Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case  (Read 24195 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4775
  • Total likes: 70
  • I preferred the factory fitted iron sight!
Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #30 on: April 25, 2015, 06:30:19 PM »
Michael Mansfield??? Jesus h christ

I didnt know that and you make a great point about family not being there as they were dead, horrible as it is, but surely he had friends, maybe not that close though to go through that kind of thing

The other thing is, how comes so many posters on tbis forum and others are so convinced of his guilt, its not exactly a nutters paradise

I am sure JB did have friends and acquaintances but in many respects his life history was a little different compared to the majority:

1. He was adopted into the Bamber family.  If you read the witness statements of JB's extended family they seem to have spent very little time with the Bamber family other than business meetings and occasional family get togethers at Christmas and family do's eg weddings.

2.  He grew up on an isolated farm.  Roger Wilkes book does make ref to JB having friends on neighbouring farms but I guess by the time he could play out unsupervised he was off to boarding school in Norfolk and these friendships would have been restricted to school hols only.

3.  From the age of 5 - 8 he attended a Maldon Court Prep in Maldon which is some 6 miles from WHF.

4.  From the age of 8 - 16 he attended Gresham school in Norfolk some 80 miles from WHF.  Again Roger Wilkes book makes ref to friends at school but I guess come term time he was back at WHF.

5.  At the age of 17 he returned to WHF and attended Colchester college for 1 year.  Followed by overseas travel.

6.  He then started working at WHF but obviously this environment does not provide opportunity to work with lots of people in a close knit working environment eg an office, shop, factory, hospital, mine, laboratory etc.

7.  From the age of 17 his friends seem to have been drawn from the night scene around Essex and also working in restaurants within the area. 

I do tend to ramble somewhat  @)(++(* but what I'm trying to say is growing up on WHF and attending schools some distance from WHF was not conducive to enduring friendships.

With regard to so many posters on this forum and elsewhere being convinced of JB's guilt you can't include me in that as I am very much in the innocent camp.  I don't think those that post on this forum and other forums are necessarily representative of the population at large.  I guess also the media have a lot to answer for in how JB was portrayed in 1985/86 eg money hungry, womanising, psychopath.  Also it cant help when you are found guilty in a court of law and the trial judge describes you as "warped and evil beyond belief"!?  All a bit of a PR nightmare!
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline mercury

Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2015, 01:39:15 AM »
Thanks Holly, sometimes you just dont go with the crowd, rightly or wrongly..is there any specific piece of evidence that proves without doubt that he did it?

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4775
  • Total likes: 70
  • I preferred the factory fitted iron sight!
Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2015, 11:15:34 AM »
Thanks Holly, sometimes you just dont go with the crowd, rightly or wrongly..is there any specific piece of evidence that proves without doubt that he did it?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

No.  Overall the prosecution case against JB at trial was weak set against the legal threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  The defence could easily overcome all aspects of the case other than a silencer.  The silencer was found some 3/4 days after the tragedy by JB's relatives in the gun cupboard at WHF.  And after the police had completed their investigation of the property.  The silencer was found to contain blood internally and externally along with paint and a hair attached to the outside.  The blood was analysed and found to match SC's blood by way of ABO grouping, two enzymes and a protein.  It is not statistically individualising but the case for the blood being SC's is compelling.  The question is how did the blood end up in the silencer?  The prosecution claim JB shot all five members of his family with a silencer fitted to the rifle.  One of the shots SC received was a contact wound.  The prosecution claim  the  blood found its way inside the silencer by way of a little known phenomenon referred to as 'draw-back'.  This is where blood from a contact wound  is sucked back into the barrel of a firearm/silencer immediately after the bullet is fired due to the partial vacuum created by contracting discharge gasses.  The rifle was found  over SC's body without a silencer attached and initially all concerned thought she had taken her own life having murdered her family.  However when the silencer 'evidence' surfaced it begged the question how SC could have shot herself with the silencer and returned it to the gun cupboard.  Obviously she couldn't.  This then put JB firmly in the frame until you realise the police were handed 3 samples of SC's blood by the pathologist for forwarding to the lab for various toxicology tests etc!  JB's relatives were suspicious about JB from day one.  Unfairly so imo.   They were able to exert a lot of pressure on the police so much so the investigation started to change shape.  SC and JB both had a legitimate right to be at WHf and handle the contents etc so any forensic evidence was only ever going to be limited.  The police had nothing on JB to get the case to trial let alone get a jury to convict hence the so-called silencer evidence surfaced.  I believe in all probability JB is innocent and I think the relatives and police genuinely thought JB guilty but they had nothing to secure a conviction so engineered the so-called silencer evidence.

If you're interested in the case Mercury you really need to read up on it, carry out your own research and form your own conclusions.   8((()*/

« Last Edit: April 28, 2015, 12:11:17 PM by Holly Goodhead »
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline mercury

Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2015, 01:19:24 AM »
Thanks again Holly, I just might as from what I have read there are tonnes of "niggles" here

Theres certain cases where its a damn slunk ie Jodi Arias guilty without any doubt whatsoever at any time
Then theres the psycho Amanda Knox, where its 50 50.. have to wieigh up the evidence and her pathetic psychology,statements and behaviours
Oscar Pistorius
Sometimes you just "know" who is lying out of their backside

Bamber? maybe guilty but not definitely





Offline Myster

Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2015, 06:51:07 AM »
Deffo GUILTY!  %56& ... an "innocent" man who peppers his police interviews with NO COMMENTS has a hell of a lot to hide!

