Is there any evidence that Jeremy Bamber could be innocent?

[John]

Is there any evidence that Jeremy Bamber could be innocent?

As we approach what could very well be the end game in the Bamber case next week I thought I would open up this question to everyone.  Having looked at this case for several years and considered everything that those who campaign for him have thrown up as evidence I can categorically say that I am not in the least convinced by any of it.  In my opinion there is no evidence which can prove that Jeremy Bamber is guilty but much which can show that he is indeed guilty as charged and as convicted.

[ActualMat]

Nothing that stick.
No evidence that doesn't change year on year, if you look at some of the original defence evidence and compare it to that of today, it's changed so dramatically - that it shows it never had any true substance.

[John]

Nothing that stick.
No evidence that doesn't change year on year, if you look at some of the original defence evidence and compare it to that of today, it's changed so dramatically - that it shows it never had any true substance.

In most true miscarriage of justice cases their is a modicum of evidence, sometimes just a slimmer of evidence which can show the possibility of innocence but the remarkable thing about Bamber's case is that there isn't even that. Given the years that Tesko has spent attempting to find such evidence I find the fact that he has failed to find any to be extremely telling.

[ActualMat]

Nothing that stick.
No evidence that doesn't change year on year, if you look at some of the original defence evidence and compare it to that of today, it's changed so dramatically - that it shows it never had any true substance.

In most true miscarriage of justice cases their is a modicum of evidence, sometimes just a slimmer of evidence which can show the possibility of innocence but the remarkable thing about Bamber's case is that there isn't even that. Given the years that Tesko has spent attempting to find such evidence I find the fact that he has failed to find any to be extremely telling.

Agree, 100%

And also when you see evidence begin to get made up (Itemised phone bills) it is another indicator that there isn't anything of value or believability or else fake evidence wouldn't need to be dreamed up.

[John]

Nothing that stick.
No evidence that doesn't change year on year, if you look at some of the original defence evidence and compare it to that of today, it's changed so dramatically - that it shows it never had any true substance.

In most true miscarriage of justice cases their is a modicum of evidence, sometimes just a slimmer of evidence which can show the possibility of innocence but the remarkable thing about Bamber's case is that there isn't even that. Given the years that Tesko has spent attempting to find such evidence I find the fact that he has failed to find any to be extremely telling.

Agree, 100%

And also when you see evidence begin to get made up (Itemised phone bills) it is another indicator that there isn't anything of value or believability or else fake evidence wouldn't need to be dreamed up.

It definitely shows desperation on Tesko's part.  I found the exact same thing with the Adrian Prout case and later with the Luke Mitchell one.  When campaigners start to invent evidence then it is time to pull the plug.

[Tim Invictus]

When I first started to read the case beyond the newspapers at the time of the murderers I did have one big reservation. I couldn't see Bamber killing them all just for money when he knew that he would be rich one day and had a very wealthy elderly grandmother who was leaving him a small fortune! His life was comfortable and a rich future assured!

Once I started reading about Bamber's character and his "it's important to be rich when your young" selfishness, I realised he was just too greedy to wait a few years. Add to that his hatred of being controlled and kept poor (in his eyes) by his parents and their 'intolerable expectations' that he should actually work for a living, I could see what a greedy, narcissistic psychopath he actually is!

With that major reservation assuaged, the mountain of circumstantial evidence against Bamber and the proof positive (IMHO) that Sheila would not and could not have committed those murders, left me 100% certain Bamber's is a safe conviction.   

[Angelo222]

When I first started to read the case beyond the newspapers at the time of the murderers I did have one big reservation. I couldn't see Bamber killing them all just for money when he knew that he would be rich one day and had a very wealthy elderly grandmother who was leaving him a small fortune! His life was comfortable and a rich future assured!

Once I started reading about Bamber's character and his "it's important to be rich when your young" selfishness, I realised he was just too greedy to wait a few years. Add to that his hatred of being controlled and kept poor (in his eyes) by his parents and their 'intolerable expectations' that he should actually work for a living, I could see what a greedy, narcissistic psychopath he actually is!

