What makes Bamber innocent?

[mike tesko]

Every victim who believes that their case is a miscarriage of justice, who has evidence that a public servant involved in their prosecution and conviction  has acted 'criminally' will from this day forward be able to say with confidence, 'watch out you vile, despicable criminal, because I am going to get you'...

[mike tesko]

There is undoubtedly, going to be a new body of case law, which deals with, 'what constitutes being a public servant'?

[mike tesko]

There is undoubtedly, going to be a new body of case law, which deals with, 'what constitutes being a public servant'?

I believe, that 'a jury' falls into this category, because they perform a public duty, on behalf of the public...

[mike tesko]

I can picture the scenario, now, no more 'bent cops' fabricating evidence. No more dodgy local magistrates favouring a case which involves acts of dishonesty by corrupt cops. No more lying witnesses. Every suspect receiving a fair trial, and every witness called to give evidence, themselves at peril of being prosecuted, if they are found to have deliberately lied....

[mike tesko]

I can picture the scenario, now, no more 'bent cops' fabricating evidence. No more dodgy local magistrates favouring a case which involves acts of dishonesty by corrupt cops. No more lying witnesses. Every suspect receiving a fair trial, and every witness called to give evidence, themselves at peril of being prosecuted, if they are found to have deliberately lied...

Where every accused person, is treated as 'being innocent, until found guilty'...

[Jane]

Every victim who believes that their case is a miscarriage of justice, who has evidence that a public servant involved in their prosecution and conviction  has acted 'criminally' will from this day forward be able to say with confidence, 'watch out you vile, despicable criminal, because I am going to get you'...

Why? What has changed since yesterday?

[mike tesko]

Why? What has changed since yesterday?

I am going to be promoting it, to the vulnerable people in our society that are victims of official corruption, and pompous people who hold such office who all think that they are better than ordinary people. I am going to go out of my way to preach to victims of official corruption that we can fight back. Also, to inform those on benefits that they may not have to pay the £205 fee to take a summons out against those who hold office that have behaved like a criminal, and abused their authority. Not many ordinary folk know about this option, but I am going to make sure that they do from now on. Us victims have got to 'strike back' if we want any sort of justice. The cops ain't going to help us, neither is the CPS, because in the majority of these cases it is the cops and the CP's who are the root of the problem...

[Jane]

I can picture the scenario, now, no more 'bent cops' fabricating evidence. No more dodgy local magistrates favouring a case which involves acts of dishonesty by corrupt cops. No more lying witnesses. Every suspect receiving a fair trial, and every witness called to give evidence, themselves at peril of being prosecuted, if they are found to have deliberately lied....

I, too, have a picture. No more criminals believing they have the right to relieve others of their hard fought/worked for possessions/LIVES!!!!! No more people defrauding the NHS, excusing themselves by calling it a victimless crime -but nonetheless robbing me and other hard working citizens who have struggled through adversities to support themselves. Where there are people, there will always be corruption in EVERY walk of life, much of it springing from a mind set of "Why should they have more than me. It may be worth remembering that if there were no people breaking laws, there wouldn't be the necessity for others to ensure those laws are enforced/upheld.

[John]

I can picture the scenario, now, no more 'bent cops' fabricating evidence. No more dodgy local magistrates favouring a case which involves acts of dishonesty by corrupt cops. No more lying witnesses. Every suspect receiving a fair trial, and every witness called to give evidence, themselves at peril of being prosecuted, if they are found to have deliberately lied....

I'm afraid that utopia will never occur Mike.

Something I might have asked you previously but why do you persist with this case when the evidence is overwhelming?

What single aspect of it makes you think Jeremy is innocent and worth helping?

[mike tesko]

I, too, have a picture. No more criminals believing they have the right to relieve others of their hard fought/worked for possessions/LIVES!!!!! No more people defrauding the NHS, excusing themselves by calling it a victimless crime -but nonetheless robbing me and other hard working citizens who have struggled through adversities to support themselves. Where there are people, there will always be corruption in EVERY walk of life, much of it springing from a mind set of "Why should they have more than me. It may be worth remembering that if there were no people breaking laws, there wouldn't be the necessity for others to ensure those laws are enforced/upheld.

