Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on September 26, 2015, 08:05:AM
-
'The lockable from outside window'.
'Julie wanting/having to lie'.
'Disposing of the massacre clothes'.
Neville's first four shots'.
'Neville calling Jeremy'.
'Creating a siege situation being the best option'.
'The barking dog preventing a massacre'.
'The Triple frame theory'.
'Two bodies in the kitchen'.
There was closure on all these issues in individual threads. Supporters would bring up all these things to try to show innocence.
There are 20 good sources that the kitchen window could be locked from outside, or Jeremy had a month to dispose of clothes, in England, Amsterdam & St Tropez. Or 60 reasons why Neville would not call Bamber. But supporters still bring these issues up.
It really just needs a couple of these issues to be closed to confirm guilt. However there are nine.
With closure on many arguments that were weak in the first place, do people believe it is time for closure on Bamber being innocent ?
-
'The lockable from outside window'.
'Julie wanting/having to lie'.
'Disposing of the massacre clothes'.
Neville's first four shots'.
'Neville calling Jeremy'.
'Creating a siege situation being the best option'.
'The barking dog preventing a massacre'.
'The Triple frame theory'.
'Two bodies in the kitchen'.
There was closure on all these issues in individual threads. Supporters would bring up all these things to try to show innocence.
There are 20 good sources that the kitchen window could be locked from outside, or Jeremy had a month to dispose of clothes, in England, Amsterdam & St Tropez. Or 60 reasons why Neville would not call Bamber. But supporters still bring these issues up.
It really just needs a couple of these issues to be closed to confirm guilt. However there are nine.
With closure on many arguments that were weak in the first place, do people believe it is time for closure on Bamber being innocent ?
I think there has been closure on a lot of the case for a long time now. But in 5 years time supporters will still be claiming Ralph called the police and that there is a record of him doing so, them doing so doesn't mean that there is no closure on the subject - but just that people are willing to believe anything.
Some still mis-represent the entire windows story - doesn't mean there isn't closure on it, but people will go to great lenths to duck, weave and "explain" in the most convulted way they can do.
-
You guilters are all the same.
NO factual proof.
-
You'll only get the same " factual " answer, " he's in prison ". ;D
-
You guilters are all the same.
NO factual proof.
But an OVERWHELMING amount of circumstantial evidence - too much to ever be a coincidence.
-
But an OVERWHELMING amount of circumstantial evidence - too much to ever be a coincidence.
Which wasn't always proven----but looked good. ;)
-
Im sorry but none of the circumstantial evidence proves his guilt. I mean who decided it was a bike he trundled home on. We can all make things fit if we want tp.
adam you get on my nerves talking as though none of us are even allowed to consider the evidence as we see it.
No one has convinced me if his guilt with the evidence on this forum.
-
An overwhelming amount of police errors also which added together does seem to be dodgy too caroline.
i mean why cant we find some real dviden e in this case. You know if your version is true, he masacred 5 people and did not leave a shred of evidence. Not a drop of blood on the window catch, his clothes tge bije. The journey. No ond saw him.
i am still really suspicioys of the family.
however after saying all that i still have a niggling doubt of his innocence.
-
Im sorry but none of the circumstantial evidence proves his guilt. I mean who decided it was a bike he trundled home on. We can all make things fit if we want tp.
adam you get on my nerves talking as though none of us are even allowed to consider the evidence as we see it.
No one has convinced me if his guilt with the evidence on this forum.
Notsure, NOT following circumstantial evidence COULD mean that a huge percentage of guilty prisoners wouldn't be behind bars. No one says our judicial system is perfect, but I'm willing to lay odds that it's the best there is by far.
-
An overwhelming amount of police errors also which added together does seem to be dodgy too caroline.
i mean why cant we find some real dviden e in this case. You know if your version is true, he masacred 5 people and did not leave a shred of evidence. Not a drop of blood on the window catch, his clothes tge bije. The journey. No ond saw him.
i am still really suspicioys of the family.
however after saying all that i still have a niggling doubt of his innocence.
One answer to that is because the police were so sure it was an open and shut case they destroyed much of the evidence that could have been retested. Jeremy had plenty of time to clean up loose ends because he wasn't initially suspected. I have ALWAYS maintained that the wider family resented him but it doesn't mean he's innocent.
