Bamber Defence Team: 'What really happened'

[Roch]

Just ripped this from Bamber's official site, in case anyone wanted to pick up on any of the contents:

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/what-really-happened

[bigpod]

Very simple but compelling rationale for what might have happened.

I watched the documentary last night with my son, who has had no real interest previously. At the end he said "well it seems clear he didn't do it, but why would they have tried to pretend he did?". This scenario gives a good potential reason.

[Kaldin]

That is a good summary of what the defence think happened, but it does leave out one crucial issue - why the police would agree to go after Jeremy for a crime they knew he did not commit. It's all very well saying that the relatives were persistent but that's no reason why the police should pander to them to the extent that they fitted up a totally innocent man. All they had to do was say that the case was solved and that Sheila killed her family and then herself.

It's not true that none of the firearms team were called to give evidence at the trial - Woodcock gave evidence.

[bigpod]

I agree it does not cover everything, but it is the closest thing to a rational explanation I have ever seen.

[Roch]

That is a good summary of what the defence think happened, but it does leave out one crucial issue - why the police would agree to go after Jeremy for a crime they knew he did not commit. It's all very well saying that the relatives were persistent but that's no reason why the police should pander to them to the extent that they fitted up a totally innocent man. All they had to do was say that the case was solved and that Sheila killed her family and then herself.

It's not true that none of the firearms team were called to give evidence at the trial - Woodcock gave evidence.

The defence has distanced itself from the Freemason connection speculated upon by Mike T.  It seems a a rather cliched connection and that is perhaps why the defence have steered clear.  I think Mike T has linked RWB with knowledge about Sheila allegedly being found upon the bed (via Met officer RC's involvement)  and using this knowledge as a threat to stir up a shit storm for Essex Police about their alleged bungling...if Jeremy was not investigated as a suspect.  I dont know how Mike has come to that theory.  He hasn't put much meat on the bones other than the investigation changing in the wake of a meeting between RWB and ACC Simpson (?)  Maybe the defence are happy for such digging to go on as long as it's not officially linked to their own work.

[Kaldin]

That is a good summary of what the defence think happened, but it does leave out one crucial issue - why the police would agree to go after Jeremy for a crime they knew he did not commit. It's all very well saying that the relatives were persistent but that's no reason why the police should pander to them to the extent that they fitted up a totally innocent man. All they had to do was say that the case was solved and that Sheila killed her family and then herself.

It's not true that none of the firearms team were called to give evidence at the trial - Woodcock gave evidence.

The defence has distanced itself from the Freemason connection speculated upon by Mike T.  It seems a a rather cliched connection and that is perhaps why the defence have steered clear.  I think Mike T has linked RWB with knowledge about Sheila allegedly being found upon the bed (via Met officer RC's involvement)  and using this knowledge as a threat to stir up a shit storm for Essex Police about their alleged bungling...if Jeremy was not investigated as a suspect.  I dont know how Mike has come to that theory.  He hasn't put much meat on the bones other than the investigation changing in the wake of a meeting between RWB and ACC Simpson (?)  Maybe the defence are happy for such digging to go on as long as it's not officially linked to their own work.

Yes, I've read Mike's theory. I don't know those police officers of course, but if I were one of them and someone tried to blackmail me in that manner, I'd arrest them. 

[Roch]

That is a good summary of what the defence think happened, but it does leave out one crucial issue - why the police would agree to go after Jeremy for a crime they knew he did not commit. It's all very well saying that the relatives were persistent but that's no reason why the police should pander to them to the extent that they fitted up a totally innocent man. All they had to do was say that the case was solved and that Sheila killed her family and then herself.

It's not true that none of the firearms team were called to give evidence at the trial - Woodcock gave evidence.

The defence has distanced itself from the Freemason connection speculated upon by Mike T.  It seems a a rather cliched connection and that is perhaps why the defence have steered clear.  I think Mike T has linked RWB with knowledge about Sheila allegedly being found upon the bed (via Met officer RC's involvement)  and using this knowledge as a threat to stir up a shit storm for Essex Police about their alleged bungling...if Jeremy was not investigated as a suspect.  I dont know how Mike has come to that theory.  He hasn't put much meat on the bones other than the investigation changing in the wake of a meeting between RWB and ACC Simpson (?)  Maybe the defence are happy for such digging to go on as long as it's not officially linked to their own work.

Yes, I've read Mike's theory. I don't know those police officers of course, but if I were one of them and someone tried to blackmail me in that manner, I'd arrest them. 

RWB must have had some balls on him    Unless he had something on ACC Simpson (unrelated to the case?)