UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Admin on March 05, 2012, 12:59:31 PM
-
This is the moment Bamber faltered as he was being cross examined by Mr Anthony Arlidge QC at his trial.
Ask yourself this....would an innocent man say such a thing??
Published 29 October 1986
(http://i.imgur.com/Rcpce.jpg)
-
It slipped indeed, didnt it.
Cocky and arrogant to the very last.
-
Just thick rather than arrogant. Anyone with half a brain would have known not to challenge prosecuting counsel in such a ridiculous way in front of a jury. Almost as stupid as telling the police that his father had called to say that Sheila had gone mad with a gun ( by alleging this call, Bamber effectively ruled out the possiblity of anyone but Sheila or himself having committed the crime).
-
Absolutely not the words of an innocent man. An innocent man in the dock would be horrified about being accused of lying. He was simply too arrogant to keep up the facade. He would have got away with this in a police interview, not a high profile murder trial. The Bamber apologists simply don't have a good explanation as to why an "innocent" man would ever say such a thing.
-
Just thick rather than arrogant. Anyone with half a brain would have known not to challenge prosecuting counsel in such a ridiculous way in front of a jury. Almost as stupid as telling the police that his father had called to say that Sheila had gone mad with a gun ( by alleging this call, Bamber effectively ruled out the possiblity of anyone but Sheila or himself having committed the crime).
That's the bottom line. By stating that Ralph had called him to say "come quick, your sister has gone crazy with the gun" firmly fixed everyone's attention on Sheila. He couldn't risk just leaving the scene to be found in the morning by someone else, because he had no alibi. But, for all the reasons explained on here, there is no way that Ralph would have wasted valuable time calling Bamber. There is a massive difference between Ralph facing a crazed Sheila waving a gun about (she really had no knowledge of loading and aiming at a moving target) and facing a determined, prepared Bamber. If Bamber so hated killing anything, as has been constantly stated, why was it so natural and accepted that after supper he picked up the gun and went outside after rabbits?
-
Absolutely not the words of an innocent man. An innocent man in the dock would be horrified about being accused of lying. He was simply too arrogant to keep up the facade. He would have got away with this in a police interview, not a high profile murder trial. The Bamber apologists simply don't have a good explanation as to why an "innocent" man would ever say such a thing.
Horribly arrogant. Like the stupid smirk on his face when he was arrested. His problem then, and now, is that he thinks everyone else is dim, and he is so clever. That's why he treats people like Mike, Aggy, Jackie et al so badly over the years when they have done their best to help him. He knows that he is guilty, and he despises them. So he dumps them and moves on to the next poor sod.
-
Thats about the size of it, Shona.
He uses people, anyone that will listen. Then dumps them, disposes of them.
Aggy was a friend to him for over 20 years. He's basically a spoilt brat.
-
Thats about the size of it, Shona.
He uses people, anyone that will listen. Then dumps them, disposes of them.
Aggy was a friend to him for over 20 years. He's basically a spoilt brat.
Too right. Spoilt by a lovely, hard-working couple who couldn't have children of their own, and did their best by him. Reading that Christmas crap that he wrote made me so angry, the bloody hypocrisy of it. He couldn't bloody wait to pile up the goodies and get them valued. And I've always had a problem with the shitty, cheap little message that he was responsible for, from the boys to Sheila on her coffin. "D & N." How shonky and insulting.
-
Thats about the size of it, Shona.
He uses people, anyone that will listen. Then dumps them, disposes of them.
Aggy was a friend to him for over 20 years. He's basically a spoilt brat.
Too right. Spoilt by a lovely, hard-working couple who couldn't have children of their own, and did their best by him. Reading that Christmas crap that he wrote made me so angry, the bloody hypocrisy of it. He couldn't bloody wait to pile up the goodies and get them valued. And I've always had a problem with the shitty, cheap little message that he was responsible for, from the boys to Sheila on her coffin. "D & N." How shonky and insulting.