-
An overwhelming amount of police errors also which added together does seem to be dodgy too caroline.
i mean why cant we find some real dviden e in this case. You know if your version is true, he masacred 5 people and did not leave a shred of evidence. Not a drop of blood on the window catch, his clothes tge bije. The journey. No ond saw him.
i am still really suspicioys of the family.
however after saying all that i still have a niggling doubt of his innocence.
Such as?
Mistaking the body of Ralph downstairs as Sheila and the trick of light in the window - wouldn't call that overwhelming really.
Other than that you have admin errors but I am sure if you were to look into other cases admin errors would be there too.
-
I find it so difficult jane.
i have no knowledge of the area, what people know about jb or the family. I have never corresponded with jb etc etc. I also dont remember too much of it when it happened. I was too busy enjoying mtself at that age.
all i have to go on is what is on this forum and im not convinced. I am suspicious that the family were convinced he did it and they in turn convinced the police.
they would have sat talking about it hour after hour to decide how he did it and then put those suggestions to the police.
the power of suggestion seems to have played a big part in this case as they cannot be sure how anyone did it if it wasnt shiela.
-
I find it so difficult jane.
i have no knowledge of the area, what people know about jb or the family. I have never corresponded with jb etc etc. I also dont remember too much of it when it happened. I was too busy enjoying mtself at that age.
all i have to go on is what is on this forum and im not convinced. I am suspicious that the family were convinced he did it and they in turn convinced the police.
they would have sat talking about it hour after hour to decide how he did it and then put those suggestions to the police.
the power of suggestion seems to have played a big part in this case as they cannot be sure how anyone did it if it wasnt shiela.
I'm sure that it's confusing, Notsure.
Re the families part in the case. I believe they were HUGELY resentful of Jeremy - I'm not including Pam- and I suspect Jeremy didn't have much time for them, either. However,if we look at the age gaps, there were 10-15 years between the cousins so they were never going to be close. The Boutflour children, who went to state schools, were true farming stock, bought up with a work ethic which is still very much in evidence today. Conversely, the Bamber children seemed NOT to have had that ethic ingrained in them as neither achieved very much. I guess in their position, I'd have felt pissed off watching the heir to what I was working my socks off for swanning around OR doing as little as he could get away with. It would never have occurred to them that he may not have wanted to farm.............but none of this makes him innocent and it MAY be that at some point they AND some members of the police, over a drink, wished there was something concrete to prove their suspicions.
If you're going to talk about the power of suggestion, as a very good example, you only have to read what Jeremy told police during the time he stood outside with them.
-
I find it so difficult jane.
i have no knowledge of the area, what people know about jb or the family. I have never corresponded with jb etc etc. I also dont remember too much of it when it happened. I was too busy enjoying mtself at that age.
all i have to go on is what is on this forum and im not convinced. I am suspicious that the family were convinced he did it and they in turn convinced the police.
they would have sat talking about it hour after hour to decide how he did it and then put those suggestions to the police.
the power of suggestion seems to have played a big part in this case as they cannot be sure how anyone did it if it wasnt shiela.
It could only be one or the other.
-
There are over 30 forensic points which highlight guilt.
Supporters like to argue that it is just circumstantial evidence. It isn't.
However circumstantial evidence is as important.
-
There are over 30 forensic points which highlight guilt.
Supporters like to argue that it is just circumstantial evidence. It isn't.
However circumstantial evidence is as important.
It is important, yeah. When you add all the circumstantial evidence together, his behaviour pre and post murders and his comments pre and post murders, his changing story then and now - and the condition Sheila was found in - it all adds up.
-
Behaviour pre and post is no indicator of guilt.
-
Behaviour pre and post is no indicator of guilt.
Depends on what behaviour it is.
"I should have been an actor." is a comment that shows guilt post murder.
Trying to sell photos of his sister is a sign of his warped attitude and shows his financial greed, which helps to cement his motive.
Of course his behaviour and comments post murder can be an indicator of his guilt.
-
Depends on what behaviour it is.
"I should have been an actor." is a comment that shows guilt post murder.
Trying to sell photos of his sister is a sign of his warped attitude and shows his financial greed, which helps to cement his motive.
Of course his behaviour and comments post murder can be an indicator of his guilt.
JB may have uttered these things but not at that time.It could well have been on an entirely different occasion,but it happened to fit the scenario at that particular time.
There are no hard and fast rules of how an individual has to grieve. The pic of him with JM at the funeral is a pained one IMHO. If he'd been a woman,it would have shown an entirely different picture as for some reason it's more acceptable for a woman to " break down " in grief than it is for a man.
