Why was Nevill Bamber in the kitchen?

[G-Unit]

You’re simply assuming Nevill left the person with the gun in the bedroom with June, which means if he did, then he knew he had no chance of overpowering that person — which completely rules out Sheila...

Thank you for highlighting that possibility.

The more you analyse it the more evident it is that it couldn't possibly have been Sheila with that gun.

It looks very much like after Jeremy shot June in the bed she managed to get up and make her way towards the door to try and help Nevill, who would have been struggling with Jeremy and it was at that point Jeremy shot her between her eyes killing her immediately as she approached the door. He then shot Nevill with the last four bullets he had in the gun as he approached the stairs.

It’s very simple to work out, actually...I don’t know why you have difficulty with it.

Perhaps Nevill chased the shooter downstairs rather than the shooter chasing him. The shooter had a motive for heading downstairs; to reload.

[Venturi Swirl]

Perhaps Nevill chased the shooter downstairs rather than the shooter chasing him. The shooter had a motive for heading downstairs; to reload.

What was NEvill doing while the shooter reloaded then? Waiting and watching as his daughter fumbled with the cartridges?

[APRIL]

Perhaps Nevill chased the shooter downstairs rather than the shooter chasing him. The shooter had a motive for heading downstairs; to reload.

Perhaps! Perhaps!! Perhaps!!! No doubt there were some of those in the jury room -although nowhere near as many as you've put to us- before someone put forward the suggestion that all the "Perhaps" being suggested were simply excuses and delay tactics. 'Perhaps' it was that which eventually caused them to see reason and find him guilty.

[G-Unit]

Perhaps! Perhaps!! Perhaps!!! No doubt there were some of those in the jury room -although nowhere near as many as you've put to us- before someone put forward the suggestion that all the "Perhaps" being suggested were simply excuses and delay tactics. 'Perhaps' it was that which eventually caused them to see reason and find him guilty.

The prosecution went to court with a story. It was plausible enough to convince a jury to convict. That doesn't mean the story was an accurate description of what happened.

[Caroline]

The prosecution went to court with a story. It was plausible enough to convince a jury to convict. That doesn't mean the story was an accurate description of what happened.

That's true of most cases.

[Venturi Swirl]

The prosecution went to court with a story. It was plausible enough to convince a jury to convict. That doesn't mean the story was an accurate description of what happened.

The challenge for Bamber supporters is to paint a more plausible story.  They can’t. 

[G-Unit]

That's true of most cases.

So it's acceptable to question the stories and explore other possibilities.

[Venturi Swirl]

So it's acceptable to question the stories and explore other possibilities.

In all cases?  Ad infinitum?  Do you ever accept a verdict or do you always believe it is quite possibly incorrect? 

[mrswah]

In all cases?  Ad infinitum?  Do you ever accept a verdict or do you always believe it is quite possibly incorrect?

I realise this question was not directed at me, but when I follow a case, I will always question the verdict too. To be perfectly honest, I would think my reputation precedes me!

Many convicted criminals are, IMO, unquestionably guilty , but I don't find a clear answer in this case. It may, of course, be because I don't know the case well enough, but I do think there is reasonable doubt.

[APRIL]

The prosecution went to court with a story. It was plausible enough to convince a jury to convict. That doesn't mean the story was an accurate description of what happened.

Is it the verdict of this case in particular you seem hell bent on demolishing, or is it most cases where someone is found guilty? You could apply your theory to many others. Why have you not?  What's so special about Jeremy Bamber?

[Venturi Swirl]

I realise this question was not directed at me, but when I follow a case, I will always question the verdict too. To be perfectly honest, I would think my reputation precedes me!

Many convicted criminals are, IMO, unquestionably guilty , but I don't find a clear answer in this case. It may, of course, be because I don't know the case well enough, but I do think there is reasonable doubt.

What do you think of Bamber’s latest claim that he has the ultimate alibi, ie the police and he were together outside the property while someone was still alive with a gun inside?

[APRIL]

I realise this question was not directed at me, but when I follow a case, I will always question the verdict too. To be perfectly honest, I would think my reputation precedes me!

Many convicted criminals are, IMO, unquestionably guilty , but I don't find a clear answer in this case. It may, of course, be because I don't know the case well enough, but I do think there is reasonable doubt.

I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.

[G-Unit]

Is it the verdict of this case in particular you seem hell bent on demolishing, or is it most cases where someone is found guilty? You could apply your theory to many others. Why have you not?  What's so special about Jeremy Bamber?

As a member of the forum I reserve the right to post on any subject I wish.

[G-Unit]

I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.

Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.

[APRIL]

As a member of the forum I reserve the right to post on any subject I wish.

Mmm.  However, posting on "any subject you wish", if the intention is simply to disagree with everyone who has an opposite view is very different from having an interest in it.