He hasn't actually got a redeeming feature. Thank goodness that his last few, remaining supporters post such errant crap. And every point they make can be easily countered.
-
And, for Cliff, I'm sure that we were all disgusted by the shouty shite that Mike posted today, in answer to your genuine post. Horrible, and wrong. Good luck to any little soldier who tried to justify it.
-
He was very quick to get things valued, the bodies were still warm.
His slap up breakfast. Quaffing champers and slapping waitresses backsides after the funerals, grieving my arse.
His family were dead and buried, he was going to be a wealthy young man. His plan had worked, he'd pulled it off so far.
-
Just thick rather than arrogant. Anyone with half a brain would have known not to challenge prosecuting counsel in such a ridiculous way in front of a jury. Almost as stupid as telling the police that his father had called to say that Sheila had gone mad with a gun ( by alleging this call, Bamber effectively ruled out the possiblity of anyone but Sheila or himself having committed the crime).
Hi Frank.
I wonder if the story about the telephone call was an afterthought? >@@(*&)
It seems quite obvious that he set out to frame Sheila from the outset, the story he told the police operator at 3.26am and the elaborate damming speech he gave Bews and co when he arrived at the farm in their wake. He couldn't have painted a blacker picture of Sheila. No wonder the armed cops were jumping at their own shadows when they realised it wasn't Sheila lying dead in the kitchen.
-
Absolutely not the words of an innocent man. An innocent man in the dock would be horrified about being accused of lying. He was simply too arrogant to keep up the facade. He would have got away with this in a police interview, not a high profile murder trial. The Bamber apologists simply don't have a good explanation as to why an "innocent" man would ever say such a thing.
He must have got a hell of a shock when the jury came back with a guilty verdict!
-
Absolutely not the words of an innocent man. An innocent man in the dock would be horrified about being accused of lying. He was simply too arrogant to keep up the facade. He would have got away with this in a police interview, not a high profile murder trial. The Bamber apologists simply don't have a good explanation as to why an "innocent" man would ever say such a thing.
Horribly arrogant. Like the stupid smirk on his face when he was arrested. His problem then, and now, is that he thinks everyone else is dim, and he is so clever. That's why he treats people like Mike, Aggy, Jackie et al so badly over the years when they have done their best to help him. He knows that he is guilty, and he despises them. So he dumps them and moves on to the next poor sod.
Funny you should say that. Remind you of anyone from Ipswich? @)(++(*
-
Absolutely not the words of an innocent man. An innocent man in the dock would be horrified about being accused of lying. He was simply too arrogant to keep up the facade. He would have got away with this in a police interview, not a high profile murder trial. The Bamber apologists simply don't have a good explanation as to why an "innocent" man would ever say such a thing.
Horribly arrogant. Like the stupid smirk on his face when he was arrested. His problem then, and now, is that he thinks everyone else is dim, and he is so clever. That's why he treats people like Mike, Aggy, Jackie et al so badly over the years when they have done their best to help him. He knows that he is guilty, and he despises them. So he dumps them and moves on to the next poor sod.
Funny you should say that. Remind you of anyone from Ipswich? @)(++(*
Totally. I was mucking out this morning (the horses, not BT) and listening to the news. It was all about barristers googling jury members, and jury members googling defendants, and it made me realise just how fantastically stupid anyone would be to act like a complete f..king loony tune on the interweb. All I could think of was silly old Blumpkin, and her mad mate. Why would you want to make a complete, paranoid show of yourself, like Fuzzy-Felt, or do that revolting black-talk (put your tenna ladies on your dutty pussy) when you're raison detre is releasing your loved one from prison? Crazy.
-
Absolutely not the words of an innocent man. An innocent man in the dock would be horrified about being accused of lying. He was simply too arrogant to keep up the facade. He would have got away with this in a police interview, not a high profile murder trial. The Bamber apologists simply don't have a good explanation as to why an "innocent" man would ever say such a thing.