While I'm on the subject of grief,I didn't see anyone else with their faces buried in a handkerchief.?
-
JB may have uttered these things but not at that time.It could well have been on an entirely different occasion,but it happened to fit the scenario at that particular time.
There are no hard and fast rules of how an individual has to grieve. The pic of him with JM at the funeral is a pained one IMHO. If he'd been a woman,it would have shown an entirely different picture as for some reason it's more acceptable for a woman to " break down " in grief than it is for a man.
While I'm on the subject of grief,I didn't see anyone else with their faces buried in a handkerchief.?
We have Julie, alone with him, saying he laughed/giggled and said those words. We have a policeman standing outside the room who heard the sound. I don't think there can be much doubt. Unless they collaborated, how would Julie and a policeman she didn't know was there, at a time when Jeremy wasn't really under suspicion, get together a month later to move those words to a different place and time?
-
We have Julie, alone with him, saying he laughed/giggled and said those words. We have a policeman standing outside the room who heard the sound. I don't think there can be much doubt. Unless they collaborated, how would Julie and a policeman she didn't know was there, at a time when Jeremy wasn't really under suspicion, get together a month later to move those words to a different place and time?
Aha,JM alone with JB. Nobody else present to verify that then ? Can we rely 100% in what JM said anyway ?
The officer outside the room could have heard a muffled cry which would sound like choked laughter-------but it shows how wrong they can be as well. Their ears were to the ground listening/looking for anything that could possibly see them back in favour with their chief after some failed investigations of late.
If anyone was acting,it was JM who put on a brilliant display of the scorned woman. The Taming of the Shrew had nothing on JM's outpourings for the prosecution. Pity it didn't continue when it was the turn of the defence.
-
Final closure is not going to happen, a generation time then yes as everyone will be gone connected to the case , if you believe all the facts are correct and all evidence has been given then you will believe anything.
-
Aha,JM alone with JB. Nobody else present to verify that then ? Can we rely 100% in what JM said anyway ?
The officer outside the room could have heard a muffled cry which would sound like choked laughter-------but it shows how wrong they can be as well. Their ears were to the ground listening/looking for anything that could possibly see them back in favour with their chief after some failed investigations of late.
If anyone was acting,it was JM who put on a brilliant display of the scorned woman. The Taming of the Shrew had nothing on JM's outpourings for the prosecution. Pity it didn't continue when it was the turn of the defence.
But it's very coincidental that the incident was heard simultaneously, Julie already knowing what had transpired but the policeman being ignorant of it.
-
Final closure is not going to happen, a generation time then yes as everyone will be gone connected to the case , if you believe all the facts are correct and all evidence has been given then you will believe anything.
closure i do hate that word.
-
Behaviour pre and post is no indicator of guilt.
It is an indicator of guilt.
Pre massacre it helps to create his motives of hate and greed. The prosecution have to convince the jury he has a motive.
Post massacre it backs up his motive. As he spent freely straight away and showed no remorse.
This together with the forensic and circumstantial evidence gets the police a water tight case. No matter how much Bamber tries to break out.
-
It is an indicator of guilt.
Pre massacre it helps to create his motives of hate and greed. The prosecution have to convince the jury he has a motive.
Post massacre it backs up his motive. As he spent freely straight away and showed no remorse.
This together with the forensic and circumstantial evidence gets the police a water tight case. No matter how much Bamber tries to break out.
Behaviour is NOT an indicator of guilt at all. It's only what YOU perceive as being guilt. Clever people give NO indication of their thoughts and never breathe a word to anyone. On the contrary their persona could well be that of being overly helpful,unnaturally pleasant as though a person has turned over a new leaf making it pleasing to others. That would have been his " acting " trait coming out and if that had been the way he was then I'd have said he was guilty. That's a schizo/split personality.
In a lot of cases,the murderer turns out to be someone who you least expected. This is why it takes skill in solving a crime such as this one at WHF.
There's nothing easier than pointing a finger to the person whose mannerisms,etc point to him being the culprit,but there's more to it than that and if EP had done their job properly,they'd have settled for the right person and not JB.
-
Behaviour is NOT an indicator of guilt at all. It's only what YOU perceive as being guilt. Clever people give NO indication of their thoughts and never breathe a word to anyone. On the contrary their persona could well be that of being overly helpful,unnaturally pleasant as though a person has turned over a new leaf making it pleasing to others. That would have been his " acting " trait coming out and if that had been the way he was then I'd have said he was guilty. That's a schizo/split personality.
