What doubts on Jeremy's innocence do supporters have ?

[adam]

That's BS, how would they know such pictures existed if Bamber hadn't told them? He used the same words to Fielder as he has with Colin.

He didn't tell me anything, he simply ignored the question.

Bamber would have told the OS. And said the journalists brought the photos up.

Should not read too much into Bamber not answering questions on this. He can easily say he was approached by The Sun who wanted to know if any pictures of Sheila existed. When he said 'no' they printed a false story.

Much more likely is Bamber approached The Sun & offerred his life story and photos.

[adam]

Did CC say he saw the aledged photos ? Fielder said he never saw the photos.

It may be that no worthwhile photos existed. However Bamber wanted to get Fielder & The Sun interested & committed to a second meeting. So made them up. At the next meeting, he would just offer his life story.

[Caroline]

Did CC say he saw the aledged photos ? Fielder said he never saw the photos.

It may be that no worthwhile photos existed. However Bamber wanted to get Fielder & The Sun interested & committed to a second meeting. So made them up. At the next meeting, he would just offer his life story.

Colin saw some of them - they did exist.

[adam]

Colin saw some of them - they did exist.

I thought so. That negates the OS's theory & Nugs's theory that Bamber had no photo's & offerred his life story for free.

[adam]

It seems no current supporters are prepared to say what their doubts are.

I knew David wouldn't as he didn't even have the courage to admit he had changed stance. However even Holly hasn't. The only response is from Samson who referred me to a pro Bamber board.

My only doubt was there was an unprecedented intricate industrial frame involving dozens of inter relating divisions and hundreds of people. No supporters agreed with this.

It can only be assumed that supporters believe Bamber is guilty but want to support the 'Campaign for Freedom'.

[John]

Memo:

A reminder to all posters to keep comments constructive and amicable. Attack opinion by all means but please do not make personal comments towards fellow members. This forum prides itself in allowing all shades of opinion so please bear this in mind when responding. TY and have a pleasant weekend.

[Samson]

It seems no current supporters are prepared to say what their doubts are.

I knew David wouldn't as he didn't even have the courage to admit he had changed stance. However even Holly hasn't. The only response is from Samson who referred me to a pro Bamber board.

My only doubt was there was an unprecedented intricate industrial frame involving dozens of inter relating divisions and hundreds of people. No supporters agreed with this.

It can only be assumed that supporters believe Bamber is guilty but want to support the 'Campaign for Freedom'.

I referred you to a board where people analyse any crime.
The general principal seems to be to ignore the behavioural material and analyse the crime scene.

Here is a related example from New Zealand

"An extreme low point was reached the other day in New Zealand when Nigel Latta, a man with this career highlight

Latta was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2012 Queen's Birthday Honours, for his services as a psychologist

declared after the reconviction that Lundy certainly planned to kill his daughter also, and take a 20 year old as a new romantic partner with whom to share his vineyard."

A  psychologist, like Caroline, ignoring the crime scene and arguing backwards.

Now we know Lundy is innocent, and there is a pending appeal decision bound to release him. I highlight this because the crime scene is not so different, the coming and going to the scene without trace is problematic, or commonly, a damn good alibi. Also, the plan to murder to raise cash is flawed, there are safer and more tried and true methods. In both cases we find motives are established that show other parties. In Lundy's case he was in between a bad debtor and a creditor, where he was peripherally implicated, and collectors visited his home when he was out of town, and his mother and daughter became victims when they resisted the intrusion.
In the Bamber case, Sheila was about to lose control of her children for reasons she would not buy into, and was a certified psycho coming into the scene of the crime. Unlike Bamber.

Why not consider all this, then look at the crime scene?

Consider Caroline saying a phone call and a few photographs are more important than a remarkable alibi and a motive, then consider the impossibility of predicting human manoeuvres in a massacre plan, where they must all line up to look like a murder suicide. Consider that the suicide actually was bullet trajectory consistent.

[APRIL]

Throwing out the claim that Sheila was about to lose control of her children doesn't make it fact, though. You have no evidence of it being said, other than from Jeremy. There is no evidence of ANYTHING which occurred in the farmhouse that night which hasn't come from Jeremy. You have the temerity to come on this forum, spout off about a case you appear to have scant knowledge of and refer to one of the victims as "a certified psycho"!!! You haven't a CLUE. Yes, she was mentally ill, but she was suitably medicated with a drug she was receiving by injection. During the last fortnight of her life she was so lacking in mental energy, she could barely wash herself, let alone summon the strength to murder. But let's not worry about such trivialities, eh?

