
Posts From Internet Forum Free Convict.
No because you will have to actually find hidden evidence out in the field. To many supporters think they can prove his innocence by browsing the web it wont happen.
This is what must happen
Step 1. Supporters go looking for evidence of conspiracy against Jeremy
Step 2. Supporters upload new perceived evidence of conspiracy to the Archive and Library
Step 3. Possible evidence uploaded will be put under investigation and scrutiny by forum members
Step 4. Enough new evidence of conspiracy must get the Scipio seal of approval
Step 5. Scipio approved Evidence of conspiracy gets sent to Jeremy's legal team.
Step 6a. New evidence gets submitted by Jeremy's lawyers to be sent to the CCRC
6b. Evidence is so earth shattering it goes straight to the Crown Appeal Court.
-
I registered before Lookout but I have deleted my account twice since.
Alias how long as this forum been running.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I should also thank you for bringing me here too,Patti. It's certainly kept my brain from going rusty. ;D ;D
-
No because you will have to actually find hidden evidence out in the field. To many supporters think they can prove his innocence by browsing the web it wont happen.
This is what must happen
Step 1. Supporters go looking for evidence of conspiracy against Jeremy
Step 2. Supporters upload new perceived evidence of conspiracy to the Archive and Library
Step 3. Possible evidence uploaded will be put under investigation and scrutiny by forum members
Step 4. Enough new evidence of conspiracy must get the Scipio seal of approval
Step 5. Scipio approved Evidence of conspiracy gets sent to Jeremy's legal team.
Step 6a. New evidence gets submitted by Jeremy's lawyers to be sent to the CCRC
6b. Evidence is so earth shattering it goes straight to the Crown Appeal Court.
Just to remind you, Supporters are yet to complete step 1
Good luck ;D
-
Just to remind you, Supporters are yet to complete step 1
Good luck ;D
Thank you! ;D
-
What if I don't believe there to have been a conspiracy ?
-
No because you will have to actually find hidden evidence out in the field. To many supporters think they can prove his innocence by browsing the web it wont happen.
This is what must happen
Step 1. Supporters go looking for evidence of conspiracy against Jeremy
Step 2. Supporters upload new perceived evidence of conspiracy to the Archive and Library
Step 3. Possible evidence uploaded will be put under investigation and scrutiny by forum members
Step 4. Enough new evidence of conspiracy must get the Scipio seal of approval
Step 5. Scipio approved Evidence of conspiracy gets sent to Jeremy's legal team.
Step 6a. New evidence gets submitted by Jeremy's lawyers to be sent to the CCRC
6b. Evidence is so earth shattering it goes straight to the Crown Appeal Court.
Something you posted earlier is significant, evidence of a conspiracy is not going to be found among existing documents- police would not be stupid enough to document their conspiracy. The only way evidence of a conspiracy would come out would be if someone confessed to being part of something. If Julie recanted or some cop or some lab worker claimed he was part of a conspiracy that is what would restart an investigation and it would involve looking in depth at the claims being made. Such would not come from the internet. Such can't even be prompted by Jeremy supporters is would have to come from people part of a conspiracy having a change of heart.
-
No because you will have to actually find hidden evidence out in the field. To many supporters think they can prove his innocence by browsing the web it wont happen.
This is what must happen
Step 1. Supporters go looking for evidence of conspiracy against Jeremy
Step 2. Supporters upload new perceived evidence of conspiracy to the Archive and Library
Step 3. Possible evidence uploaded will be put under investigation and scrutiny by forum members
Step 4. Enough new evidence of conspiracy must get the Scipio seal of approval
Step 5. Scipio approved Evidence of conspiracy gets sent to Jeremy's legal team.
Step 6a. New evidence gets submitted by Jeremy's lawyers to be sent to the CCRC
6b. Evidence is so earth shattering it goes straight to the Crown Appeal Court.
Good luck with that! ;D
-
Something you posted earlier is significant, evidence of a conspiracy is not going to be found among existing documents- police would not be stupid enough to document their conspiracy. The only way evidence of a conspiracy would come out would be if someone confessed to being part of something. If Julie recanted or some cop or some lab worker claimed he was part of a conspiracy that is what would restart an investigation and it would involve looking in depth at the claims being made. Such would not come from the internet. Such can't even be prompted by Jeremy supporters is would have to come from people part of a conspiracy having a change of heart.
I guess they will have learned a lot from the case of The Guildford 4 - I doubt anyone writes "Not to be shown to the defence" on files any more.
-
I guess they will have learned a lot from the case of The Guildford 4 - I doubt anyone writes "Not to be shown to the defence" on files any more.
OMG, they really did that?! :o
-
What if I don't believe there to have been a conspiracy ?
Then you can safely believe Jeremy is Guilty
-
I registered before Lookout but I have deleted my account twice since.
Alias how long as this forum been running.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The forum started in late 2010 with just Mike as a member, others started joining in January 2011, I think I joined originally at the end of Jan 2011 and knew absolutely nothing about the case, never even heard of it before.
The website domain name used to be registered to a certain Italian 'advocate'.
Before that Mike made a lot of posts on the Sleuthingforjustice forum, and posted in various news articles comments sections, pretty much swamped them.