In a lot of cases,the murderer turns out to be someone who you least expected. This is why it takes skill in solving a crime such as this one at WHF.
There's nothing easier than pointing a finger to the person whose mannerisms,etc point to him being the culprit,but there's more to it than that and if EP had done their job properly,they'd have settled for the right person and not JB.
It backs up evidence.
There is no point the prosecution saying Bamber killed his family for no reason.
They have to have motives, which are facts. Then back this up with facts about Bamber's actions pre and post massacre, and what he said to other people.
-
Prosecutions and Jurys' have been wrong before you know !
-
But it's very coincidental that the incident was heard simultaneously, Julie already knowing what had transpired but the policeman being ignorant of it.
So if Jeremy had not dumped JM she would have kept her mouth shut.
She is as guilty as Jeremy in that case.
-
So if Jeremy had not dumped JM she would have kept her mouth shut.
She is as guilty as Jeremy in that case.
She may well have done, we'll never know. She could have held that over him for the rest of their lives - now that might have been an even worse fate than the one he's living now!! ;D
-
She may well have done, we'll never know. She could have held that over him for the rest of their lives - now that might have been an even worse fate than the one he's living now!! ;D
Not really Caroline. He could have dumped her overboard on the drugs trip.
-
Not really Caroline. He could have dumped her overboard on the drugs trip.
That's true! ;D
-
Adam I am so worried about you - you have your closure - you know 100% about what happened through your extensive research and reading of books - so why are you even here?
Give you brain a rest - it must be exhausting trying to prove something that you already know has been proven.
-
Adam I am so worried about you - you have your closure - you know 100% about what happened through your extensive research and reading of books - so why are you even here?
Give you brain a rest - it must be exhausting trying to prove something that you already know has been proven.
Oh come on, not this rubbish again.
-
Oh come on, not this rubbish again.
yes I have had a few weeks off and Adam has not learnt how to have a proper debate . And I am entitled to my opinion as much as he is . If he stopped preaching at the rest of us I would have more respect for him.
-
yes I have had a few weeks off and Adam has not learnt how to have a proper debate . And I am entitled to my opinion as much as he is . If he stopped preaching at the rest of us I would have more respect for him.
But it's not just Adam, it's all 'guilters' that get attacked with the silly argument of "Jeremy is in prison, convicted so what are you doing here?".
Almost as if there is something wrong with guilters for posting about the case, turning the argument around - you've got 7000 posts on an internet forum supporting a convicted child killer when :
All that is ever highlighted that stick are admin errors.
CCRC and a JR reject any claims as credible.
The official site of Jeremy posts proven lies (ralph phoning the police, still! ;D )
So some people would ask what you're doing here and find that weird too.
But as for guilters, I can't think of any that come on here just to slate Bamber - they do debate the case/ they have knowledge of the case and that can't be said for ALL supporters - I can think of FOUR of the top of my head who support Bamber and seemingly are unable to debate the case - but no one asks them why they are here.
The forum is for debate and always has been - the only other option is that guilters are banned and then this place would become like the official site where everyone agrees with each other and very little every scrutinised because who wants to correct people on their own side?
-
After so many closures one would think you would be smart enough to realize those supporters you are addressing refuse to accept closure and therefore each time you ask whether it is time for closure it is a pointless question.
-
After so many closures one would think you would be smart enough to realize those supporters you are addressing refuse to accept closure and therefore each time you ask whether it is time for closure it is a pointless question.
You've got a cheek blaming supporters for refusing to address closure. Isn't closure on your part the fact that he was found guilty and imprisoned ?
It's not closure so far as supporters are concerned because there are far too many anomalies involved.
-
But it's not just Adam, it's all 'guilters' that get attacked with the silly argument of "Jeremy is in prison, convicted so what are you doing here?".
Almost as if there is something wrong with guilters for posting about the case, turning the argument around - you've got 7000 posts on an internet forum supporting a convicted child killer when :
All that is ever highlighted that stick are admin errors.
CCRC and a JR reject any claims as credible.
The official site of Jeremy posts proven lies (ralph phoning the police, still! ;D )
So some people would ask what you're doing here and find that weird too.
But as for guilters, I can't think of any that come on here just to slate Bamber - they do debate the case/ they have knowledge of the case and that can't be said for ALL supporters - I can think of FOUR of the top of my head who support Bamber and seemingly are unable to debate the case - but no one asks them why they are here.
