Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: sherlock on February 16, 2016, 12:39:AM
-
As you know I have an open mind about this case
But when I consider the "Sheila did it" theory there is one main thing I struggle with ...
Very rarely I enjoy a little gambling - so I know a thing or two about lucky runs and unlucky runs and the odds of each happening ...
So what's the odds that one man (Jeremy) could have the following run of bad luck :
a) His own sister commits the murders/suicide
b) Independently his own girlfriend lies and stitches him up with a life sentence
c) Independently his own Aunt (or other family member) stitches him up with the silencer
Just seems like a hard to believe run of bad luck to me ...
Some people win the lottery - so nothing is impossible odds wise - but very unlikely in my opinion ...
Ok a) might have happened and b) and c) POSSIBLY both had separate motive - but even so ?
Which is why I think if there is any possible truth in this theory then surely Julie and at least one of the relatives must have discussed and planned the "double stitch up" prior to putting it into place ...
I don't actually believe for one second that money (the relatives) or being jilted (Julie) would be strong enough primary motives for them to deliberately stitch an innocent man up for such a thing especially after such a tragedy ...
But if they really believed Sheila did not do it and therefore believed Jeremy did it then POSSIBLY could they have decided that they just could not let him get away with it and therefore jointly decided to stitch him up in order to see justice done ?
That would shorten the odds considerably in my opinion ....
It's a lot more common in gambling to get a double rather than a treble coming in - especially if each individual bet itself starts off as a long shot ...
Is it even remotely possible that Julie could have planted the silencer herself ? but then how would she know that it would be found and acted upon (she wouldn't I would say) ...
I am very interested in other peoples views on this ...
-
As you know I have an open mind about this case
But when I consider the "Sheila did it" theory there is one main thing I struggle with ...
Very rarely I enjoy a little gambling - so I know a thing or two about lucky runs and unlucky runs and the odds of each happening ...
So what's the odds that one man (Jeremy) could have the following run of bad luck :
a) His own sister commits the murders/suicide
b) Independently his own girlfriend lies and stitches him up with a life sentence
c) Independently his own Aunt (or other family member) stitches him up with the silencer
Just seems like a hard to believe run of bad luck to me ...
Some people win the lottery - so nothing is impossible odds wise - but very unlikely in my opinion ...
Ok a) might have happened and b) and c) POSSIBLY both had separate motive - but even so ?
Which is why I think if there is any possible truth in this theory then surely Julie and at least one of the relatives must have discussed and planned the "double stitch up" prior to putting it into place ...
I don't actually believe for one second that money (the relatives) or being jilted (Julie) would be strong enough primary motives for them to deliberately stitch an innocent man up for such a thing especially after such a tragedy ...
But if they really believed Sheila did not do it and therefore believed Jeremy did it then POSSIBLY could they have decided that they just could not let him get away with it and therefore jointly decided to stitch him up in order to see justice done ?
That would shorten the odds considerably in my opinion ....
It's a lot more common in gambling to get a double rather than a treble coming in - especially if each individual bet itself starts off as a long shot ...
Is it even remotely possible that Julie could have planted the silencer herself ? but then how would she know that it would be found and acted upon (she wouldn't I would say) ...
I am very interested in other peoples views on this ...
The odds are even shorter for Jeremy to be the killer. You seem to be willing to consider the most complicated of scenarios - in fact ANYTHING that doesn't include Jeremy being the killer.
-
Julie planted the silencer ? The things young women do when they spilt up with a boyfriend of 18 months.
You forgot about most of EP framing Bamber as well.
-
i dont think mugford did act indepentatley i think she been in contact with the relatives.
-
i dont think mugford did act indepentatley i think she been in contact with the relatives.
Around every corner - a conspiracy!
-
Around every corner - a conspiracy!
Uncle Tom Cobbly has to be in there somewhere...........................or MI5/6/7.50 :))
-
Around every corner - a conspiracy!
when youve got to say nothing shout conspriacy over and over agian.
-
As you know I have an open mind about this case
But when I consider the "Sheila did it" theory there is one main thing I struggle with ...
