Jeremy Bamber - a lost cause

[thedarkman]

I spent much of Thursday reading the Scott Lomax book; I was surprised at the strength of the case he makes, for example he says Bamber dialled the local Filth because he didn't want flashing lights and sirens. This is plausible as are many other things, but still not good enough.

Furthermore he makes all manner of ludicrous claims including that garbage about someone moving in the house - a claim set up by Bamber - and the one-sided conversation.

Then he goes really over the top by suggesting the phone line to the house was open and the police may have or had tapes.

The bottom line though is that the officer in charge of the case was convinced Sheila was responsible initially. Why did he change his mind if any of these ludicrous claims were true?

Why did any of them? The implication is that they knew Bamber was innocent but put him under surveillance anyway and then allowed Julie Mugford and others to set him up.

This is Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.

One question no one seems to have asked is did Bamber have an accomplice? It appears not but it's surprising no one has suggested it.

I am more convinced now than ever that Bamber's leaving the silencer was deliberate. True, he wanted an audience, but consider the Shipman case.

This is a guy with a stratospheric IQ who has murdered over 200 people, then he murders his last victim and forges her will so clumsily, so suspiciously, and Mrs Grundy's daughter was a solicitor. How could he have hoped to get away with it?

By that time, Shipman realised subconsciously that it had to stop. I think deep down Bamber realised that he too shouldn't have got away with it.

Just me but what do people think?

[John]

I spent much of Thursday reading the Scott Lomax book; I was surprised at the strength of the case he makes, for example he says Bamber dialled the local Filth because he didn't want flashing lights and sirens. This is plausible as are many other things, but still not good enough.

Furthermore he makes all manner of ludicrous claims including that garbage about someone moving in the house - a claim set up by Bamber - and the one-sided conversation.

Then he goes really over the top by suggesting the phone line to the house was open and the police may have or had tapes.

The bottom line though is that the officer in charge of the case was convinced Sheila was responsible initially. Why did he change his mind if any of these ludicrous claims were true?

Why did any of them? The implication is that they knew Bamber was innocent but put him under surveillance anyway and then allowed Julie Mugford and others to set him up.

This is Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.

One question no one seems to have asked is did Bamber have an accomplice? It appears not but it's surprising no one has suggested it.

I am more convinced now than ever that Bamber's leaving the silencer was deliberate. True, he wanted an audience, but consider the Shipman case.

This is a guy with a stratospheric IQ who has murdered over 200 people, then he murders his last victim and forges her will so clumsily, so suspiciously, and Mrs Grundy's daughter was a solicitor. How could he have hoped to get away with it?

By that time, Shipman realised subconsciously that it had to stop. I think deep down Bamber realised that he too shouldn't have got away with it.

Just me but what do people think?

The officer in charge, Taff Jones, never changed his mind and he was subsequent reassigned.  The story goes that he was too concerned about his golf to consider that the murder was anything more than a domestic which got out of hand.  Some time later he fell off a ladder while doing maintenance work at home and died of his injuries.  Again, this is something which Bambers supporters portray as a conspiracy.

Some of the officers and especially Sgt Stan Jones saw through Bamber from the outset.  He was an experienced officer and could see from day one that there was something just not right.  He brought Mugford to Jeremy's house after the murder and was to catch Bamber having a laugh with Mugford not that long afterwards.  Julie refers to this in her statement as the moment when he admitted to her that he was behind it all.

The accomplice scenario is a complicated one.  I personally believe that there was at least one other and possibly two in on it.  I am not suggesting they were there but they were aware of what was going on.

[Tim Invictus]

Lomax is a famous Bamberette. His book is appalling .... For example Bamber was asked in his first interviews why he had called the local police and not 999. Bamber's direct answer was "I don't know" .... Absolutely nothing about sirens and flashing lights ... and local cops cars have the same sirens and lights anyway!

I am happy to read balanced books and articles ........ Lomax's book is like a fan letter!

[goatboy]

In an ideal world Bamber would have dumped the silencer, however this was simply not a possibility as wherever it would have been dumped it would have been found and probably traced. This would have incriminated him so he had to leave it in the house. I believe he cleaned it as best he could and hoped it wouldn't be found or he would have cleaned it well enough for it not to be suspicious, but may have been panicking a bit so was a bit remiss(remember a lot of unexpected things happened during the murder, chiefly he shot her with the silencer on and had to remove it because no one would believe she could have done this herself with the silencer on). I personally don't think he ever thought he would be caught.

[Padgates staff]

I agree Goatboy.

[Matthew Wyse]

In an ideal world Bamber would have dumped the silencer, however this was simply not a possibility as wherever it would have been dumped it would have been found and probably traced. This would have incriminated him so he had to leave it in the house. I believe he cleaned it as best he could and hoped it wouldn't be found or he would have cleaned it well enough for it not to be suspicious, but may have been panicking a bit so was a bit remiss(remember a lot of unexpected things happened during the murder, chiefly he shot her with the silencer on and had to remove it because no one would believe she could have done this herself with the silencer on). I personally don't think he ever thought he would be caught.