The forum is for debate and always has been - the only other option is that guilters are banned and then this place would become like the official site where everyone agrees with each other and very little every scrutinised because who wants to correct people on their own side?
No - because some of those posters are still debating and in some cases asking questions - so they may be 99.99 % sure he is guilty but there is a very tiny tiny niggling possibility that he may have been telling the truth for all these years. Adam is different . He has made his mind up about every thread he starts before he even starts .
-
You've got a cheek blaming supporters for refusing to address closure. Isn't closure on your part the fact that he was found guilty and imprisoned ?
It's not closure so far as supporters are concerned because there are far too many anomalies involved.
I see Jeremy supporters making the same refuted claims over and over again. Efforts to get such supporters to admit defeat on such issues fails and they just repeat the same mantra. Asking them if it is time for closure in an effort to get them to quit has failed time and again. What point then is asking them for some final closure when they won't even admit to it on any of the individual arguments?
From the point of a rational objective person is is quite pointless.
-
No - because some of those posters are still debating and in some cases asking questions - so they may be 99.99 % sure he is guilty but there is a very tiny tiny niggling possibility that he may have been telling the truth for all these years. Adam is different . He has made his mind up about every thread he starts before he even starts .
There is usually quite a high discrepancy between those who say there are undecided and those that are actually on the fence when push comes to shove.
-
I see Jeremy supporters making the same refuted claims over and over again. Efforts to get such supporters to admit defeat on such issues fails and they just repeat the same mantra. Asking them if it is time for closure in an effort to get them to quit has failed time and again. What point then is asking them for some final closure when they won't even admit to it on any of the individual arguments?
From the point of a rational objective person is is quite pointless.
:) exactly
-
I see Jeremy supporters making the same refuted claims over and over again. Efforts to get such supporters to admit defeat on such issues fails and they just repeat the same mantra. Asking them if it is time for closure in an effort to get them to quit has failed time and again. What point then is asking them for some final closure when they won't even admit to it on any of the individual arguments?
From the point of a rational objective person is is quite pointless.
It does show (hopefully) to new members what is going on.
-
I see Jeremy supporters making the same refuted claims over and over again. Efforts to get such supporters to admit defeat on such issues fails and they just repeat the same mantra.
Try looking in the mirror and watching your own mouth move. The only thing you're mater of is twisting others' words and projecting your flaws elsewhere.
-
Try looking in the mirror and watching your own mouth move. The only thing you're mater of is twisting others' words and projecting your flaws elsewhere.
ALl your efforts to establish me twisting have simply resulted in you looking foolish. I post facts and evidence while you make up nonsense to suit your agenda.
-
Supporters fall into two categories.
The media supporters who are always making sound bites, speaking on television or the radio. Or contributing to the OS and creating Youtube videos. Such as Poppy, Trudie and O'Neill. These people do not debate the case on forums. The exception being Mike and briefly, Jackie.
Then there are the forum supporters. Who will debate the case on a forum, either ignoring the evidence or saying it was wrong. But will not go outside of the forum to support Bamber.
-
ALl your efforts to establish me twisting have simply resulted in you looking foolish. I post facts and evidence while you make up nonsense to suit your agenda.
You post your own opinion -and that's all it is- the same as the rest of us but where we say "Could it be.............." OR "Perhaps it is..................." you INSIST that it is with nothing but facts you've twisted and re-twisted to force the scene/peoples thoughts to where they best fit your agenda.
-
Supporters fall into two categories.
The media supporters who are always making sound bites, speaking on television or the radio. Or contributing to the OS and creating Youtube videos. Such as Poppy, Trudie and O'Neill. These people do not debate the case on forums. The exception being Mike and briefly, Jackie.
Then there are the forum supporters. Who will debate the case on a forum, either ignoring the evidence or saying it was wrong. But will not go outside of the forum to support Bamber.
Is Poppy the same Poppy who pretends there are two COLP reports? ;D
-
Supporters fall into two categories.
The media supporters who are always making sound bites, speaking on television or the radio. Or contributing to the OS and creating Youtube videos. Such as Poppy, Trudie and O'Neill. These people do not debate the case on forums. The exception being Mike and briefly, Jackie.
Then there are the forum supporters. Who will debate the case on a forum, either ignoring the evidence or saying it was wrong. But will not go outside of the forum to support Bamber.
How do you know what I do and what I don't do to support JB ? How do you know that I don't go beyond this forum ?
-
Is Poppy the same Poppy who pretends there are two COLP reports? ;D
I have only seen her on TV once. When she said they had received new documents which showed Bamber is innocent
Although Trudie is now saying the police are still withholding evidence.
