"All People Are Bad And Should Be Killed"

[Jane]

By the way Steve the reference to the "yapping" dog was because Daniel said in his senario that Jeremy "crept" into the twins bedroom. I mentioned the yapping dog Crispy to demonstrate that as soon as someone tried to enter the house the dog would have started yapping, therefore putting the logic of his senario in peril. Not only do we have yappy old Crispy indoors, but also the bigger guard dog in the shed outside. So quite frankly I doubt that senarion.

By the way the reason that Bamber supporters do not have a fixed senario in their minds is not because they cannot think of one. It is because unlike many of those who think Jeremy to be guilty they are slow to jump to any conclusions as they believe there are far too anomalies with the case. Therefore they are acting in a wise way so that all the evidence can be taken into consideration.

Personally I can see arguments for both sides. But also believe that there is so much evidence missing in the puzzle that I cannot consider a senario and to be frank I cannot see how many of the guilty camp can do so. But of course they can't really. They just do it to make us think that they are looking at things logically. But in reality they are only guessing at the senario.

Yes Lugg, you're correct. Thus far, if my memory serves me correctly there is only Steve from the guilty side who has offered any sort of scenario. Trouble is, whilst they share his belief in jeremy's guilt, they probably think the same as we do about his scenario BUT whilst it's easy to say "He's guilty" OR "He's innocent" presenting a plausible scenario to back our claims is NOT so easy.

[Alias]

Alias 

Just hoovered fiercly, needed that clean feeling, and now I am gulping down a cold beer, maybe I will need something stronger. The dose will be adjusted until I forget entirely! You can expect some nonsense, apologies in advance!

[lookout]

Jeremy had the strength and the weaponry to fight off his victims one by one if necessary. It's as simple as that. After the murders he was cheerful,though in interviews with Police tried to pass this off as manic depression. He would be far more believable almost twenty-eight years on if he said "I disliked my relatives but I didn't kill them",but instead we have this unconvincing eulogy and the pacing up and down in the cell with Nevill's "it will all come out in the wash" hanging over the scene.

It's distressing,and not convincing anyone.

Dear Steve,,,,Jeremy couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding. No disrespects to the man,,but he was a 24 year old wimp whose interests were women, particularly the married experienced ones,,having a good time and travelling abroad. Murder would have been the last thing on his mind.
A lot of jealousy and resentment surrounded him at that time,,which he was blissfully unaware of,fortunately.

[Jane]

Just hoovered fiercly, needed that clean feeling, and now I am gulping down a cold beer, maybe I will need something stronger. The dose will be adjusted until I forget entirely! You can expect some nonsense, apologies in advance!

They usually make boys take cold showers

[Alias]

They usually make boys take cold showers

Maybe we should tell Steve, could be he doesn´t know that trick.

[Lugg]

Jeremy had the strength and the weaponry to fight off his victims one by one if necessary. It's as simple as that. After the murders he was cheerful,though in interviews with Police tried to pass this off as manic depression. He would be far more believable almost twenty-eight years on if he said "I disliked my relatives but I didn't kill them",but instead we have this unconvincing eulogy and the pacing up and down in the cell with Nevill's "it will all come out in the wash" hanging over the scene.

It's distressing,and not convincing anyone.

The problem with every guilty senario is that they all labour under the illusion that Sheila was incapable of committing the murders. Instead of looking at the strait facts of what was found on that fateful morning they philosophise about it. But a true detective if he is worth his salt will discount that which he believes to be impossible and keep to those things that were factually found on that morning. He doesn't keep on theorising about senarios that are obviously in his own head.

[Lugg]

Yes Lugg, you're correct. Thus far, if my memory serves me correctly there is only Steve from the guilty side who has offered any sort of scenario. Trouble is, whilst they share his belief in jeremy's guilt, they probably think the same as we do about his scenario BUT whilst it's easy to say "He's guilty" OR "He's innocent" presenting a plausible scenario to back our claims is NOT so easy.

April, we don't have to present a senario, plausible or otherwise. All we need to know is that there are things that just do not add up and when we come to examine all these senarios is that none of them really work because there are so many things that we do not know.

[maggie]

April, we don't have to present a senario, plausible or otherwise. All we need to know is that there are things that just do not add up and when we come to examine all these senarios is that none of them really work because there are so many things that we do not know.