Horribly arrogant. Like the stupid smirk on his face when he was arrested. His problem then, and now, is that he thinks everyone else is dim, and he is so clever. That's why he treats people like Mike, Aggy, Jackie et al so badly over the years when they have done their best to help him. He knows that he is guilty, and he despises them. So he dumps them and moves on to the next poor sod.
Funny you should say that. Remind you of anyone from Ipswich? @)(++(*
Totally. I was mucking out this morning (the horses, not BT) and listening to the news. It was all about barristers googling jury members, and jury members googling defendants, and it made me realise just how fantastically stupid anyone would be to act like a complete f..king loony tune on the interweb. All I could think of was silly old Blumpkin, and her mad mate. Why would you want to make a complete, paranoid show of yourself, like Fuzzy-Felt, or do that revolting black-talk (put your tenna ladies on your dutty pussy) when you're raison detre is releasing your loved one from prison? Crazy.
I don't read the blue forum much these days for obvious reasons zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz but a wee birdie tells me she is still slagging off one of ours and having the posts deleted faster than she makes them... @)(++(*
-
Absolutely not the words of an innocent man. An innocent man in the dock would be horrified about being accused of lying. He was simply too arrogant to keep up the facade. He would have got away with this in a police interview, not a high profile murder trial. The Bamber apologists simply don't have a good explanation as to why an "innocent" man would ever say such a thing.
Horribly arrogant. Like the stupid smirk on his face when he was arrested. His problem then, and now, is that he thinks everyone else is dim, and he is so clever. That's why he treats people like Mike, Aggy, Jackie et al so badly over the years when they have done their best to help him. He knows that he is guilty, and he despises them. So he dumps them and moves on to the next poor sod.
Funny you should say that. Remind you of anyone from Ipswich? @)(++(*
Totally. I was mucking out this morning (the horses, not BT) and listening to the news. It was all about barristers googling jury members, and jury members googling defendants, and it made me realise just how fantastically stupid anyone would be to act like a complete f..king loony tune on the interweb. All I could think of was silly old Blumpkin, and her mad mate. Why would you want to make a complete, paranoid show of yourself, like Fuzzy-Felt, or do that revolting black-talk (put your tenna ladies on your dutty pussy) when you're raison detre is releasing your loved one from prison? Crazy.
I don't read the blue forum much these days for obvious reasons zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz but a wee birdie tells me she is still slagging off one of ours and having the posts deleted faster than she makes them... @)(++(*
Hmm. She posts stuff, mainly having a pop at Jo, which is like punching a lovely kitten, then a certain little foot soldier has to drag himself away from his supernoodles and deletion follows. What a waste of time and energy. And, all the time, a creature who shot 2 small boys in their heads while they slept in their safe beds, tries to redeem himself.
-
Hmm. She posts stuff, mainly having a pop at Jo, which is like punching a lovely kitten, then a certain little foot soldier has to drag himself away from his supernoodles and deletion follows. What a waste of time and energy. And, all the time, a creature who shot 2 small boys in their heads while they slept in their safe beds, tries to redeem himself.
Its a good job she doesnt know about the other women to wrote to Simon and visited him at Kingston when she couldnt be bothered dragging her sorry ass down the road to see him. 8(0(*
-
And, for Cliff, I'm sure that we were all disgusted by the shouty shite that Mike posted today, in answer to your genuine post. Horrible, and wrong. Good luck to any little soldier who tried to justify it.
Much respect to Buddy for standing up to Mike. As we all know Mike only tends to become abusive when he realises someone has seen through his lies and BS. As we know, Buddy is on Mike's side but like a lot of the more intelligent posters on the blue forum he realises a lot of what Mike is doing is genuinely harmful rather than helping Bamber's case.