"Sometimes you just "know" who is lying out of their backside"

Couldn't have said it better myself!
‘Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their heads off.’ Anthony Arlidge QC, closing speech at the Bamber trial, 22 October 1986

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4775
  • Total likes: 70
  • I preferred the factory fitted iron sight!
Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2015, 07:57:34 AM »
Thanks again Holly, I just might as from what I have read there are tonnes of "niggles" here

Theres certain cases where its a damn slunk ie Jodi Arias guilty without any doubt whatsoever at any time
Then theres the psycho Amanda Knox, where its 50 50.. have to wieigh up the evidence and her pathetic psychology,statements and behaviours
Oscar Pistorius
Sometimes you just "know" who is lying out of their backside

Bamber? maybe guilty but not definitely
I think the press have a lot to answer for as with say Christopher Jeffries.  Remember how he was quickly rounded on as he seemed to 'fit' the bill!  When the real culprit was the unlikely looking Vincent Tabak.
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4775
  • Total likes: 70
  • I preferred the factory fitted iron sight!
Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2015, 08:16:37 AM »
Deffo GUILTY!  %56& ... an "innocent" man who peppers his police interviews with NO COMMENTS has a hell of a lot to hide!

"Sometimes you just "know" who is lying out of their backside"

Couldn't have said it better myself!

An innocent man in the midst of grieving for family finds himself accused of murdering them. 

He probably wouldn't have had any cause to say no comment if the police hadn't lied to him.
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Myster

Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2015, 08:52:57 AM »
An innocent man in the midst of grieving for family finds himself accused of murdering them. 

He probably wouldn't have had any cause to say no comment if the police hadn't lied to him.

Grieving!!!?  8(8-))   In the words of Barbara Wilson - "He was as happy as a lark!"  ?{)(**  

A month after the murders they were forgotten and consigned to the back of his memory.

Gotta go Holly... Toodle-pip.
‘Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their heads off.’ Anthony Arlidge QC, closing speech at the Bamber trial, 22 October 1986

Offline mercury

Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2015, 11:55:38 PM »
Myster and Holly, thanks for replying, both appreciated. Seeing as I know hardly anything about this case I won't comment any further until I have had a look at various sites, for or against. It does raise the troublesome question, when does anyone actually know if someone is guilty or innocent. For sure, a court verdict doesn't always prove it.




Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4775
  • Total likes: 70
  • I preferred the factory fitted iron sight!
Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2015, 01:09:33 PM »
Myster and Holly, thanks for replying, both appreciated. Seeing as I know hardly anything about this case I won't comment any further until I have had a look at various sites, for or against. It does raise the troublesome question, when does anyone actually know if someone is guilty or innocent. For sure, a court verdict doesn't always prove it.

You're welcome Mercury.  Most of the posters on this forum have formed their own opinions/conclusions on the WHF case over many months and have moved on as it gets boring and there's nothing really new to discuss.  However two new case related books are due for release in July of this year so watch this space!  Also I understand JB has a new application winging its way to the CCRC!

I hope I didn't sound unhelpful when I said you need to read up etc., but I think its something you have to decide for yourself rather than someone like me giving you my biased views!  Probably the two best sources of information in terms of being factually correct are the Court of Appeal document http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html and a book by author Roger Wilkes http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Murders-Penguin/.... ....../0140242007  Plus the witness statements and other information on this forum. 

Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Myster

Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2015, 06:44:22 PM »
"Also I understand JB has a new application winging its way to the CCRC!" ... this must be the one!
‘Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their heads off.’ Anthony Arlidge QC, closing speech at the Bamber trial, 22 October 1986

Offline mercury

Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2015, 11:10:33 PM »
You're welcome Mercury.  Most of the posters on this forum have formed their own opinions/conclusions on the WHF case over many months and have moved on as it gets boring and there's nothing really new to discuss.  However two new case related books are due for release in July of this year so watch this space!  Also I understand JB has a new application winging its way to the CCRC!

I hope I didn't sound unhelpful when I said you need to read up etc., but I think its something you have to decide for yourself rather than someone like me giving you my biased views!  Probably the two best sources of information in terms of being factually correct are the Court of Appeal document http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html and a book by author Roger Wilkes http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Murders-Penguin/.... ....../0140242007  Plus the witness statements and other information on this forum.

No Holly, nothing to do with you. Thanks for the links.

Is he in for life, as in "life" with no possibility of parole? Like the killer of April Jones?

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4775
  • Total likes: 70
  • I preferred the factory fitted iron sight!
Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #42 on: May 11, 2015, 04:28:57 PM »
No Holly, nothing to do with you. Thanks for the links.

Is he in for life, as in "life" with no possibility of parole? Like the killer of April Jones?

Yes.  Here's the list from Wiki.  As you will see it is broken down into two sections: life sentences imposed by judges and life sentences imposed by home secretaries.  I don't understand why Mark Bridger received a life sentence but the likes of Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting minimum terms, albeit the minimum terms are likely to see them spend the rest of their natural life behind bars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoners_with_whole-life_tariffs

I don't believe in capital punishment but I'm all for life tariffs for the most serious of crimes especially sexually motivated child killers.  To my mind a life tariff is a greater punishment, and  hopefully deterrent, than capital punishment.  Many such prisoners faced with the prospect of life behind bars take their own lives eg Shipman and West and others are unsuccessful eg Huntley.  Anyone on a life tariff and claiming to be the victim of a MoJ, such as JB, still has the opportunity to appeal against their conviction via the CCRC/CoA.

Against JB's name it states:

"He is the only whole life tariff prisoner who has not accepted guilt or culpability and was also the youngest such prisoner when the original list was published. Despite the law lords' ruling in November 2002, Bamber has been told by the Home Secretary that he will never be released".

Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline mercury

Re: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« Reply #43 on: May 13, 2015, 07:47:05 PM »
Not sure Holly. It's not clear.I need to keep reading.