[John]

Throwing out the claim that Sheila was about to lose control of her children doesn't make it fact, though. You have no evidence of it being said, other than from Jeremy. There is no evidence of ANYTHING which occurred in the farmhouse that night which hasn't come from Jeremy. You have the temerity to come on this forum, spout off about a case you appear to have scant knowledge of and refer to one of the victims as "a certified psycho"!!! You haven't a CLUE. Yes, she was mentally ill, but she was suitably medicated with a drug she was receiving by injection. During the last fortnight of her life she was so lacking in mental energy, she could barely wash herself, let alone summon the strength to murder. But let's not worry about such trivialities, eh?

How anyone could believe for a moment the bizarre claim that Sheila carried out the murders and physdically fought her father over the kitchen table without receiving a single scrape or bruise is quite ludicrous imo.

This entire story was a fabrication from the outset, invented by Jeremy Bamber and played through to the end. This was his undoing however since if Sheila is innocent then by default he is certainly guilty.

[puglove]

How anyone could believe for a moment the bizarre claim that Sheila carried out the murders and physdically fought her father over the kitchen table without receiving a single scrape or bruise is quite ludicrous imo.

This entire story was a fabrication from the outset, invented by Jeremy Bamber and played through to the end. This was his undoing however since if Sheila is innocent then by default he is certainly guilty.

There are so, so many glaring faults with Bamber's invented scenario (all explored on here) that I could actually get quite cross with Holly, if I didn't like her so much. She's the only Bamber supporter who hasn't got galloping mental health issues. I think she's painted herself into a corner.

 

[Caroline]

I referred you to a board where people analyse any crime.
The general principal seems to be to ignore the behavioural material and analyse the crime scene.

Here is a related example from New Zealand

"An extreme low point was reached the other day in New Zealand when Nigel Latta, a man with this career highlight

Latta was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2012 Queen's Birthday Honours, for his services as a psychologist

declared after the reconviction that Lundy certainly planned to kill his daughter also, and take a 20 year old as a new romantic partner with whom to share his vineyard."

A  psychologist, like Caroline, ignoring the crime scene and arguing backwards.

Now we know Lundy is innocent, and there is a pending appeal decision bound to release him. I highlight this because the crime scene is not so different, the coming and going to the scene without trace is problematic, or commonly, a damn good alibi. Also, the plan to murder to raise cash is flawed, there are safer and more tried and true methods. In both cases we find motives are established that show other parties. In Lundy's case he was in between a bad debtor and a creditor, where he was peripherally implicated, and collectors visited his home when he was out of town, and his mother and daughter became victims when they resisted the intrusion.
In the Bamber case, Sheila was about to lose control of her children for reasons she would not buy into, and was a certified psycho coming into the scene of the crime. Unlike Bamber.

Why not consider all this, then look at the crime scene?

Consider Caroline saying a phone call and a few photographs are more important than a remarkable alibi and a motive, then consider the impossibility of predicting human manoeuvres in a massacre plan, where they must all line up to look like a murder suicide. Consider that the suicide actually was bullet trajectory consistent.

Consider Samson who knows very little about this case ignoring the very beginning of the of the entire event? The very thing that makes the crime either Jeremy or Sheila. Consider Samson dropping the word 'trajectory' at varying degrees into his posts to make it sound as though he might know what he is talking about.

Indeed, we can look at the crime scene and see it is clearly staged to make it look like Sheila went crazy with a gun - Jeremy's words that relate to a phone call that didn't happen. But the call isn't important and perhaps is best ignored.

Also don't look at the behaviour of a suspect in the days and weeks after the event, ignore the fact that he tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister. He wasn't in bits trying to work out where it all went wrong, he was piling clothes onto a trailer and burning them in the farm fire pit, while also raking in a few bucks from the sale of family heir looms.

However, lets not look at any of that, lets look and a grainy old picture and pretend we know where people were standing when shot, in fact, lets make a 3D version so everyone will think how clever we are. Lets slip in a few 'trajectories' along the way and ignore the facts - in fact lets just make up our own.

