I have started to read up on the Bamber case and have formed some initial impressions.
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.
If that offends you, or if any other aspect of my post offends you, then I apologise, but that being the case, please ignore this thread rather than reply.
Certainly, based on what we know at present, we are not here dealing with a miscarriage of justice: there is no incontestable evidence for Bamber's innocence. However I do think there is a question mark over the safety of the convictions. I am not convinced that the convictions can be sustained. That, of course, would not make Bamber an innocent man, but as already stated, that is not my concern.
Some questions that spring to mind are below. These will seem basic to experienced commenters here - for which, apologies in advance - but please appreciate that there is so much information online about this case now and much of it is confusing and contradictory, and I am approaching this case from the position of a novice. My wish is to cut through the mass of facts, theories and speculation, in order to isolate what, I believe, are the real issues.
Nothing too specific - whether as to the absence or inclusion of an issue here - should be read into these questions. I will expand on my thoughts later.
Questions:
Q1. Is there any forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber directly to the crime scene or presumed murder weapon, or both?
Q2. Were contact wounds inflicted on any of the victims? If so, which of the victims?
Q3. Has it been established that the moderator contained Sheila's blood? If so, is this point accepted by Bamber?
Q4. What exactly did Nevill Bamber say in the relevant middle-of-the-night phone call, according to Jeremy Bamber - to the best of his recollection - and what exactly did Jeremy Bamber say to Nevill Bamber in that same call? Has this recollection of Bamber's changed in any respect? If so, what are his different versions of the conversation?
Q5. What is the police explanation for the telephone logs? This is serious evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly. The entries appear to prove that two telephone calls were logged that evening, one from Nevill Bamber, the other from Jeremy Bamber.
Q6. Has there been any investigation as to whether Bamber could, in fact, have dialled 999 and instead got through to a local police station (i.e. his call was diverted to a local police operator)?
Q7. Has it been established that Bamber stood to inherit some or all of his adoptive parents' estate in the event of their deaths? If so, what was the intended distribution? To whom in addition to Bamber and in what proportions? What was the extent of Bamber's knowledge, factual and legal, as to this inheritance? What was Sheila's position in the event of the death of her parents?
Q8. Is it known whether Bamber received substantial cash or other gifts of significant monetary value from his parents prior to their deaths? If so, what are the details?
Q9. Is it known whether Sheila had ever handled a gun or firearm? If she did, how often and what were the circumstances?
Q10. If we assume Sheila was not responsible, is there any plausible competing case theory other than that Bamber did it?
I may have more questions later, but that will do for now. I will be very grateful to anybody who can assist me in understanding this case further by answering my questions.
I come here less frequently than I would like, Holly is doing "god"'s work.
I think it is vital to understand that in contentious cases it is an aborted mission to state only the accused knows if he (her) is guilty.
Jeremy Bamber is innocent because science has delivered a verdict.
Demeanour evidence, which is poorly understood, strongly favours the resolute proclaimer of innocence.
Damien Echolls watched many fellow inmates marched to the needle, and his book "Life after Death", states that not a single one proclaimed innocence. Indeed in modern times, it is possible only Cameron Todd Willingham has been executed, and is innocent. Richard Glossip came close but lives on. Please google those cases to understand this matter.
Here is a chaplain from San Quentin:
"Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, studied at California Institute of Technology
Answered Dec 18 2014
I was a prison chaplain at San Quentin. None of the inmates I talked with ever protested full innocence. There were two cases where, had they been white, good chance they'd have been convicted of a lesser offense, or maybe even found innocent, but these were cases where they had actually killed someone, in self-defense, arguably, but ... there were other circumstances that made it murder, such as a police station being across the street! (I.e., there were options other than killing the attacker.)
I knew inmates whose parole had been violated, returning them to prison, who possibly had not done anything wrong. But none who ever denied the original crime. Now, that doesn't mean that there were none. In prison, I would guess it is not popular to protest innocence, because you will be in the minority and attempting to separate yourself from the rest. It might not be safe. I talked to a lot of inmates, walking the cell blocks, which is where I heard one of the "overcharged" stories (murder vs manslaughter). That kind of story is a little different, it would still convey a message of "don't mess with me."
My guess is that actually being innocent and being in prison with a conviction is a terrible position. A defacto requirement for parole may be a display of remorse. So what do you do?"
...
Please all be kind to Holly, I know you are. She is unassailably correct, and Jeremy Bamber may find his fortunes reside with people like Holly who have the brains and time to champion their cause.