Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Luminous Wanderer on April 10, 2018, 09:55:AM
-
Early in the year, Michael O'Brien, a campaigner for Jeremy Bamber and against miscarriages of justice in general, gave an interview to alternative radio presenter/interviewer, Richie Allen.
Richie Allen is a good interviewer, but for anybody with some knowledge of the case, the content of the interview is not very illuminating as O'Brien goes over the usual pro-Bamber 'talking points'; meanwhile, for the ordinary public, what O'Brien has to say is deeply misleading. I won't go into the relevant points exhaustively, as it's not my intention to nitpick. Instead, I'd like to focus on a fundamental issue raised in the interview, which is O'Brien's contention that the crux of the case is an alleged criminal conspiracy against Bamber involving the police and members of the extended family.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this beyond unsupported inferences drawn from certain facts. It is true that Boutflour and Eaton had the means, motive and opportunity to manufacture the moderator evidence, but so what? It does not follow from this that they did so. Evidence is needed, and not only is that evidence lacking, but a jury at trial decided that the evidence incriminating Bamber was satisfactory and enough to convict him. That is where we are.
It may be true - and I for one suspect this is the case - that Boutflour and Eaton deliberately and intentionally set out to find evidence that would put Jeremy in the frame, but that in and of itself is not illegal or improper. They thought Jeremy had done it and they were determined to find evidence to show he had done it. They did this because they disliked Jeremy and they wanted to stop him inheriting the family's wealth and selling their land. OK, so what? There's nothing illegal in framing somebody if the evidence supports the framing. If the evidence says he did it, then that's what the evidence says. The motives of the framers, even if selfish and unpleasant in their own right, are unimportant.
If the axiom of Bamber's case is going to be a conspiracy to fabricate evidence, then I believe his legal prospects are dead in the water. It's too high a bar to jump, and in my opinion, it is not necessary to prove a conspiracy anyway. The focus should be on what can be proved or demonstrated from the known facts and evidence.
The central weakness in the Crown's case is the lack of forensic evidence directly connecting Bamber to the scene of the crime, and while that in itself is somewhat irrelevant and not a ground for appeal, it does represent an underlying structural and narrative weakness in the Crown's position and does mean that should just one pillar of the Crown's case fall, the whole case against Bamber collapses.
Based on what I have read so far, I believe the line of attack should be on the following points:
(i). The forensic evidence found in the moderator is weak as it is, being inconclusive when considered in isolation. It can be undermined further if it can be shown either that, there is a significant risk of contamination or inaccuracy in the results, or the conclusion derived from the results could be in error, or both.
(ii). The report from the ballistics expert is incomplete and unsatisfactory, and just might be the Achilles heel in the Crown's case. The gunshot wounds and blood splatter patterns to Sheila suggest that she was not shot while standing up or with a moderated rifle. If expert opinion can support this, then it would discredit Fletcher's report conclusively.
I may change my view on those points in the detail or generality, and new points may be added as I learn more, but what matters is the overall message conveyed in this post about focusing on what matters. Either of (i) or (ii) would be enough to quash the conviction, and preferably both avenues should be pursued. No conspiracy is needed.
-
This is part of a Letter from Jeremy to Mike. Written about 7 years ago.
-
It may be true - and I for one suspect this is the case - that Boutflour and Eaton deliberately and intentionally set out to find evidence that would put Jeremy in the frame, but that in and of itself is not illegal or improper. They thought Jeremy had done it and they were determined to find evidence to show he had done it. They did this because they disliked Jeremy and they wanted to stop him inheriting the family's wealth and selling their land.
Now you're starting to sound like one of us (i.e. mere dolts who take sides).
OK, so what? There's nothing illegal in framing somebody if the evidence supports the framing. If the evidence says he did it, then that's what the evidence says. The motives of the framers, even if selfish and unpleasant in their own right, are unimportant.
I don't quite get this part part
Surely if they were attempting to frame somebody, the very nature of their intent means that the evidence they provide must say 'he did it'. Otherwise what would be the point in fabricating the evidence in the first instance?
Furthermore, how is it 'not illegal' to do this?
-
Early in the year, Michael O'Brien, a campaigner for Jeremy Bamber and against miscarriages of justice in general, gave an interview to alternative radio presenter/interviewer, Richie Allen.