Very true Lugg, we have no real idea what happened that night and it's pointless to speculate imo.  There's just no point in it because we can't prove anything from it.  Facts are all that are of any use and questioning any evidence there's precious little of either unfortunately. However, there's npthing wrong with a bit of speculation as long as we know that's what we're doing.

[Jane]

April, we don't have to present a senario, plausible or otherwise. All we need to know is that there are things that just do not add up and when we come to examine all these senarios is that none of them really work because there are so many things that we do not know.

Lugg, whether we are of the innocent or guilty persuasion, there has to have been a sequence of events and the forum would be very boring if the only conversation was "My gut feeling says he's innocent" OR "My gut feeling says he's guilty". However, I must agree that my gut feeling says there are many things we don't know

[Lugg]

Lugg, whether we are of the innocent or guilty persuasion, there has to have been a sequence of events and the forum would be very boring if the only conversation was "My gut feeling says he's innocent" OR "My gut feeling says he's guilty". However, I must agree that my gut feeling says there are many things we don't know

I agree with you April. But we will probably be making all sorts of assumptions that would not be true.

[Jane]

I agree with you April. But we will probably be making all sorts of assumptions that would not be true.

As you say Lugg, but I will go with the tenet, if it sounds impossible, improbable, implausible, just plain loopy or complete ballcocks, then it probably is :D

[Alias]

I have always thought they were looking for something, Lugg....Anything.  I think they had already decided Jeremy was guilty for whatever reasons and were looking for proof, or what they saw as proof.  I wonder if when they kept pestering the police about Jeremy being guilty if they were told to go away and only come back if they found some proof?

Ann Eaton was taking notes of what Jeremy said on the morning/noon of the murders, that is how soon she suspected he was guilty. She was not in shock that her relatives had been brutally murdered, she was taking notes.
One of the strangest things about this case in my opinion.

[maggie]

Ann Eaton was taking notes of what Jeremy said on the morning/noon of the murders, that is how soon she suspected he was guilty. She was not in shock that her relatives had been brutally murdered, she was taking notes.
One of the strangest things about this case in my opinion.

It's exactly that which prompted me to think they were actively looking for proof to reinforce their theories, Alias.

[Lugg]

As you say Lugg, but I will go with the tenet, if it sounds impossible, improbable, implausible, just plain loopy or complete ballcocks, then it probably is :D

The trouble is with that kind of thinking is that we may be assuming too much. Just because we think something is impossible it doesn't mean that it is. Just think for a moment. If Jeremy had done it, then how did he get into the house if it was locked from inside. In order to make that work you have to think of a way for it to happen. So what do they do? They come to the conclusion that he must have come in through the window because he has done it before. Ah! they say that is how he got in. Although the only problem is there was no evidence on the window or around the window. No footprints outside the window. Nothing to say that he did get in that way. Only supposition. Did you know that Pargeter also knew that way into the house? And quite possibly other members of the family?
So you see what I mean do you not? We only have assumption to go on with that senarion. No actual proof or evidence that that is what happened. The problem was of course is that the jury bought it. But it still doesn't mean it happened. Can you see what I'm getting at here?

[maggie]

The trouble is with that kind of thinking is that we may be assuming too much. Just because we think something is impossible it doesn't mean that it is. Just think for a moment. If Jeremy had done it, then how did he get into the house if it was locked from inside. In order to make that work you have to think of a way for it to happen. So what do they do? They come to the conclusion that he must have come in through the window because he has done it before. Ah! they say that is how he got in. Although the only problem is there was no evidence on the window or around the window. No footprints outside the window. Nothing to say that he did get in that way. Only supposition. Did you know that Pargeter also knew that way into the house?
And quite possibly other members of the family?
So you see what I mean do you not? We only have assumption to go on with that senarion. No
 actual proof or evidence that that is what happened. The problem was of course is that the jury
bought it. But it still doesn't mean it happened. Can you see what I'm getting at here?

There are so many incidentals that we have no idea about Lugg and its very true that by insisting if Jeremy didnt do it that Sheila must have is falling into the same trap. The fact is there are plenty of reasons for believing Sheila may have done it we certainly cant be sure because we dont know who else may have got into the farmhouse and how etc that night. Its a real mystery.