Very rarely I enjoy a little gambling - so I know a thing or two about lucky runs and unlucky runs and the odds of each happening ...
So what's the odds that one man (Jeremy) could have the following run of bad luck :
a) His own sister commits the murders/suicide
b) Independently his own girlfriend lies and stitches him up with a life sentence
c) Independently his own Aunt (or other family member) stitches him up with the silencer
Just seems like a hard to believe run of bad luck to me ...
Some people win the lottery - so nothing is impossible odds wise - but very unlikely in my opinion ...
Ok a) might have happened and b) and c) POSSIBLY both had separate motive - but even so ?
Which is why I think if there is any possible truth in this theory then surely Julie and at least one of the relatives must have discussed and planned the "double stitch up" prior to putting it into place ...
I don't actually believe for one second that money (the relatives) or being jilted (Julie) would be strong enough primary motives for them to deliberately stitch an innocent man up for such a thing especially after such a tragedy ...
But if they really believed Sheila did not do it and therefore believed Jeremy did it then POSSIBLY could they have decided that they just could not let him get away with it and therefore jointly decided to stitch him up in order to see justice done ?
That would shorten the odds considerably in my opinion ....
It's a lot more common in gambling to get a double rather than a treble coming in - especially if each individual bet itself starts off as a long shot ...
Is it even remotely possible that Julie could have planted the silencer herself ? but then how would she know that it would be found and acted upon (she wouldn't I would say) ...
I am very interested in other peoples views on this ...
but what are the odds of any of hit happening its an unlikely thing to hapen who eve did it.
-
when youve got nothing shout conspriacy over and over agian.
Eh?
-
The odds are even shorter for Jeremy to be the killer. You seem to be willing to consider the most complicated of scenarios - in fact ANYTHING that doesn't include Jeremy being the killer.
Caroline - you seem to be confusing me with somebody else ...
As you know I have stated a number of times that I think Jeremy being guilty as charged is a LIKELY theory ....
But as I and others can not be sure that is all there is to this case I am considering many other theories ...
-
Julie planted the silencer ? The things young women do when they spilt up with a boyfriend of 18 months.
You forgot about most of EP framing Bamber as well.
Actually I personally don't consider Essex Police having framed Jeremy as a possibility ...
Why would they ?
-
but what are the odds of any of hit happening its an unlikely thing to hapen who eve did it.
Unlikely - I agree
Possible ? - maybe ...
-
Unlikely - I agree
Possible ? - maybe ...
Lots of things are 'possible' but most are unlikely.
-
Actually I personally don't consider Essex Police having framed Jeremy as a possibility ...
Why would they ?
well what about eddie gilfoyle. It was his wifes family that said she wouldnt have comitted suicide , her workmates said she had helped her husband prepare suicide notes for a course at work. The police began to listen to her family and hey presto guilty. He served 18 years and always protested his innocence. It went to appeal twice and i think its withthem again.
complete shambles by the police and lots ofexperts now saying it was suicide,
not sure what the outcome was but this is very similar. People just assume something and then truly believe it.
-
Actually I personally don't consider Essex Police having framed Jeremy as a possibility ...
Why would they ?
Yes, why would they.
But Julie and the relatives had no control over the other mountains of forensic evidence which convicted Bamber.
-
well what about eddie gilfoyle. It was his wifes family that said she wouldnt have comitted suicide , her workmates said she had helped her husband prepare suicide notes for a course at work. The police began to listen to her family and hey presto guilty. He served 18 years and always protested his innocence. It went to appeal twice and i think its withthem again.
complete shambles by the police and lots ofexperts now saying it was suicide,
not sure what the outcome was but this is very similar. People just assume something and then truly believe it.
Who said he's innocent? Just because he says he is, doesn't mean he is. Why would ANYONE need suicide notes for a course? Don't know much about this case but already alarm bells are ringing
-
yes your right you dont.
-
A few years ago, I read a great deal about Gilfoyle. I don't remember some of the finer details, but I formed the firm opinion that he was guilty as charged.
His post prison sentence press conference, reinforced my view.
-
Prisoners who plead 'not guilty', are often still convicted.