Richie Allen is a good interviewer, but for anybody with some knowledge of the case, the content of the interview is not very illuminating as O'Brien goes over the usual pro-Bamber 'talking points'; meanwhile, for the ordinary public, what O'Brien has to say is deeply misleading. I won't go into the relevant points exhaustively, as it's not my intention to nitpick. Instead, I'd like to focus on a fundamental issue raised in the interview, which is O'Brien's contention that the crux of the case is an alleged criminal conspiracy against Bamber involving the police and members of the extended family.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this beyond unsupported inferences drawn from certain facts. It is true that Boutflour and Eaton had the means, motive and opportunity to manufacture the moderator evidence, but so what? It does not follow from this that they did so. Evidence is needed, and not only is that evidence lacking, but a jury at trial decided that the evidence incriminating Bamber was satisfactory and enough to convict him. That is where we are.
It may be true - and I for one suspect this is the case - that Boutflour and Eaton deliberately and intentionally set out to find evidence that would put Jeremy in the frame, but that in and of itself is not illegal or improper. They thought Jeremy had done it and they were determined to find evidence to show he had done it. They did this because they disliked Jeremy and they wanted to stop him inheriting the family's wealth and selling their land. OK, so what? There's nothing illegal in framing somebody if the evidence supports the framing. If the evidence says he did it, then that's what the evidence says. The motives of the framers, even if selfish and unpleasant in their own right, are unimportant.
If the axiom of Bamber's case is going to be a conspiracy to fabricate evidence, then I believe his legal prospects are dead in the water. It's too high a bar to jump, and in my opinion, it is not necessary to prove a conspiracy anyway. The focus should be on what can be proved or demonstrated from the known facts and evidence.
The central weakness in the Crown's case is the lack of forensic evidence directly connecting Bamber to the scene of the crime, and while that in itself is somewhat irrelevant and not a ground for appeal, it does represent an underlying structural and narrative weakness in the Crown's position and does mean that should just one pillar of the Crown's case fall, the whole case against Bamber collapses.
Based on what I have read so far, I believe the line of attack should be on the following points:
(i). The forensic evidence found in the moderator is weak as it is, being inconclusive when considered in isolation. It can be undermined further if it can be shown either that, there is a significant risk of contamination or inaccuracy in the results, or the conclusion derived from the results could be in error, or both.
(ii). The report from the ballistics expert is incomplete and unsatisfactory, and just might be the Achilles heel in the Crown's case. The gunshot wounds and blood splatter patterns to Sheila suggest that she was not shot while standing up or with a moderated rifle. If expert opinion can support this, then it would discredit Fletcher's report conclusively.
I may change my view on those points in the detail or generality, and new points may be added as I learn more, but what matters is the overall message conveyed in this post about focusing on what matters. Either of (i) or (ii) would be enough to quash the conviction, and preferably both avenues should be pursued. No conspiracy is needed.
I'd like to listen if you've got the link? As far as the Eatons is concerned you're unlikely to get anywhere unless one of them confesses to malfeasance or the children overhear an incriminatory conversation as occurred in the Chris Huhne case.
-
This is part of a Letter from Jeremy to Mike. Written about 7 years ago.
Thanks. I will look at that and let you know if I change my mind. It is difficult to read, so a transcript would help, if available.
-
Now you're starting to sound like one of us (i.e. mere dolts who take sides).
No, I'm not. I'm just looking at the situation objectively.
I don't quite get this part part
Surely if they were attempting to frame somebody, the very nature of their intent means that the evidence they provide must say 'he did it'.
Otherwise what would be the point in fabricating the evidence in the first instance?
You're assuming that they fabricated evidence. They might have done. It might be true. But where's your evidence that they did? Oh, that's right, you've got none. Oh dear. That means your theory is not an argument. It stays a theory. There's nothing to back it up. Instead, we could equally say that the relatives disliked him, so they went looking for evidence to incriminate him, and they found it. I call that 'framing' too, but it's not illegal.
I call it 'framing' because I wish to convey an important nuance that I think most, if not all, pro-Bambers are ignoring.
Furthermore, how is it 'not illegal' to do this?
