If confronted with a similar amount of incriminating evidence -

[Adam]

Would other criminals have confessed ?

The recently posted video twice says 'despite all the evidence Jeremy continued to protest his innocence'.

This suggests that historically,  other criminals with a similar amount of incriminating evidence against them, would have confessed.

It is true that there is a mountain of incriminating circumstantial and forensic evidence against Jeremy. Together with several motives, an opportunity and no alibi. Everything fits.

Unlike most other cases, there is another suspect, created by Jeremy on the massacre night, which is the thing he can cling to. To support this he can make unproven but very public claims that Julie lied, the police were corrupt and the relatives framed him.

Jeremy has been unsuccessful in proving his innocence.
There are lots of reasons why he protests his innocence and a thread has already been created. The video suggested another reason - psychopathy. Other people have suggested he has narsarcisstic immunity. 

Do other people believe most other criminals would have admitted their guilt if faced with a similar volume of convincing evidence ?

[SaraT]

Not if they didn't do it.

[Caroline]

Not if they didn't do it.

Or if they were a psychopath and didn't feel any remorse.

[scipio_usmc]

Would other criminals have confessed ?

Some people confess when caught dead to rights others don't.

Some refuse to face they have been caught dead to rights and are convinced the evidence is lacking.

Some will continue asserting their innocence deluded into thinking that if they do so their conviction will somehow be overturned.

How deluded is Jeremy?  Well he does have a following he has persuaded and that encourages him to continue with his efforts the same way scam artists are encouraged by success.  A scam artist called me the other day saying he was an old high school buddy who needed to be bailed out of jail. I asked his name and eventually he provided one. He insisted he knew me though I said I never knew anyone by his name ever let alone in high school.  Even after I told him his scam was pathetic he tried pressing it and I had to hang up to get rid of him.   

Persistence is necessary for scam artists to be successful and sometimes it does pay off.  Just read about the money scams in offtopic section on the DR Phil show. 

Jeremy is a classic BS artist. Whether that means he has a personality disorder or what have you is pretty irrelevant. All that matters is he is a classic BS artist.

[David1819]

Jeremy's case is rather unusual compared to most. If Jeremy is guilty his motives for protesting his innocence there are several possibilities.


1. He knows the prosecution has been corrupted and evidence tampered/manufactured because he   knows exactly what he has done and how he done it. His biggest dilemma is the try and prove it without incriminating himself. Him saying for example "The silencer is false evidence because I never used it when I killed them or I buried the silencer I used" will prove the corruption but defeat the object. So the flaws that he is aware of could motivate him to try and crack his conviction.

2. Major aspects of the incriminating evidence against him can be cast into doubt
 
a) Julie Mugfords dealings with the police indicating possible coercion in exchange for immunity.
     

     

b) The extended family who came forward with the evidence against him stood to Inherit the Bamber   estate if he was convicted. In todays money worth £1.3 Million Pounds ($2,000,000) giving them possible motive to corrupt or falsify evidence.

c) The police investigation was flawed (however to be fair Essex Police had never had a situation like this before)

The above 3 points don't prove innocence by any means but does harm the credibility of the evidence against him. This will motivate him to continue to fight for freedom

3. One other possibility is that Jeremy is oblivious to the fact that he done it. His subconscious mind may have emotionally repressed most the memory of that night as a form of psychological defence mechanism to protect him from reality. And he now only has false instilled memories that come from the defence version of events. In other words he is living on planet Jeremy literally thinking he is innocent!

[keepers]

Wether he is guilty or not we must stick to the facts. Kerry daines the phscologist that confirms he's a psychopath later had to admit that she had never met jeremy or examined him. A very unethical thing to do. What we need to do is ask ourselves this. If this case was tried today and you were a member of the jury confronted with circumstantial evidence only... Would you convict, I'm guessing the answer would be NO

[lookout]

Well how on earth can that psychologist state that Jeremy is a psychopath when she's never met him ?
Same goes for those on here who've never met the man.

[Adam]

Wether he is guilty or not we must stick to the facts. Kerry daines the phscologist that confirms he's a psychopath later had to admit that she had never met jeremy or examined him. A very unethical thing to do. What we need to do is ask ourselves this. If this case was tried today and you were a member of the jury confronted with circumstantial evidence only... Would you convict, I'm guessing the answer would be NO

There is a mountain of forensic evidence. As well as a mountain of circumstantial evidence.