After conviction, some prisoners will admit their guilt while in prison. Partly because there is no point lying any more due to the evidence against them. And partly because it means getting parole sooner.
Some prisoners will continue to protest their innocence after going to prison. Most will be guilty, but will be looking for a technicality to release them from a long sentence.
Bamber pleaded 'not guilty' because he wanted to spend his inheritance and believed he would win.
He protested his innocence after conviction as he had been given 25 years. If successful quickly, he may regain his inheritance, reputation as a law abiding citizen and even compensation.
After the 'Life Means Life' law, he couldn't just give up and wait for parole. So has continued his campaign.
-
Who said he's innocent? Just because he says he is, doesn't mean he is. Why would ANYONE need suicide notes for a course? Don't know much about this case but already alarm bells are ringing
thats just it caroline, the wife had tried to comit suicide years before with a previous boyfriend. This case stinks too and i firmly believe he is innocent.
Its very similar in lots of ways so have a read. I think he will be found innocent caroline, no doubt.
i do however believe there are plenty of guilty people in prison lol. There not all innocent.!
-
and eddies case this evedence was witheld from the jury as were her dairys that talked about suicide.
-
Yes, why would they.
But Julie and the relatives had no control over the other mountains of forensic evidence which convicted Bamber.
Adam you keep harping on about the forensic evidence, but there was NONE. Circumstantial maybe, but NO forensic evidence a all.
-
Adam you keep harping on about the forensic evidence, but there was NONE. Circumstantial maybe, but NO forensic evidence a all.
The silencer was forensic evidence (if you believe in it).
-
Adam you keep harping on about the forensic evidence, but there was NONE. Circumstantial maybe, but NO forensic evidence a all.
You realise that forensic and circumstantial don't mean the opposite of each other?
-
You realise that forensic and circumstantial don't mean the opposite of each other?
Not sure what you mean Hartley. All I am saying is that there was no positive forensic evidence or the cops would have arrested Jeremy sooner.
-
Not sure what you mean Hartley. All I am saying is that there was no positive forensic evidence or the cops would have arrested Jeremy sooner.
What I meant is that it would make more sense to reference between circumstantial and direct evidence, rather than include the term forensic.
It's also worth noting that circumstantial does not mean 'weak', it just means that of itself it is not sufficient to prove guilt.
By that definition, if finger prints were found to be present, they would be forensic evidence, but they would also be circumstantial as you would be asking a jury to consider whether the prints could have been left at a particular time.
I suppose that by the same token, the blood tests in the silencer would be taken as being both forensic and circumstantial.
That's as I understand it anyway, perhaps Petey or NGB would have a more informed definition.
-
What I meant is that it would make more sense to reference between circumstantial and direct evidence, rather than include the term forensic.
It's also worth noting that circumstantial does not mean 'weak', it just means that of itself it is not sufficient to prove guilt.
By that definition, if finger prints were found to be present, they would be forensic evidence, but they would also be circumstantial as you would be asking a jury to consider whether the prints could have been left at a particular time.
I suppose that by the same token, the blood tests in the silencer would be taken as being both forensic and circumstantial.
That's as I understand it anyway, perhaps Petey or NGB would have a more informed definition.
I fully understand what you are driving at, but it does not forensicly link Jeremy to the crime.
Yes I understand the blood ect, but still does not point the finger at Jeremy.
Only Julie did.
-
I fully understand what you are driving at, but it does not forensicly link Jeremy to the crime.
Yes I understand the blood ect, but still does not point the finger at Jeremy.
Only Julie did.
I'd agree with you if you said that their was no 'direct' evidence showing Jeremy to be guilty.
-
I'd agree with you if you said that their was no 'direct' evidence showing Jeremy to be guilty.
What direct evidence was there then Hartley?
-
What direct evidence was there then Hartley?
You may have misread my post? I'm saying that there was no direct evidence.
-
You may have misread my post? I'm saying that there was no direct evidence.
Sorry I did.
-
Going off thread [apologies] I find it hard to believe that one person was involved.
It would have needed three reloads to fire the amount of bullets that were fired. There just to have been more than one.
People killed in three different locations to me means that there shooters upstairs and down meaning two weapons.