A hypothetical: I might be absolutely convinced that you stole my lunch apple, and moreover, I may dislike you. I therefore set about putting you in the frame for the misdemeanour by collecting evidence that incriminates you and you alone, ignoring any exculpatory indicators. I then pass the evidence to the police, none of which has been fabricated, and you are summonsed and punished. We may agree that what I have done is nasty, unfair and possibly risks an unsafe conviction: but what is illegal about it?
-
I'd like to listen if you've got the link? As far as the Eatons is concerned you're unlikely to get anywhere unless one of them confesses to malfeasance or the children overhear an incriminatory conversation as occurred in the Chris Huhne case.
Steve, here's the link. Let me know what you think and if you agree with my view/impressions on it.
N.B.: The audio starts as soon as you open the window, just to warn you in case you are at work or somewhere public.
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/richieallen/episodes/2018-02-13T13_09_38-08_00
There's a lot to dismantle in what O'Brien says and I was originally going to do a full critique, but on reflection decided there was little point. The crux of it is: he is accusing the police and Boutflour/Eaton of a criminal conspiracy involving perjury and perverting the course of justice.
-
And to think that Colin Pitchfork,the first criminal in the world to have been convicted through his DNA and of course the horrendous double child killer and rapist,gets released next month after 30 years !! If ever someone should be kept behind bars it's him who has PROVED he's a danger.
-
No, I'm not. I'm just looking at the situation objectively.
You're assuming that they fabricated evidence. They might have done. It might be true. But where's your evidence that they did? Oh, that's right, you've got none. Oh dear. That means your theory is not an argument. It stays a theory. There's nothing to back it up. Instead, we could equally say that the relatives disliked him, so they went looking for evidence to incriminate him, and they found it. I call that 'framing' too, but it's not illegal.
I call it 'framing' because I wish to convey an important nuance that I think most, if not all, pro-Bambers are ignoring.
A hypothetical: I might be absolutely convinced that you stole my lunch apple, and moreover, I may dislike you. I therefore set about putting you in the frame for the misdemeanour by collecting evidence that incriminates you and you alone, ignoring any exculpatory indicators. I then pass the evidence to the police, none of which has been fabricated, and you are summonsed and punished. We may agree that what I have done is nasty, unfair and possibly risks an unsafe conviction: but what is illegal about it?
But the whole point about the difference between the two cases (if you're defending Jeremy) is that you didn't fabricate any evidence as regards your apple but the relatives manufactured the silencer evidence.
-
But the whole point about the difference between the two cases (if you're defending Jeremy) is that you didn't fabricate any evidence as regards your apple but the relatives manufactured the silencer evidence.
I agree, but I think here is where you are missing the important nuance I am trying to convey about how 'frame-ups' occur in the real world. That's possibly because you are a good and law-abiding man, which I am frankly not. I have the relevant experience, having been a criminal. A police frame-up does not require malice, a principle that can be easily transposed to the actions of Boutflour and Eaton.
Also - I am not defending Jeremy here, and I am not prosecuting him either. I'm neutral.
-
Having once committed a crime/s it doesn't exactly bode well with either a guilty or innocent take on the case I'd have thought ? Unless of course it happened to have been a genuine MOJ.
-
I agree, but I think here is where you are missing the important nuance I am trying to convey about how 'frame-ups' occur in the real world. That's possibly because you are a good and law-abiding man, which I am frankly not. I have the relevant experience, having been a criminal. A police frame-up does not require malice, a principle that can be easily transposed to the actions of Boutflour and Eaton.
Also - I am not defending Jeremy here, and I am not prosecuting him either. I'm neutral.
Do you mean that they do it because they're ordered to by superiors or because they're holding out for the possibility of a promotion?
-
Do you mean that they do it because they're ordered to by superiors or because they're holding out for the possibility of a promotion?
No, Steve.
They do it because they know the person is a criminal or think he is actually guilty of the specific offence, or both. It doesn't have to involve fabricating anything and the officers don't need to be corrupt or dishonest. Evidence can be fitted around a factual narrative.
-
Having once committed a crime/s it doesn't exactly bode well with either a guilty or innocent take on the case I'd have thought ? Unless of course it happened to have been a genuine MOJ.
You've never committed a crime?