In addition goatboy....isn't is quite remarkable that the tip of the rifle barrel was free of any blood when it was supposed to have been used to murder 5 innocents.  Bamber messed up big time on that one!!

[goatboy]

Absolutely Matthew, surely you would have expected some sort of blood presence inside the rifle barrel (if Sheila had shot herself with the tip of the barrell pressing into her neck). There was none but there were traces of blood in the silencer. QED.

[Matthew Wyse]

Absolutely Matthew, surely you would have expected some sort of blood presence inside the rifle barrel (if Sheila had shot herself with the tip of the barrell pressing into her neck). There was none but there were traces of blood in the silencer. QED.

....and there was no blood on the palms of Shelia's hands or on the inside of her fingers.  How was she supposed to have held the barrel of the rifle while shooting herself?  Maybe she wore gloves as well which have mysteriously disappeared?

Maybe blue forum apologist Patti can answer that one??

[Wicked]

Afternoon Matthew!

I don't know what you mean by apologist Patti?  Could you explain please?

There was blood on the back on Sheila's right hand and along her thumb, if you would care to observe. 

I'd like to know where you have seen photo's of the inside of her hands, because there isn't any. 

Bye for now! 

[John]

Afternoon Matthew!

I don't know what you mean by apologist Patti?  Could you explain please?

There was blood on the back on Sheila's right hand and along her thumb, if you would care to observe. 

I'd like to know where you have seen photo's of the inside of her hands, because there isn't any. 

Bye for now! 

Afternoon Patti.   I believe the point Matt is trying to make is that Sheila couldn't have grasped the rifle without getting blood on it.  How does one shoot oneself twice in the neck without having blood all over ones inner hands and the rifle trigger?

[Matthew Wyse]

Afternoon Matthew!

I don't know what you mean by apologist Patti?  Could you explain please?

There was blood on the back on Sheila's right hand and along her thumb, if you would care to observe. 

I'd like to know where you have seen photo's of the inside of her hands, because there isn't any. 

Bye for now! 

Yes an apologist is someone who makes excuses for someone else and that is what you are doing for Jeremy Bamber by trying to blame Sheila Caffell.  If I have got this wrong I do apologise.   

There was no blood on any of her fingers which proves she never handled the rifle but I have a sneaky suspicion you already knew that.

[John]

It doesn't seem to have registered with them over at the blue forum yet but just in case here it is again...

It doesn't matter how much crap Bamber's experts dig up as the evidence already to hand clearly exonerates Sheila of any wrongdoing and by so doing implicates Jeremy by default.

[Tim Invictus]

The Blue forum should understand our stance; there is a mountain of evidence that Sheila could not have fired that rifle and is a victim of murder and anyone who accuses her of murdering her adored sons and parents is doing her a massive injustice.

Any sensible and reasonable person need only to read the extent of the fight injuries to Neville to realise that Sheila could never have beaten him so badly and remained forensically clean. Neville was hit so hard it broke his jaw and broke the rifle's stock; Sheila didn't even have a bruise on her!

I think it is reasonable to say that no one who reads the evidence of Sheila's condition after death can possibly accuse her of those 5 murders and expect to be taken seriously!   

[Dillon]

The Blue forum should understand our stance; there is a mountain of evidence that Sheila could not have fired that rifle and is a victim of murder and anyone who accuses her of murdering her adored sons and parents is doing her a massive injustice.

Any sensible and reasonable person need only to read the extent of the fight injuries to Neville to realise that Sheila could never have beaten him so badly and remained forensically clean. Neville was hit so hard it broke his jaw and broke the rifle's stock; Sheila didn't even have a bruise on her!

I think it is reasonable to say that no one who reads the evidence of Sheila's condition after death can possibly accuse her of those 5 murders and expect to be taken seriously!   

I don't know how anyone can convince some members of the Blue Forum that it is incredibly unlikely that Sheila could have been responsible. Besides the evidence which is so clearly outlined in the thread on Sheila'S INNOCENCE , I have heard from a number of people who knew Sheila well and indeed from her early childhood, that this act would have been totally out of character. Her psychiatric history has been much distorted by people who ought to know better. People on the Blue Forum who claim to support the cause of fighting injustice  !
 
The really terrible and disgusting injustice has been to defame the memory of Sheila and other victims of this evil crime. Patti who appears to be one of the few reasonable posters on Tesko's forum, seems to have expressed some doubts as to Sheila's responsibility whilst doggedly maintaining a belief in Bamber's innocence putting foward the " third party " argument , which really does not stand up to much scrutiny.     

[Padgates staff]

The blue forum continually go on about 'new evidence' which obviously doesn't exist because Jeremy Bamber is still inside. I think it's probably time for them to accept he's as guilty as can be and to really stop debating the issue to within a milimeter of it's life. It's all very batty to continue pushing the issue, he isn't coming out, other than in a box. They need to find other things to debate.