-
Going off thread [apologies] I find it hard to believe that one person was involved.
It would have needed three reloads to fire the amount of bullets that were fired. There just to have been more than one.
People killed in three different locations to me means that there shooters upstairs and down meaning two weapons.
Bamber was the only killer.
If everything had gone to plan, everyone would have died in bed. While asleep. Except Sheila. Even she could have been shot in bed and then carried to where the shooting took place.
However Neville woke up seconds before a fatal shot.
If Bamber needed two helpers, how did Sheila manage to carry out the massacre ?
-
Bamber was the only killer.
If everything had gone to plan, everyone would have died in bed. While asleep. Except Sheila. Even she could have been shot in bed and then carried to where the shooting took place.
However Neville woke up seconds before a fatal shot.
If Bamber needed two helpers, how did Sheila manage to carry out the massacre ?
No blood on Shiela's bed Bed had not been slept in. I said Two people NOT three. Please keep up.
-
No blood on Shiela's bed Bed had not been slept in. I said Two people NOT three. Please keep up.
You didn't say two or three.
You said 3 reloads (which is wrong), and three bedrooms.
Please keep up.
Anyway, if Bamber needed help, how did Sheila manage to do everything herself ?
-
well what about eddie gilfoyle. It was his wifes family that said she wouldnt have comitted suicide , her workmates said she had helped her husband prepare suicide notes for a course at work. The police began to listen to her family and hey presto guilty. He served 18 years and always protested his innocence. It went to appeal twice and i think its withthem again.
complete shambles by the police and lots ofexperts now saying it was suicide,
not sure what the outcome was but this is very similar. People just assume something and then truly believe it.
I actually saw Eddie's wife the week before she committed suicide.I was working for the NHS at the time doing a stint on Maternity and she looked absolutely beautiful with only a couple of weeks or so to go. She was a good looking woman who was always dressed immaculately and NOBODY would have thought that a tragedy was looming looking at her happy face.I can remember what she wore the last time I saw her.
Eddie also worked for the NHS at the sister hospital to where I was, and he was a theatre technician there who was at work on the morning that his wife had been found.
The whole investigation was an utter shambles and those who carried it out ought to be damn well ashamed of themselves. They had been sitting on vital evidence for 16 years that if it had been produced at trial,Eddie would never have gone to prison. Since his release in 2010,the poor man has been left in limbo with no word of his sentence having been quashed,let alone a pardon.
-
I believe it far, far too much bad luck. Plus the people accused of the conspriacy are mostly not connected. If everyone the supporters say is true the conspricacy started that very night from the moment Jeremy called. Not believeable.
-
Bamber was the only killer.
If everything had gone to plan, everyone would have died in bed. While asleep. Except Sheila. Even she could have been shot in bed and then carried to where the shooting took place.
However Neville woke up seconds before a fatal shot.
If Bamber needed two helpers, how did Sheila manage to carry out the massacre ?
What reason/s do you have for being sure Neville woke up just before being shot ?
Surely the fatal shot/s happened some time later downstairs in the kitchen ?
So I assume you mean Neville woke up in bed upstairs just before being shot for the first time ?
-
What reason/s do you have for being sure Neville woke up just before being shot ?
Surely the fatal shot/s happened some time later downstairs in the kitchen ?
So I assume you mean Neville woke up in bed upstairs just before being shot for the first time ?
Yes, Neville woke up seconds before a fatal head shot in the main bedroom.
-
Yes, Neville woke up seconds before a fatal head shot in the main bedroom.
How did he manage to get downstairs if he'd been fatally wounded upstairs? Where was there evidence in the bedroom that he'd received a fatal head wound?
-
How did he manage to get downstairs if he'd been fatally wounded upstairs? Where was there evidence in the bedroom that he'd received a fatal head wound?
Please read the post.
Neville woke up seconds before...
If he had carried on sleeping he would have received the fatal head shot.
-
Please read the post.
Neville woke up seconds before...
If he had carried on sleeping he would have received the fatal head shot.
"Nevill woke up seconds before he received a fatal head shot" has TOTALLY different meaning from Nevill waking up seconds before he would/MAY have received a fatal head shot.