Some Basic Questions

[LuminousWanderer]

Re Nevill -allegedly- saying "THE gun" as opposed to "A gun". THE gun may well have been an earlier bone of contention between Nevill and Jeremy. It's not impossible that Nevill had told Jeremy to put THE gun away, as in he was fed up with tidying up behind him. Psychologically, though, it may be Jeremy's way of reminding us -as a part of his alibi, it's an important part of the story- that he'd left A gun laying around and it was this -THE gun- that Sheila was said to have been in possession of.

That's a very good comment.

Thank you.

[LuminousWanderer]

Are these your projections Luminouswanderer?

And they would be projections of what?  Is asking questions now evidence of neurotic behaviour?  What unwanted feelings have I shown evidence of in these supposed "projections"?

[Nicholas]

The projection is found in this post.  I am asking questions about the case because I want to form an opinion about the legal safety of the conviction.  You, on the other hand, have appointed yourself as judge and jury.  If you have something relevant to say, then say it.  This is not a wrestling bout, or shouldn't be.  It's people like you who turn it into one.

Turning to the information you provide, what do you mean by a "Freudian slip"?  You may want to examine your use of the phrase, as it's more helpful to Bamber than you realise.  Verily, Bamber may have made a Freudian slip there.  He was recollecting a night in which he claims (I'm not suggesting he is telling the truth) that he had received a call from Nevill telling him that Sheila was going mad with the gun.  That being the case, he WOULD have had fearful feelings of being shot.  The subconscious feelings at work might have been a more deep-seated and irrational anxiety about his adoptive family, whom he was in tension with and whom he might have feared could kill him to secure his inheritance.

Looking at it that way, Bamber's hesitant and apparently odd behaviour on receiving the very strange call from Nevill doesn't seem so out-of-place. Not that I am affirming Bamber's version of events, of course.

That's exactly what you are doing.

If you were being objective you would argue from both sides, as opposed to what you think Jeremy Bamber felt that night.

[LuminousWanderer]

Are you legally qualified?

The particulars of my background would be what?  I have not appointed myself as judge and jury.  I'm not assuming anything about guilt or innocence.  I don't purport to have expertise and I claim none.

[Nicholas]

And they would be projections of what?  Is asking questions now evidence of neurotic behaviour?  What unwanted feelings have I shown evidence of in these supposed "projections"?

Please explains how you have come to the above conclusions? What is your understanding of what I posted previously?

There is no need to go on the attack. I am merely questioning your reasoning and perceptions.

[Holly Goodhead]

And they would be projections of what? Is asking questions now evidence of neurotic behaviour?  What unwanted feelings have I shown evidence of in these supposed "projections"?

What makes you ask such a question?

[Nicholas]

The particulars of my background would be what?  I have not appointed myself as judge and jury.  I'm not assuming anything about guilt or innocence.  I don't purport to have expertise and I claim none.

First, I am not going to get dragged into partisan discussions and exchanges that speculate about Bamber's culpability. I was not there.  I don't know if he is guilty or not.  If you are 'emotional' or 'partisan' about this case, I'd prefer that you don't reply to this thread.  My interest in this case is purely in terms of whether the convictions are legally safe. 

How do you know what is "legally safe?"

[LuminousWanderer]

That's exactly what you are doing.

If you were being objective you would argue from both sides, as opposed to what you think Jeremy Bamber felt that night.

No, I'm not.  First, your assertion is plainly not true.  I have already acknowledged various points that harm Bamber's position.  If it becomes clear to me that Bamber's position is difficult, I will say so, and I have already mentioned that possibility above. 

Second, my purpose here is to assess, so far as my modest abilities allow, whether Bamber's conviction stands up to scrutiny.  The position is that Bamber stands convicted, so an objective examination of the case (from the point of view of legal safety) does mean attacking the Crown's case in order to test it.  Also, objectivity does not necessarily mean arguing both sides equally.  I've explained above that if a pro-Bamber assertion is made, I'm going to tackle it in order to test it. 

Again, I am not taking sides about his guilt or innocence, simply because in the absence of incontestable either way, we just can't know.  Therefore, I can't exonerate him, neither can you; nor can I pronounce him culpable, and neither can you. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I am sensing tension on the forum when normally I don't.

Please choose words carefully so as not to inadvertently antagonise fellow posters. 

Thank you. 

[Nicholas]

No, I'm not.  First, your assertion is plainly not true.  I have already acknowledged various points that harm Bamber's position.  If it becomes clear to me that Bamber's position is difficult, I will say so, and I have already mentioned that possibility above. 

"Bambers position is difficult?"

Doesn't the fact he's been incarcerated for over 3 decades already suggest that?

[LuminousWanderer]

How do you know what is "legally safe?"

It's a legal test, look it up.

[Nicholas]

Second, my purpose here is to assess, so far as my modest abilities allow, whether Bamber's conviction stands up to scrutiny.  The position is that Bamber stands convicted, so an objective examination of the case (from the point of view of legal safety) does mean attacking the Crown's case in order to test it.  Also, objectivity does not necessarily mean arguing both sides equally.  I've explained above that if a pro-Bamber assertion is made, I'm going to tackle it in order to test it. 

so get tackling and testing and answer the questions posed instead of appearing to make things personal

[Angelo222]

There is more evidence against Bamber than there is for virtually all other crimes. Both forensic & circumstantial. Even crimes where the criminals pleaded guilty.

Bamber protests his innocence & like any other convicted criminal in a famous case who does this, will attract a few supporters.  Supporting him for different reasons such as 'gut feelings', conspiracy theories, wanting a purpose in life or believing they are smarter than the law.  Always trying to find a way to achieve the impossible.

LuminousWanderer is obviously not very well read on the case & is looking for a way out for Bamber. Going through things which have been discussed before.

Luminous thinks that a third party can be ruled out just because the farmhouse appeared to be securely locked from within but that isn't the case.  Jeremy Bamber admitted that he could get in and out without leaving any trace so there is no reason why he couldn't have provided access to a third party before scarpering off home.

[Holly Goodhead]

I am sensing tension on the forum when normally I don't.

Please choose words carefully so as not to inadvertently antagonise fellow posters. 

Thank you.

Since posting the above I have just removed several posts. 

Please remain on topic and refrain from making any comments of a personal nature and/or comments that are likely to antagonise others. 

Thank you.

[LuminousWanderer]

Luminous thinks that a third party can be ruled out just because the farmhouse appeared to be securely locked from within but that isn't the case.  Jeremy Bamber admitted that he could get in and out without leaving any trace so there is no reason why he couldn't have provided access to a third party before scarpering off home.

I was not referring to the possibility of Bamber using somebody else.  Similarly to John above, I put that theory under the 'Bamber' heading.  To that extent, I would accept what you say.

As I understand it, there were no signs of forced entry.  If the farmhouse was locked from within, then it makes sense to exclude third party involvement on that basis - but yes, allowing for the caveat that Bamber could have got somebody else to do it for him.

Was the farmhouse fully-locked, though?  Probably we'll never know.