There is a motive, opportunity and no alibi. Together with JM's testimony, which is supported by several other testimonies.

[Adam]

The expert said he ticks a lot of boxes to be a psychopath.

How would she know ? By using her expertise and researching the case.

[lookout]

There is a mountain of forensic evidence. As well as a mountain of circumstantial evidence.

There is a motive, opportunity and no alibi. Together with JM's testimony, which is supported by several other testimonies.

Do tell us about the forensic evidence,I'm all ears/eyes.

[Jane]

Wether he is guilty or not we must stick to the facts. Kerry daines the phscologist that confirms he's a psychopath later had to admit that she had never met jeremy or examined him. A very unethical thing to do. What we need to do is ask ourselves this. If this case was tried today and you were a member of the jury confronted with circumstantial evidence only... Would you convict, I'm guessing the answer would be NO

I feel certain that there may be many others who have been adjudged psychopathic without having ever been seen. The fact that they can murder in cold blood remorselessly give a large clue to it.

[Adam]

Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here. 

Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car. 

The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a mountain of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber. 

June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila. 

There is the silencer evidence which shows beyond doubt it was Bamber. 

There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night.

There is the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. 

No one can explain how Sheila could have committed the massacre to match the crime scene.

[keepers]

Sorry Adam but your talking rubbish. My gp won't give me a sick certificate for my injured arm untill he's examined me. That's because he's an ethical proffesional. Kerry daines had to apologise for her diagnosis on the grounds that she was being paid by the documentary makers and the fact that it's wrong to comment on someone she had never met. By the way .. I think tony Blair is a psychopath and I've never met him... Wrong isn't it!

[lookout]

The expert said he ticks a lot of boxes to be a psychopath.

How would she know ? By using her expertise and researching the case.

And what expert would that be ? Someone who hasn't met him ? How do they do it ? Through a medium ?

[scipio_usmc]

Jeremy's case is rather unusual compared to most. If Jeremy is guilty his motives for protesting his innocence there are several possibilities.


1. He knows the prosecution has been corrupted and evidence tampered/manufactured because he   knows exactly what he has done and how he done it. His biggest dilemma is the try and prove it without incriminating himself. Him saying for example "The silencer is false evidence because I never used it when I killed them or I buried the silencer I used" will prove the corruption but defeat the object. So the flaws that he is aware of could motivate him to try and crack his conviction.

2. Major aspects of the incriminating evidence against him can be cast into doubt
 
a) Julie Mugfords dealings with the police indicating possible coercion in exchange for immunity.
     

     

b) The extended family who came forward with the evidence against him stood to Inherit the Bamber   estate if he was convicted. In todays money worth £1.3 Million Pounds ($2,000,000) giving them possible motive to corrupt or falsify evidence.

c) The police investigation was flawed (however to be fair Essex Police had never had a situation like this before)

The above 3 points don't prove innocence by any means but does harm the credibility of the evidence against him. This will motivate him to continue to fight for freedom

3. One other possibility is that Jeremy is oblivious to the fact that he done it. His subconscious mind may have emotionally repressed most the memory of that night as a form of psychological defence mechanism to protect him from reality. And he now only has false instilled memories that come from the defence version of events. In other words he is living on planet Jeremy literally thinking he is innocent!

All you have done is point out the baseless allegations that Jeremy has resorted to in an effort to claim he is innocent.

The allegations amount to his desperately spinning to try to establish his innocence including the nonsense claim that Bonnett's log establishes Nevill called 999 after calling Jeremy.  Instead of accepting his lot he thinks he can spin his way out and desperately tried to do so.

Does he honestly believe he has a chance of spinning his way out or is he just deluding himself to give himself false hope so he can survive?  I think the former but it doesn't really matter either way.

His situation is not unusual.  A sizable number of prisoners maintain their innocence even though they are guilty thinking that if they do so they eventually might convince an appeal court and get out.  Many who do it don't have life terms.  They plan to tell everyone when they are out they are innocent and were wronged because they think it will be better that way for the than to admit guilt and say they changed and learned their lesson.  He's a lifer the only way he is getting out is if he can convince a court he is innocent.  So he has a reason to maintain his innocence. He wants people to help him try to get out.