I have no interest in acting as judge and jury. I can't in this case, due to its special features. I keep repeating that over and over and over again, but you seem not to take it in. I wonder why?
-
You've never committed a crime?
I have no interest in acting as judge and jury. I can't in this case, due to its special features. I keep repeating that over and over and over again, but you seem not to take it in. I wonder why?
NO. I've NEVER committed a crime.
-
NO. I've NEVER committed a crime.
And what is it you're trying to tell me with this general assertion of innocence? Are you a virgin too?
-
And what is it you're trying to tell me with this general assertion of innocence? Are you a virgin too?
Don't be personal. I've never committed a crime either. Do tell me what I've missed..
-
And what is it you're trying to tell me with this general assertion of innocence? Are you a virgin too?
Stop being so infantile. I've got daughters older than you are.
It's that I recognise in posts whether a person has an axe to grind or not which way their " vote " goes as regards guilt or innocence.
-
Stop being so infantile. I've got daughters older than you are.
It's that I recognise in posts whether a person has an axe to grind or not which way their " vote " goes as regards guilt or innocence.
And you accuse me of being infantile?
Is this another situation in which the thread goes off-topic again and degenerates into fighting because you are determined to gaslight me?
Is it that I am offending you because I insist on neutrality and I regard your conspiracy theories about Boutflour and Eaton as slightly comical, and if anything, damaging to Bamber?
-
Don't be personal. I've never committed a crime either. Do tell me what I've missed..
You know, it's really interesting how the finger-pointing always goes one way and the behaviour of certain individuals on here is forgotten.
This is classic gaslighting.
This is not directed at you specifically, but if I am not wanted on this Forum, please make that clear and I will go. I refuse to go along with your boxed-thinking. It's obnoxious and dishonest. If you resent my intellectual integrity, fine, I can leave and take my contributions elsewhere.
-
And you accuse me of being infantile?
Is this another situation in which the thread goes off-topic again and degenerates into fighting because you are determined to gaslight me?
Is it that I am offending you because I insist on neutrality and I regard your conspiracy theories about Boutflour and Eaton as slightly comical, and if anything, damaging to Bamber?
You're out of order and accept that you are.
-
You're out of order and accept that you are.
Come on!
This is gaslighting. It's complete hypocrisy.
Look further up the thread, please, and tell me who started this. It's totally ridiculous that this keeps happening.
-
Not to worry Steve. It was me who started this simply because it gets up my nose to see someone using their criminal status as a badge of honour.
-
Not to worry Steve. It was me who started this simply because it gets up my nose to see someone using their criminal status as a badge of honour.
You DID start this and I have not indicated that I regard 'criminal status' as a badge of honour. That's a straight-forward lie.
I would rather that you stop replying to me or commenting on my posts. You don't seem to contribute anything of interest to me. It's your affair what you do, but I want to discuss facts and I am sick of being distracted by your nonsense.
Thank you.
-
You DID start this and I have not indicated that I regard 'criminal status' as a badge of honour. That's a straight-forward lie.
I would rather that you stop replying to me or commenting on my posts. You don't seem to contribute anything of interest to me. It's your affair what you do, but I want to discuss facts and I am sick of being distracted by your nonsense.
Thank you.
If you'd read the above post properly you'd have seen that I admitted that it was ME ! ::)
-
If you'd read the above post properly you'd have seen that I admitted that it was ME ! ::)
Yes, I know you did, and I've just said that! Among your problems seems to be an inability to read properly.
Can I have a break from you now?
-
Yes, I know you did, and I've just said that! Among your problems seems to be an inability to read properly.
Can I have a break from you now?
With pleasure !
-
I've been wondering if JB would be released on licence if all else fails ? As we all know,there are certain conditions attached to this mode of release,but it would also serve as a " hidden " appeasement toward those who wrongly convicted him in that there would be fewer or no involvements in any misdemeanors on the part of the wrong-doers.
Eddie Gilfoyle was released on licence in 2010 after serving 19 years as an innocent man and to date that licence hasn't yet been lifted though it's still being challenged. His release came about after police "found "
diaries of his late wife's,which during 16 years of Eddie's imprisonment,had been " hidden ",which had proved that Paula had had mental health issues.