Should Jeremy's supporters change stance ?

[adam]

It was impossible for Sheila to have committed the massacre on the night. It is also ridiculous to suggest Neville would call Jeremy in such a situation.

To then expect the police, Julie and relatives to all work together and individually to frame an innocent man who had lost his family,  is again not credible.

There is a motive, opportunity and no alibi. Forensic evidence shows it was not Sheila. The judge said there were a number of 'curious coincidences' & a 'mountain of circumstantial evidence'.

There is no evidence the 19 day trial was unfair. The defence had several months to prepare, and had the star witness. Lots of appeals have failed. But should Jeremy's supporters change stance ?

Claiming the trial was a MOJ is slightly more credible. The police did change stance after one month. Jeremy is not fussy how he is released and has looked at ways of getting released on a technicality. Looking at thousands documents in detail to find differences he can jump on. 

Support for Jeremy has reduced in the last twelve months. Some of the  five or six remaining supporters becoming more desperate, abusive, and arguing even on minor or established points about clothes disposal or lockable from outside windows. Even author Paul Harrison has been threatened.

It is perfectly acceptable for people to say 'Jeremy may well be guilty, but I believe the conviction is unsafe'. Do other people believe Jeremy's supporters should revert from the 'innocent' to the MOJ stance ?

[Andrea]

I couldn't give 2 fecks what his supporters think. Bamber aint going anywhere, he's in the clink for LIFE.
No amount of splitting hairs, blaming Sheila and silly conspiracy theories are going to get him out.

Remember when Mason Doyle and Bob Woffinden were the Bess knees? Bamber supporters were looking forward to signed copies of MD's book, he was a brilliant writer etc etc.
Bob Woffinden had form on MOJ's and his judgment was trusted 100%

Now, one has received death threats and the other is suddenly talking shite! Cant have it both ways!
Times are Bleak for Bamber. Merry Christmas.

[Holly Goodhead]

It was impossible for Sheila to have committed the massacre on the night. It is also ridiculous to suggest Neville would call Jeremy in such a situation.

To then expect the police, Julie and relatives to all work together and individually to frame an innocent man who had lost his family,  is again not credible.

There is a motive, opportunity and no alibi. Forensic evidence shows it was not Sheila. The judge said there were a number of 'curious coincidences' & a 'mountain of circumstantial evidence'.

There is no evidence the 19 day trial was unfair. The defence had several months to prepare, and had the star witness. Lots of appeals have failed. But should Jeremy's supporters change stance ?

Claiming the trial was a MOJ is slightly more credible. The police did change stance after one month. Jeremy is not fussy how he is released and has looked at ways of getting released on a technicality. Looking at thousands documents in detail to find differences he can jump on. 

Support for Jeremy has reduced in the last twelve months. Some of the  five or six remaining supporters becoming more desperate, abusive, and arguing even on minor or established points about clothes disposal or lockable from outside windows. Even author Paul Harrison has been threatened.

It is perfectly acceptable for people to say 'Jeremy may well be guilty, but I believe the conviction is unsafe'. Do other people believe Jeremy's supporters should revert from the 'innocent' to the MOJ stance ?

Not impossible or ridiculous to those of us who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ.

Agreed it is not credible on the basis that they believe JB is innocent but as far as I am aware they don't believe  JB is innocent they believe (genuinely in the main) that he is guilty.

Curious coincidences and a mountain of circumstantial evidence do not necessarily equate to guilt.  Misdirection by a judge during trial is often a feature of a MoJ.

Other features of a MoJ:

-Poor defence
-Non-disclosure of evidence by police or prosecution
-Fabrication of evidence
-Overestimation of the evidential value of expert testimony
-Unreliable prosecution witnesses

Many long running MoJ's have an equally long history of failed appeals:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3394.msg129016#msg129016

Why should JB "supporters" change stance?  If they hold firmly held beliefs that JB is the victim of a MoJ then why would they discard those beliefs?

How do you know how much support JB has?  Serious players are unlikely to hang out on a forum posting with the likes of us, are they?

As far as I can see the term 'innocent' is a misnomer.  The English legal system is adversarial and based on 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' or 'not guilty'.  Innocent doesn't really come into it.  It is not necessary for the defence to demonstrate that the defendant is 'innocent'.  The burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' and that is what they successfully did in JB's case JUST  In most cases there's no conclusive evidence of guilt or innocence.  Imo if JB's conviction is ever quashed it will be on the basis it is unsafe.  There will be no 'smoking gun' but maybe a dodgy silencer    No one other than JB can no for sure whether he's innocent or guilty and as I said as far as the legal system goes 'innocent' doesn't really come into it, so imo it sounds more sensible to say the victim of a MoJ.

[Holly Goodhead]

I couldn't give 2 fecks what his supporters think. Bamber aint going anywhere, he's in the clink for LIFE.
No amount of splitting hairs, blaming Sheila and silly conspiracy theories are going to get him out.

Remember when Mason Doyle and Bob Woffinden were the Bess knees? Bamber supporters were looking forward to signed copies of MD's book, he was a brilliant writer etc etc.
Bob Woffinden had form on MOJ's and his judgment was trusted 100%

Now, one has received death threats and the other is suddenly talking shite! Cant have it both ways!
Times are Bleak for Bamber. Merry Christmas.

I reckon if you took a representative sample of the UK and asked what does the name Jeremy Bamber mean most would not even recognise the name let alone have any awareness of the case.  Of the few that recognise the name even fewer will have an awareness of the case beyond 'Oh isn't that the guy who murdered his family'.  The likes of us (minority) who have taken the time to look into the case either go one way or the other.  For every Andrea there will be a Holly.  Same for the likes of Bob Woffinden (journalist) and Mason Doyle (author) ie there's an Eric Allison (journalist) and Scott Lomax (author).  If the split is 50% : 50% though its clearly much higher than the jury's verdict of 10 - 2 or 83.33% : 16.66%  &%+((£

[puglove]

I couldn't give 2 fecks what his supporters think. Bamber aint going anywhere, he's in the clink for LIFE.
No amount of splitting hairs, blaming Sheila and silly conspiracy theories are going to get him out.

Remember when Mason Doyle and Bob Woffinden were the Bess knees? Bamber supporters were looking forward to signed copies of MD's book, he was a brilliant writer etc etc.
Bob Woffinden had form on MOJ's and his judgment was trusted 100%

Now, one has received death threats and the other is suddenly talking shite! Cant have it both ways!
Times are Bleak for Bamber. Merry Christmas.

          Ho Ho Ho!!