-
I suppose two media supporters saying two different things is the best of both worlds.
Poppy can say new received documents show innocence.
Trudie can say the police are withholding evidence.
Either sound bite is a positive one. But a bit confusing.
Good team work.
-
Supporters fall into two categories.
The media supporters who are always making sound bites, speaking on television or the radio. Or contributing to the OS and creating Youtube videos. Such as Poppy, Trudie and O'Neill. These people do not debate the case on forums. The exception being Mike and briefly, Jackie.
Then there are the forum supporters. Who will debate the case on a forum, either ignoring the evidence or saying it was wrong. But will not go outside of the forum to support Bamber.
You carry on thinking that if you want to. In Adams world (:
-
How do you know what I do and what I don't do to support JB ? How do you know that I don't go beyond this forum ?
He hasn't seen you on video
-
Two categories :
Those who want him to be innocent and those who want him to be guilty !!
-
Two categories :
Those who want him to be innocent and those who want him to be guilty !!
Can u honestly say that you hope jb is innocent?! To be honest I find that statement pretty staggering, even coming from you.
Would you rather that justice has been correctly carried out and the right man in jb has been convicted of the appalling crimes he carried out?
Or would u prefer that there was been a catastrophic miscarriage of justice whereby x number of people were involved in a cover up and framing operation to secure the conviction of an innocent man. But Lookout was correct all along in her 'gut instinct'?
This is a genuine question, but is it more important to you that you, Lookout were right all along? Or more important that despite the poor investigation, justice has been correctly meted out as jb is guilty?
This is not an attack on you but I find it quite incredible that you can openly post that you actually hope there has been a miscarriage of justice!
-
Can u honestly say that you hope jb is innocent?! To be honest I find that statement pretty staggering, even coming from you.
Would you rather that justice has been correctly carried out and the right man in jb has been convicted of the appalling crimes he carried out?
Or would u prefer that there was been a catastrophic miscarriage of justice whereby x number of people were involved in a cover up and framing operation to secure the conviction of an innocent man. But Lookout was correct all along in her 'gut instinct'?
This is a genuine question, but is it more important to you that you, Lookout were right all along? Or more important that despite the poor investigation, justice has been correctly meted out as jb is guilty?
This is not an attack on you but I find it quite incredible that you can openly post that you actually hope there has been a miscarriage of justice!
Well you've always been on the dramatic side as your posts convey.
Firstly, what's wrong in " hoping that JB is found to be innocent ?
Secondly,most times I live in hope that justice has been meted out accordingly in the majority of crimes.
Thirdly,it's NOT a case of " preferring "?? there to have been a MOJ, nor that there were x amount of people involved in a " cover-up or framing " ( which I've never admitted to-your words !)
Yes,a gut instinct,but obviously other areas of the case which didn't ring true also.
Why should/must it be important to me that I've possibly been right all along ? What sort of a question is that ?
Lastly,where have I posted,in words,that I " hope there has been a MOJ ?"
What's it to you what I think anyway ? I'm not forcing you or anyone else to share my thoughts,unlike some.
-
Well you've always been on the dramatic side as your posts convey.
Firstly, what's wrong in " hoping that JB is found to be innocent ?
Secondly,most times I live in hope that justice has been meted out accordingly in the majority of crimes.
Thirdly,it's NOT a case of " preferring "?? there to have been a MOJ, nor that there were x amount of people involved in a " cover-up or framing " ( which I've never admitted to-your words !)
Yes,a gut instinct,but obviously other areas of the case which didn't ring true also.
Why should/must it be important to me that I've possibly been right all along ? What sort of a question is that ?
Lastly,where have I posted,in words,that I " hope there has been a MOJ ?"
What's it to you what I think anyway ? I'm not forcing you or anyone else to share my thoughts,unlike some.
By definition, the fact that you hope jb is innocent, this would lead to the fact that therefore you must hope that there has been a miscarriage of justice because you hope he is innocenct.
If it's easier for you I will ask directly. Do u hope that there has been a miscarriage of justice whereby x number of people have set out to convict jb, knowing that he is innocent?
Your thoughts are inconsequential to me, but I have been pretty shocked how it looks to onlookers where you have consistently hoped jb is innocent and therefore as explained above, hoped that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Sadly and I may be wrong in this, but it appears from your posts that it is more important to you that you are correct in your case appraisal. I genuinely can't believe that you openly post by insinuation that you hope that an innocent man has been wrongly imprisoned for 30 years!