Incidentally Mike is this time denying that he has ever burgled a house. It just doesn't ring true to me that the police would target a completely innocent man with burglary. Surely he must have come under their radar prior to his arrest as he was clearly known to them? That's the only reason I can see that they would have tried to fit him up (if this is the case). Back in the 90s when I was a student, student houses were often burgled. I heard of students reporting these crimes to the police, who were actually quite sympathetic but admitted it was highly unlikely they would ever get their stuff back or that the burglars would be caught and convicted. The police would then write down a name and address on a piece of paper. When the students asked what this was for they were told in no uncertain terms that the police were virtually certain the name on the paper was the person who had committed the burglary and if the students and some friends wished to go and give the man a kicking the police would happily turn a blind eye! I think this illustrates that a lot of the time the police may know who has committed a certain crime but the issue is then providing the evidence to prove it.
-
And, for Cliff, I'm sure that we were all disgusted by the shouty shite that Mike posted today, in answer to your genuine post. Horrible, and wrong. Good luck to any little soldier who tried to justify it.
Much respect to Buddy for standing up to Mike. As we all know Mike only tends to become abusive when he realises someone has seen through his lies and BS. As we know, Buddy is on Mike's side but like a lot of the more intelligent posters on the blue forum he realises a lot of what Mike is doing is genuinely harmful rather than helping Bamber's case.
Eeew. Mike. When will someone front up to you and tell you that you are a short-ar$ed little burglar with a potty mouth? Cliff is worth a squillion of you. He's a good man with a good heart. You, I'm afraid, are just a prick. SHAME ON YOU.
-
Mike says he is an experienced convicted criminal, then denies any wrong doing in the next breath. Where did he get his experience from then?
Horrible post to Buddy, uncalled for.
It doesnt look good when the site owner speaks to a long term member in that way.
-
And, for Cliff, I'm sure that we were all disgusted by the shouty shite that Mike posted today, in answer to your genuine post. Horrible, and wrong. Good luck to any little soldier who tried to justify it.
Much respect to Buddy for standing up to Mike. As we all know Mike only tends to become abusive when he realises someone has seen through his lies and BS. As we know, Buddy is on Mike's side but like a lot of the more intelligent posters on the blue forum he realises a lot of what Mike is doing is genuinely harmful rather than helping Bamber's case.
Incidentally Mike is this time denying that he has ever burgled a house. It just doesn't ring true to me that the police would target a completely innocent man with burglary. Surely he must have come under their radar prior to his arrest as he was clearly known to them? That's the only reason I can see that they would have tried to fit him up (if this is the case). Back in the 90s when I was a student, student houses were often burgled. I heard of students reporting these crimes to the police, who were actually quite sympathetic but admitted it was highly unlikely they would ever get their stuff back or that the burglars would be caught and convicted. The police would then write down a name and address on a piece of paper. When the students asked what this was for they were told in no uncertain terms that the police were virtually certain the name on the paper was the person who had committed the burglary and if the students and some friends wished to go and give the man a kicking the police would happily turn a blind eye! I think this illustrates that a lot of the time the police may know who has committed a certain crime but the issue is then providing the evidence to prove it.
If he wasn't a burglar why was he on the run from the police when they flushed him out hiding in a pals loft? @)(++(*
-
Andrea I wasn't targeting you I was just replying to a post
Is there any evidence Mike is a convicted criminal or is it just speculation?
Has he ever said that?
-
Andrea I wasn't targeting you I was just replying to a post
Is there any evidence Mike is a convicted criminal or is it just speculation?
Has he ever said that?
He's bragged about it often enough, Jac. And obviously he was convicted, he met Bamber in the nick.
I f..king loathe and despise burglars. If you want something, go out and earn the money to buy it, don't just take it. And he wasn't a daft young kid when he was stealing from others. Ugh.
-
Mike said in a post earlier he was an experienced criminal.
-
I read that too, I just can't find the post now.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3808.30.html
Here he describes himself as "an experienced convicted criminal". His own words. Clearly implies that he is experienced in criminal acts, if he meant otherwise he should have chosen his words better. But as you can see from his foul mouthed and unnecessarily nasty post to Buddy he's not good at choosing his words carefully.
-
Thats the one Goatboy #40. I knew I'd read it!