Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on June 25, 2015, 04:36:PM
-
Most MOJ's feature either police suspecting someone right away and pursuing only that person and thus not finding evidence that would have lead to the real perpetrator or not being able to figure out who did it and being pressured to put the blame on someone.
In this case police didn't zero in on Jeremy right away instead they believed his claims that his sister was responsible. So supporters can't claim police went after Jeremy from the outset and missed evidence proving his innocence. The complete opposite happened the detectives believed Sheila was responsible and ignored all evidence that suggested otherwise.
Since they already had someone blamed for the event there was no pressure to find someone to blame they already had the event wrapped up.
Since they were blaming Sheila and were told to look for anything that could establish her guilt the suggestion police intentionally concealed things that established she was responsible can't be made nor can it credibly be argued that they missed evidence of her being responsible given that is what they were looking for.
The police had zero motive to stop blaming Sheila and to instead frame Jeremy. So conspiracy theorists first need to come up with a motive for police to frame Jeremy.
Proof Sheila didn't shoot herself and that someone else did undermined the initial police theory of murder suicide.
Necessity is the mother of invention. A wild tale of police shooting Sheila was invented in order to suggest police had a motive to frame Jeremy. This tale features the claim police needed to conceal they killed her and thus had a motive to frame Jeremy to avoid facing the heat for killing her.
This pathetic claim is all conspiracy theorists have to go on so far as trying to claim police had a motive to be involved in a conspiracy.
Those Jeremy supporters who don't subscribe to this have no plausible motive for police to be involved in a conspiracy. Instead they claim a family conspiracy but their position is a mess because they make disingenuous claims that the moderator evidence could have innocently been transferred by the family or police and know the family would not have had the know how to planted the evidence in the moderator let alone opportunity to remove blood from the rifle barrel and thus dance around instead of discussing such things frankly.
At the end of the day the various nonsense is for their own benefit to allow them to justify believing Jeremy is innocent and they are only fooling themselves with such. Some though delude themselves to much they actually think such nonsense should be able to be used to set Jeremy free. At some point delusion becomes unhealthy.
-
Conspiracy my eye !! Shoddy investigating and sheer incompetence that EP HAD to rely on the relatives.
-
Conspiracy my eye !! Shoddy investigating and sheer incompetence that EP HAD to rely on the relatives.
Even if it's all of that and more, it doesn't mean that Jeremy is innocent.
-
Even if it's all of that and more, it doesn't mean that Jeremy is innocent.
It doesn't say he's guilty either.
-
It doesn't say he's guilty either.
It does, Lookout. The jury said he was.
-
It does, Lookout. The jury said he was.
They wouldn't now.
Why,because it was a mass murder,wasn't there a unanimous verdict ? If EVERYONE thought him guilty.
Why do you think that 2 people didn't agree ? What would be your thoughts on that ?
-
They wouldn't now.
Why,because it was a mass murder,wasn't there a unanimous verdict ? If EVERYONE thought him guilty.
Why do you think that 2 people didn't agree ? What would be your thoughts on that ?
That two people weren't sure but 10 were - hence his conviction. They haven't come forward to show their support for him so I guess they must have changed their minds. It happens you know! ;D ;D ;D
-
This isn't unique. The jury have been wrong before,quite a few times in fact.
-
This isn't unique. The jury have been wrong before,quite a few times in fact.
Not this time!
-
Not this time!
Oh I would say so--------not their fault if they didn't have all the documentation in front of them. Not forgetting that patient confidentiality halted any further information from being released from Sheila's case-notes.
-
Oh I would say so--------not their fault if they didn't have all the documentation in front of them. Not forgetting that patient confidentiality halted any further information from being released from Sheila's case-notes.
Sheila wasn't on trial.
-
Oh I would say so--------not their fault if they didn't have all the documentation in front of them. Not forgetting that patient confidentiality halted any further information from being released from Sheila's case-notes.
Unless Sheila's case notes indicated that she was thinking of killing off the family with Jeremy's new shooter - her case notes will be just ............... well, he case notes! Another leap in the dark ::) ::)
-
Sheila wasn't on trial.
I know that,but it would have helped if there'd been the much-needed information THEN and not 30 years on.
-
I know that,but it would have helped if there'd been the much-needed information THEN and not 30 years on.
Helped WHO, Lookout. Had I been on the jury a HUGE stumbling block would haver been the clean physical state of Sheila and the fact that she'd been shot twice. WhatEVER her medical history says of her it won't prove that she committed murder/suicide.
-
Conspiracy my eye !! Shoddy investigating and sheer incompetence that EP HAD to rely on the relatives.
As I noted the shoddy investigating was to Jeremy's benefit. The detectives failed to immediately appreciate problems and failed to collect evidence that implicated Jeremy they only looked for evidence that implicated Sheila. There is no way to claim that the initial errors ended up creating evidence against Jeremy- it didn't.
This thread is a testament to how your claims and those of most Jeremy supporters don't make any sense.
-
It doesn't say he's guilty either.
The evidence proves he is guilty. Anytime you demand to know what evidence convicted him I list such evidence then you declare, "I don't accept such as evidence" You can't refute the evidence you just dismiss it because you don't want to face it. It demonstrates to everyone you choose to live in denial nothing more.
In contrast all arguments made by Jeremy supporters can and have been taken apart and demonstrated to be sheer nonsense including your earlier claim that shoddy work helped convict Jeremy. On the contrary the initial shoddy work worked to Jeremy's benefit. Not challenging Jeremy early on and seeing him squirm as they brought up his contradictions would have potentially caused him to make up even more lies that nailed him even more.
-
The evidence proves he is guilty. Anytime you demand to know what evidence convicted him I list such evidence then you declare, "I don't accept such as evidence" You can't refute the evidence you just dismiss it because you don't want to face it. It demonstrates to everyone you choose to live in denial nothing more.
In contrast all arguments made by Jeremy supporters can and have been taken apart and demonstrated to be sheer nonsense including your earlier claim that shoddy work helped convict Jeremy. On the contrary the initial shoddy work worked to Jeremy's benefit. Not challenging Jeremy early on and seeing him squirm as they brought up his contradictions would have potentially caused him to make up even more lies that nailed him even more.
Why did Essex police deliberately edit 358 photographs out of the equation, if they had got nothing to hide?