-
Well you've always been on the dramatic side as your posts convey.
Firstly, what's wrong in " hoping that JB is found to be innocent ?
Secondly,most times I live in hope that justice has been meted out accordingly in the majority of crimes.
Thirdly,it's NOT a case of " preferring "?? there to have been a MOJ, nor that there were x amount of people involved in a " cover-up or framing " ( which I've never admitted to-your words !)
Yes,a gut instinct,but obviously other areas of the case which didn't ring true also.
Why should/must it be important to me that I've possibly been right all along ? What sort of a question is that ?
Lastly,where have I posted,in words,that I " hope there has been a MOJ ?"
What's it to you what I think anyway ? I'm not forcing you or anyone else to share my thoughts,unlike some.
Because that means u actually hope that an innocent man has been wrongly imprisoned for 30+ years!!
-
By definition, the fact that you hope jb is innocent, this would lead to the fact that therefore you must hope that there has been a miscarriage of justice because you hope he is innocenct.
If it's easier for you I will ask directly. Do u hope that there has been a miscarriage of justice whereby x number of people have set out to convict jb, knowing that he is innocent?
Your thoughts are inconsequential to me, but I have been pretty shocked how it looks to onlookers where you have consistently hoped jb is innocent and therefore as explained above, hoped that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Sadly and I may be wrong in this, but it appears from your posts that it is more important to you that you are correct in your case appraisal. I genuinely can't believe that you openly post by insinuation that you hope that an innocent man has been wrongly imprisoned for 30 years!
You have missed one alternative - a set of people who set out to convict Jeremy because they thought he Was guilty - therefore it did not matter what methods were used.
We have to remember this was not at a time of cutting edge forensic science and the crime scene and exhibits had not been treated in the correct forensic manner - so perhaps there was the opportunity to turn the case whichever way was required.
-
You have missed one alternative - a set of people who set out to convict Jeremy because they thought he Was guilty - therefore it did not matter what methods were used.
We have to remember this was not at a time of cutting edge forensic science and the crime scene and exhibits had not been treated in the correct forensic manner - so perhaps there was the opportunity to turn the case whichever way was required.
So do u think jb could have been convicted because people thought he was guilty and therefore adduced the evidence in that way.
Whereas all along he was innocent?
Do u think that he could be innocent yet nobody in the entire investigating team knows?
-
By definition, the fact that you hope jb is innocent, this would lead to the fact that therefore you must hope that there has been a miscarriage of justice because you hope he is innocenct.
If it's easier for you I will ask directly. Do u hope that there has been a miscarriage of justice whereby x number of people have set out to convict jb, knowing that he is innocent?
Your thoughts are inconsequential to me, but I have been pretty shocked how it looks to onlookers where you have consistently hoped jb is innocent and therefore as explained above, hoped that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Sadly and I may be wrong in this, but it appears from your posts that it is more important to you that you are correct in your case appraisal. I genuinely can't believe that you openly post by insinuation that you hope that an innocent man has been wrongly imprisoned for 30 years!
Hope is what Jeremy talks about a lot,which isn't surprising given the knock-backs that he's had.
Perhaps "knowing" that he's innocent is a stronger word than " hope " in my book.
I don't " hope " that there's been a MOJ-------I KNOW that there's been a MOJ.
I do NOT hope that an innocent man has been imprisoned for 30 years ! What a crass remark !!
I'm absolutely appalled that an innocent man has been imprisoned for 30 years through a thoroughly bad and mismanaged investigation led by Essex Police.
-
Because that means u actually hope that an innocent man has been wrongly imprisoned for 30+ years!!
No ? I repeated what you'd posted.That's why I used inverted commas-----because it wasn't ME who said it,but yourself trying to put words into my mouth.
-
Hope is what Jeremy talks about a lot,which isn't surprising given the knock-backs that he's had.
Perhaps "knowing" that he's innocent is a stronger word than " hope " in my book.
I don't " hope " that there's been a MOJ-------I KNOW that there's been a MOJ.
I do NOT hope that an innocent man has been imprisoned for 30 years ! What a crass remark !!
I'm absolutely appalled that an innocent man has been imprisoned for 30 years through a thoroughly bad and mismanaged investigation led by Essex Police.
If only you'd been on jb's legal team.
And this absolute knowledge is based predominantly on a gut feeling and posting on an internet forum.