Prior to that, I have been told (but do not know first hand) that there were message boards/forums that ended up being shut down following complaints from various relatives of the deceased.
History lesson over. :D
-
Then you can safely believe Jeremy is Guilty
Explain how you make that out.
-
I guess they will have learned a lot from the case of The Guildford 4 - I doubt anyone writes "Not to be shown to the defence" on files any more.
That's still not the same thing though. They withheld a statement by someone who supported an alibi. Here you would need a conspirator to actually write down how they planted physical evidence, concealed physical evidence or otherwise doctored it. Who the hell is going to write a document that says, I found blood int he rifle but I decided to pretend it wasn't found and will say nothing was found".
Someone might put something like that in a personal diary but surely not in any document part of the file.
-
The forum started in late 2010 with just Mike as a member, others started joining in January 2011, I think I joined originally at the end of Jan 2011 and knew absolutely nothing about the case, never even heard of it before.
The website domain name used to be registered to a certain Italian 'advocate'.
Before that Mike made a lot of posts on the Sleuthingforjustice forum, and posted in various news articles comments sections, pretty much swamped them.
Prior to that, I have been told (but do not know first hand) that there were message boards/forums that ended up being shut down following complaints from various relatives of the deceased.
History lesson over. :D
This bit surprises me!
-
The forum started in late 2010 with just Mike as a member, others started joining in January 2011, I think I joined originally at the end of Jan 2011 and knew absolutely nothing about the case, never even heard of it before.
The website domain name used to be registered to a certain Italian 'advocate'.
Before that Mike made a lot of posts on the Sleuthingforjustice forum, and posted in various news articles comments sections, pretty much swamped them.
Prior to that, I have been told (but do not know first hand) that there were message boards/forums that ended up being shut down following complaints from various relatives of the deceased.
History lesson over. :D
Thanks for that Hartley ;)
-
OMG, they really did that?! :o
They did it with Gerry Conlon's alibi, shameful
-
This bit surprises me!
It is true Alias. I don't think I'd have even recognised the name, or maybe just a very vague familiarity from news reports.
I joined originally after being told about the case and set out to find out about it and form my own opinion, rather than accept on face value what I was told by.
-
Then you can safely believe Jeremy is Guilty
not necessarily - they may all have believed he was guilty ( eventually) and just did their very best to get him banged up. Not exactly a conspiracy - but just believing someone is guilty does not make it true.
-
Agreed,Jan.It doesn't mean a thing.
-
The forum started in late 2010 with just Mike as a member, others started joining in January 2011, I think I joined originally at the end of Jan 2011 and knew absolutely nothing about the case, never even heard of it before.
The website domain name used to be registered to a certain Italian 'advocate'.
Before that Mike made a lot of posts on the Sleuthingforjustice forum, and posted in various news articles comments sections, pretty much swamped them.
Prior to that, I have been told (but do not know first hand) that there were message boards/forums that ended up being shut down following complaints from various relatives of the deceased.
History lesson over. :D
Why look for, find and join the forum if you knew nothing about the case ?
-
Why look for, find and join the forum if you knew nothing about the case ?
Refer to post #99 Adam.
-
Explain how you make that out.
1. Jeremy said he left the gun in the kitchen without the silencer attached
2. That would mean Shelia would pick up the gun without the silencer attached
3. Shelia's body was found without the silencer attached
4. Blood and DNA of the family members killed was found inside the silencer meaning the silencer was used in the killings
5. This clears Shelia because She would have picked up the gun without the silencer attached
6. With Shelia cleared the only other possible suspect is Jeremy
7. For Jeremy to be innocent would mean the Blood and DNA in the Silencer was put there by conspirators trying to frame him
-
not necessarily - they may all have believed he was guilty ( eventually) and just did their very best to get him banged up. Not exactly a conspiracy - but just believing someone is guilty does not make it true.
Yes same thing its just a noble cause conspiracy
-
It is true Alias. I don't think I'd have even recognised the name, or maybe just a very vague familiarity from news reports.
I joined originally after being told about the case and set out to find out about it and form my own opinion, rather than accept on face value what I was told by.
You have always come across as such, so respect.
-
You have always come across as such, so respect.
That's very kind. People are welcome to have a different opinion, as long as they know they are wrong. ;D
Nah, not really. At one stage I was big headed enough to think I was making a difference, fast forward a few years and now I don't take any of this particularly seriously any more. Sure I've got an interest in the subject, but so what if people see things differently.
-
That's very kind. People are welcome to have a different opinion, as long as they know they are wrong. ;D
Nah, not really. At one stage I was big headed enough to think I was making a difference, fast forward a few years and now I don't take any of this particularly seriously any more. Sure I've got an interest in the subject, but so what if people see things differently.
I know people will take this the wrong way and use it to attack me but I will post it anyway because it is funny. I have a framed colorized version of this cartoon hanging on my office wall:
(http://s22.postimg.org/mln6xrh8x/dogbert.jpg)
I also have this plaque on my desk which some of my coworkers are not to keen on but too bad for them:
(http://s9.postimg.org/hhx9dwa27/dilbertmensa.jpg)