With that major reservation assuaged, the mountain of circumstantial evidence against Bamber and the proof positive (IMHO) that Sheila would not and could not have committed those murders, left me 100% certain Bamber's is a safe conviction.

Most people that I have chatted to about the case always say the same thing and that is basically how could he do such a dreadful thing?  I will admit I did the same when the murders first hit the headlines way back in 1985.  I remember it all very well and I too doubted his guilt simply because of the savagery involved.  Like you Tim I was shocked when he was convicted as it looked as if he had everything going for him.  What we on the outside didn't know was that there were undercurrents of resentment and hate at play. 
The image of happy families is one which Bamber still uses to this day.  He talks of mum and dad in terms of endearment while all the time that resentment and hate is still there.  I would wager that in his sick mind his parents and his adoptive parents were to blame for it all.  Its not surprising therefore that we see this poison being posted on the blue forum occasionally as they too seek to blame the parents.  Always someone else"s fault?

[Tim Invictus]

I should point out that I wondered if Bamber could be innocent for a very short while; when he tried to sell the naked photos of Sheila to The Sun and others we all saw what a basty s..mbag he really is!

[goatboy]

I noticed Buddy on the blue forum reckons Sheila could have been murdered by a drug pusher as punishment for failing to pay a debt. That suprised me as he normally posts quite intelligent stuff. Surely the scene as it was presented categorically ruled out a third party? Or maybe a third party who knew how to get in and out of the house without any trace who knew to make it look like Sheila did it while simultaneously trying to frame Jeremy? What absolutely swings it for me is that there was clearly a struggle between Nevill and his killer as the old man tried to get to the phone. Who would have had such an important reason to stop him getting to the phone and telling the police what was going on? Sheila? I think not. And how come the one night Nevill needed a working phone by his bed it either wasn't there or it wasn't working? And how come a telephone in perfectly good working order was found hidden under a pile of magazines in the kitchen? The fact is that whoever committed the murders made a very good job of covering their tracks. Why would Sheila try so had not to leave traces if she just planned to kill herself anyway?

[Matthew Wyse]

I noticed Buddy on the blue forum reckons Sheila could have been murdered by a drug pusher as punishment for failing to pay a debt. That surprised me as he normally posts quite intelligent stuff. Surely the scene as it was presented categorically ruled out a third party? Or maybe a third party who knew how to get in and out of the house without any trace who knew to make it look like Sheila did it while simultaneously trying to frame Jeremy? What absolutely swings it for me is that there was clearly a struggle between Nevill and his killer as the old man tried to get to the phone. Who would have had such an important reason to stop him getting to the phone and telling the police what was going on? Sheila? I think not. And how come the one night Nevill needed a working phone by his bed it either wasn't there or it wasn't working? And how come a telephone in perfectly good working order was found hidden under a pile of magazines in the kitchen? The fact is that whoever committed the murders made a very good job of covering their tracks. Why would Sheila try so had not to leave traces if she just planned to kill herself anyway?

It was all so convenient goatboy wasn't it.   Buddy is definitely out on a limb on that one as dope pushers don't go out and murder entire families.  It all comes down to the telephone call which Jeremy alleged his father made to him.  Jeremy pointed the finger at Sheila, the forensics rules Sheila out so that in itself points the finger right back at Jeremy.  What a wonderful world.   

[Tim Invictus]

I am surprised at Buddy. Even Bamber's defence have always accepted it was either Sheila or Jeremy! 

[adam]

Is there any evidence that Jeremy Bamber could be innocent?

As we approach what could very well be the end game in the Bamber case next week I thought I would open up this question to everyone.  Having looked at this case for several years and considered everything that those who campaign for him have thrown up as evidence I can categorically say that I am not in the least convinced by any of it.  In my opinion there is no evidence which can prove that Jeremy Bamber is guilty but much which can show that he is indeed guilty as charged and as convicted.

Jeremy's supporters spend most of the time fire fighting the thousands of pieces of evidence against him.

This is just unconvincingly disputing evidence against him to suggest he did not commit the crime.

After fire fighting in a blazing forest, they can move onto saying Sheila was responsible. But it is impossible for Sheila to have committed the crime to match the crime scene evidence.