Interesting that you haven't had access to all of the documents available to the defence team or access to defence witnesses etc, yet you still KNOW him to be innocent.
Staggering that you would rather an innocent man had been in jail for 30 years, than whatever the faults of the investigation, justice has been correctly meted out and a guilty man has been in jail for 30 years!
So again I ask the question. Do u genuinely hope / want jb to be innocent?
-
If only you'd been on jb's legal team.
And this absolute knowledge is based predominantly on a gut feeling and posting on an internet forum.
Interesting that you haven't had access to all of the documents available to the defence team or access to defence witnesses etc, yet you still KNOW him to be innocent.
Staggering that you would rather an innocent man had been in jail for 30 years, than whatever the faults of the investigation, justice has been correctly meted out and a guilty man has been in jail for 30 years!
So again I ask the question. Do u genuinely hope / want jb to be innocent?
Not only did I realise his innocence from a forum,I actually remember when the crime occurred as I was older then than you are now and as far as I'm concerned age goes with experience and knowledge when reading and knowing about a case.
Of course I want JB to be proven innocent,what do you think ?
-
Not only did I realise his innocence from a forum,I actually remember when the crime occurred as I was older then than you are now and as far as I'm concerned age goes with experience and knowledge when reading and knowing about a case.
Of course I want JB to be proven innocent,what do you think ?
Absolutely staggering
Lookout's opinion comes before the legal system and the fact this would entail an innocent man being imprisoned for 30+ years and x number of people being complicit in this framing / cover up.
I take it from that you think you have a better understanding than me simply because you are older and remember the case well. Interesting how in your opinion age gives knowledge rather than going by the actual evidence at hand. I guess in your opinion my time at university was pretty much a waste of time, as I'm not old enough yet to garner the knowledge?!
-
Two categories :
Those who want him to be innocent and those who want him to be guilty !!
No one wants anything.
As far as I know, no one on this forum are friends or family of Bamber. So shouldn't want anything, except justice.
Guilters follow the evidence and believe he is guilty.
-
What evidence is that then ?
-
Not only did I realise his innocence from a forum,I actually remember when the crime occurred as I was older then than you are now and as far as I'm concerned age goes with experience and knowledge when reading and knowing about a case.
Of course I want JB to be proven innocent,what do you think ?
Should the rest of us just go home then? ??? ;D ;D
-
Absolutely staggering
Lookout's opinion comes before the legal system and the fact this would entail an innocent man being imprisoned for 30+ years and x number of people being complicit in this framing / cover up.
I take it from that you think you have a better understanding than me simply because you are older and remember the case well. Interesting how in your opinion age gives knowledge rather than going by the actual evidence at hand. I guess in your opinion my time at university was pretty much a waste of time, as I'm not old enough yet to garner the knowledge?!
Staggering ? What's staggering got to do with anything ? So what ? It's not a hanging offence to support someone who's been wronged,or is it,in your books ?
Maybe I have more common sense than you have and I've certainly got more understanding of people than you have !
-
Should the rest of us just go home then? ??? ;D ;D
Please yourself but I thought I was entitled to a view here besides everyone else ? ::)
-
So do u think jb could have been convicted because people thought he was guilty and therefore adduced the evidence in that way.
Whereas all along he was innocent?
Do u think that he could be innocent yet nobody in the entire investigating team knows?
Whistleblowing in the police is very difficult - and there have obviously been other MOJ where more than one person knew the truth but did not come forward. And the evidence seems to show there was doubt on both sides within the officers that were involved . Many of them in the beginning accepted it was murder and suicide right from the beginning so who was right - them or the officers that were involved later? this was not a case where everything was black and white from day one. It was decidedly murky.
-
One police officer knows the truth ! He was there . Who's going to believe him ?
-
Staggering ? What's staggering got to do with anything ? So what ? It's not a hanging offence to support someone who's been wronged,or is it,in your books ?
Maybe I have more common sense than you have and I've certainly got more understanding of people than you have !
I think we had better agree to disagree here.
Although I guess to be fair you 'know' that jb is innocent so that probably puts your perception and understanding of people far ahead of me.
When so much is unknown and I have not had direct access to court documents I wouldn't dream of stating I 100% know the truth either way.
-
I think we had better agree to disagree here.
Although I guess to be fair you 'know' that jb is innocent so that probably puts your perception and understanding of people far ahead of me.
When so much is unknown and I have not had direct access to court documents I wouldn't dream of stating I 100% know the truth either way.
That sounds alright to me.