None of what you have said, gives 'anybody the right to fabricate evidence', which is if you don't already know a 'criminal offence'. The laws you mention are 'not' gods law, they are man made, and easily manipulated by a select few, whose livelihood is dependant upon them, and these man made laws are shaped and twisted to mean different things on different occasions. The few amongst us who benefit from the implementation of these 'man made laws', care very little if at all, to the consequences imposed on victims who become affected by daily acts of corruption by some of those who profess to administer and uphold the law. God did not empower the law makers and the servants of those law makers to be universally exempt from culpability in cases where it has clearly been a case of ' the good guys, have gone bad'. Most people know the difference between what's right, and what's wrong.  We all pay tax's in one form or another, there isn't just a select few who pay tax. Even the unemployed, and the cripples on benefits, and the pensioners pay tax almost on everything we consume. So you can't single any one group of the public out and say, what this group of people do is good, and what that group of people do, or what they did, what he did, what she did, what they did and do is wrong, and bad. Every bodies life circumstances are different...

[mike tesko]

What single aspect of it makes you think Jeremy is innocent and worth helping?

He didn't shoot his sister...

[mike tesko]

The facts are there in full view of everybody, if you want to 'know the truth'. J was not inside the farmhouse when his sister got shot. He did not shoot his sister. He did not stage her body on the bedroom floor with use of the anshuzt rifle from the bedroom window after 7.15am. He couldn't have staged his sisters body with use of it prior to that because how did 'it' manage to end up at the bedroom window before cops even went to try to get into the farmhouse? Who moved the anshuzt rifle to the bedroom window? Certainly 'not' Jeremy. Who moved the rifle from 'that' window after 7.15am, onto S's body? Certainly not J...

The results of J's lie detector test are accurate, he wasn't present inside the farmhouse when his family got shot. He didn't pay anyone any money to kill his family, and he 'did receive a telephone call, from his 'dad'...

What becomes clear, is that in the aftermath of this tragedy, the authorities have 'beefed him up' to be something which he is not, so that they can all pat themselves on the back, claiming that J was so clever, that he 'almost got away with the perfect murders', but 'we nailed him' in the end. That is not the image I have of Jeremy. He is a totally different person now to the one I got to know back then...

[mike tesko]

To be honest, the impression I got when I first got to know J was that he was a bit slow intellectually. If he'd have been 'that' clever, he would have pushed the 'sighting of the figure' at the upstairs bedroom window, all the way right from the off, as being evidence that someone was still alive inside the farmhouse after cops and J arrived just before 4am. I don't buy into the argument that J couldn't rely on 'that' sighting otherwise it would supposedly play right into the prosecutions hands, because Julie Mugford told the cops and court that J had hired a hitman and paid that person £2000 to do it - £400 per victim. I mean, who is going to kill five people for £400 per life? In any event, by the time the case came to court at Chelmsford Crown court in October, 1986, it was 'no longer' the prosecutions case that J had hired anybody at all to kill anybody. They were claiming that he acted alone, that he got into and out of the farmhouse via an insecure ground floor window. That he fought with his father in the kitchen, and that he had used a silencer fitted to the gun, removed it after killing his sister, and that he had 'hidden it' inside a box in the cupboard tucked away in 'the corner of the den'. So, if J had been as sharp as cops were making him out to be, he would have sought to rely on the sighting of the figure that there had been at least one adult alive in the upstairs bedrooms. He could have claimed it was his dad, but he didn't. He could have claimed it was his mum, or his sister, but he didn't. And the reason he didn't was because he wasn't sure who the figure had been...

[John]

To be honest, the impression I got when I first got to know J was that he was a bit slow intellectually. If he'd have been 'that' clever, he would have pushed the 'sighting of the figure' at the upstairs bedroom window, all the way right from the off, as being evidence that someone was still alive inside the farmhouse after cops and J arrived just before 4am. I don't buy into the argument that J couldn't rely on 'that' sighting otherwise it would supposedly play right into the prosecutions hands, because Julie Mugford told the cops and court that J had hired a hitman and paid that person £2000 to do it - £400 per victim. I mean, who is going to kill five people for £400 per life? In any event, by the time the case came to court at Chelmsford Crown court in October, 1986, it was 'no longer' the prosecutions case that J had hired anybody at all to kill anybody. They were claiming that he acted alone, that he got into and out of the farmhouse via an insecure ground floor window. That he fought with his father in the kitchen, and that he had used a silencer fitted to the gun, removed it after killing his sister, and that he had 'hidden it' inside a box in the cupboard tucked away in 'the corner of the den'. So, if J had been as sharp as cops were making him out to be, he would have sought to rely on the sighting of the figure that there had been at least one adult alive in the upstairs bedrooms. He could have claimed it was his dad, but he didn't. He could have claimed it was his mum, or his sister, but he didn't. And the reason he didn't was because he wasn't sure who the figure had been...

That's because it was all an invention.  And by the way you haven't answered my question.

[John]

He didn't shoot his sister...

...in your opinion.