By the way Samson! Sheila didn't have custody of her children, Colin did, so the theory that she was about to lose them is moot! Guess where that came from? Yep, Bamber himself, but lets ignore that - it's not important!

[puglove]

I referred you to a board where people analyse any crime.
The general principal seems to be to ignore the behavioural material and analyse the crime scene.

Here is a related example from New Zealand

"An extreme low point was reached the other day in New Zealand when Nigel Latta, a man with this career highlight

Latta was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2012 Queen's Birthday Honours, for his services as a psychologist

declared after the reconviction that Lundy certainly planned to kill his daughter also, and take a 20 year old as a new romantic partner with whom to share his vineyard."

A  psychologist, like Caroline, ignoring the crime scene and arguing backwards.

Now we know Lundy is innocent, and there is a pending appeal decision bound to release him. I highlight this because the crime scene is not so different, the coming and going to the scene without trace is problematic, or commonly, a damn good alibi. Also, the plan to murder to raise cash is flawed, there are safer and more tried and true methods. In both cases we find motives are established that show other parties. In Lundy's case he was in between a bad debtor and a creditor, where he was peripherally implicated, and collectors visited his home when he was out of town, and his mother and daughter became victims when they resisted the intrusion.
In the Bamber case, Sheila was about to lose control of her children for reasons she would not buy into, and was a certified psycho coming into the scene of the crime. Unlike Bamber.

Why not consider all this, then look at the crime scene?

Consider Caroline saying a phone call and a few photographs are more important than a remarkable alibi and a motive, then consider the impossibility of predicting human manoeuvres in a massacre plan, where they must all line up to look like a murder suicide. Consider that the suicide actually was bullet trajectory consistent.

Samson, apparently I have a reputation for rudeness, not sure why, but you do come across as a bit of a d..k. And we certainly DO NOT know that Lundy is innocent. Be careful what you wish for, I'm going to have a squiz at the case. I already know bits, and I have many questions. MANY pertinent questions. If I can be arsed. So brace yourself.

[Angelo222]

There are so, so many glaring faults with Bamber's invented scenario (all explored on here) that I could actually get quite cross with Holly, if I didn't like her so much. She's the only Bamber supporter who hasn't got galloping mental health issues. I think she's painted herself into a corner.

 

I agree wholeheartedly Puglove yet only DS Stan Jones had the balls to do something about it unlike his namesake.  Had DCI Taff Jones got his way Bamber would never have faced a trial and Sheila would have forever been wrongly blamed for the massacre. How these policemen ever get promoted to such heady positions is beyond me.

[Myster]

No one on injustice anywhere posts any more suggesting he is guilty, I suggest you read the thread.
On the facts we have it is impossible Bamber did this crime, so the corollary is as it appears, the relatives have stolen his life and his inheritance.
Adam you simply have not studied other cases to see this one is an exact mirror of several, including Mark Lundy, Amanda Knox, Russ Faria, Kirsten Lobato.

This sort of injustice is rare on a statistical basis, but surprisingly commonplace over the world population.
Until you broaden your research methods you and your friends here are doomed to holding a position that is completely impossible at all levels.
Sorry mate.

No-one on IA posts anymore because all the sane ones who believe him guilty have left, and therefore see it as pointless and fruitless arguing with the blinkered. You still haven't got it into your head that greedy good-for-nothings, life insurance chasers, and spoilt little rich boys will commit heinous crimes to get their paws on wads of money. Only Lundy (another hefty insurance payout seeker) in your list is relevant to the Bamber case - you should read up more on the Menendez brothers, the Newalls, and Stephen Seddon.

Sorry to you too mate... there is no doubt in my mind of Jeremy Bamber's guilt.

Hoots, shoots and leaves.

[Holly Goodhead]

It seems no current supporters are prepared to say what their doubts are.

I knew David wouldn't as he didn't even have the courage to admit he had changed stance. However even Holly hasn't. The only response is from Samson who referred me to a pro Bamber board.

My only doubt was there was an unprecedented intricate industrial frame involving dozens of inter relating divisions and hundreds of people. No supporters agreed with this.

It can only be assumed that supporters believe Bamber is guilty but want to support the 'Campaign for Freedom'.

Hmmm why would it be expected that 'supporters' have doubts but not those that believe JB guilty?  When I first looked at the case I had a few doubts but not any longer.  I firmly believe JB nnocent and that his conviction will be quashed.