Thoughts On The Case

[adam]

2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be. 

----------

You do know there are over 60 pieces of incrimimating forensic evidence. But appreciate the silencer is the most dramatic as the relatives found it.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Don’t know how many murder trials you’ve attended nor whether or not you’ve ever spoken to Mr Rivlin but witnesses often cry whilst given evidence in court in cases like this AA




I’ve not attended any, however that is irrelevant.

Rivlin made an explicit point as to how he found it near impossible her to cross examine her due to her cracking up and breaking down (my words but his views seeming) under the strain.

She was crying because she was bloody lying....she couldn’t stop once she had started.  She knew were it was going and she was in pieces. 

That’s more plausible.

Julie broke down as her heart was breaking at having to remember all the horrific details.

Once the flood gates open it pours out like a tsunami — and that’s a TRUE sign of someone with genuine emotions and who’s telling the truth. That’s when they’re at their most vulnerable and don’t care how the truth hurts. Julie felt shame that she’d not realised Jeremy was being serious when he told her he wanted to kill his family; she felt shame that she didn’t step forward sooner, because she was weak, frightened, confused, and was fighting her feelings she then had for him — trying to work out how she could be in love with a man who’d killed his family. It was when the twins were mentioned she REALLY fell to pieces ...

Julie wasn’t a scorned woman: that was propaganda made up by the defence, as it was their only shot at trying to cast doubt on her. A genuinely scorned woman would have been angry, acted disgusted, and would have been relatively calm. Julie didn’t once show any of those emotions. And why would a scorned woman feel such grief for the family, especially the twins, a year after the event if Jeremy hadn’t done it...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

She didn’t!!

First true thing you’ve said, Ag

“No, she didn’t “

You’re right that Sheila didn’t shoot her self — Jeremy shot her

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Traumatised yes, I agree.  But not by Jeremy, other than her dumping her if that would cause trauma, but by the lies and crap she had to spill out under oath.

If he had not been found guilty, that’s would be really traumatic for her, as she’d be found out to be lying under oath.  She looking at prison.

Yes, it was very traumatic for her and not for the ridiculous reasons you guys are spouting out here.

Julie would never have been prosecuted had Jeremy been found innocent.



The case would have simply ended and they’d all gone on their merry way...a guilty man would have got away with murder.


It’s pathetic to even consider that Julie would have sabotaged any chance of getting back with Jeremy by deliberately walking into the police station and giving statements taking many, many hours, saying how he’d murdered his family.

The police interviewed over WEEKS, and never once tripped her up. She was telling the absolute truth.

Julie wouldn’t have told such a heinous lie, knowing she’d not only lose him forever, but she’d forever be a pariah of society had she been discovered that she was making it all up out of spite. Her career would have been over. Future relationships would have been blighted. Her reputation would have been in tatters. She’d have been friendless, and no-one would have believed a word she said again.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Well, If I’d received such a phone call in the middle of the night, having already supposedly heard him discuss the planning of his family’s deaths, then I would certainly phone the police straight away.

Wouldn’t you?

Unless of course it never happened.

But Jeremy didn’t say to Julie hs family were dead, or about to be murdered.

He just said “Something’s wrong at the farm”

That could have meant anything...

So why would she have phoned the police when she thought Jeremy was sorting the problem out himself?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

‘Grooming is a process by which offenders gradually draw victims into a sexual relationship and maintain that relationship in secrecy. At the same time, offenders may also fill roles within the victims’ families that make them trusted and valued family friends.

Aunt Agatha you’ve stated how Bamber wanted to keep your relationship ‘private’ - or a secret

You’ve also claimed he became godfather/parent to your sons

This is suggestive of grooming

Why would Jeremy want to keep Agatha a secret?

That’s strange...

Was he embarrassed about something?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

You weren’t ‘protected’ you said you had to go to the police twice

Bamber had the choice to say he didn’t want to be your sons godfather - would suggest that was a mutual choice AA - not yours alone

I don’t even believe Agatha has twin sons...let alone the ridiculous, impossible notion that Jeremy became Godfather.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

One of them is lying...that’s for sure.

I cannot question JM, but I could certainly question Jeremy and I did....consistently!

I’m of the opinion he IS NOT lying...os therefore, it must be Julie.

And no, I would not waste my time on reading through her statements again, she is a liar and we’re not talking once or twice here....once she started it was lie upon lie upon lie.....

That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.

We’ll leave it there.

And you don’t have,to believe me, I do not have that letter in my possession and never did.

Bollx

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I’m not in the mood for making it up. I want Jeremy out of there.

He read a letter to me over the phone a very long time ago regarding the lie detector test.

I cannot recall what it said or he stated but I know it was looked into and blocked.  It couldn’t go any further at the time.

As for,today, I have absolutely no idea what can and cannot be,done about it.  I doubt the position has changed much but it was something Jeremy requested. THIS was before the CT so maybe that’s why they have not mentioned it.

I have nothing further to add.

I imagine whoever this alleged “blackmailer” was must have been incredibly thick

What were they hoping to do?

Get Jeremy imprisoned ?

[G-Unit]

Julie would never have been prosecuted had Jeremy been found innocent.

And you claim you studied law?

The case would have simply ended and they’d all gone on their merry way...a guilty man would have got away with murder.

You’re talking such nonsense, it’s embarrassing.

It’s pathetic to even consider that Julie would have sabotaged any chance of getting back with Jeremy by deliberately walking into the police station and giving statements taking many, many hours, saying how he’d murdered his family.

The police interviewed over WEEKS, and never once tripped her up. She was telling the absolute truth.

Julie wouldn’t have told such a heinous lie, knowing she’d not only lose him forever, but she’d forever be a pariah of society had she been discovered that she was making it all up out of spite. Her career would have been over. Future relationships would have been blighted. Her reputation would have been in tatters. She’d have been friendless, and no-one would have believed a word she said again.

It’s ludicrous for you to think she’d do that, and actually shows how YOUR mind works.

Julie's reputation would have been irreparable if she'd been charged with robbing the caravan site office and with conspiring to defraud a bank.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

9. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility).

----------

Brancher, can you give your breakdown of how Sheila committed the massacre.

Obviously you need to include 1/2 phone calls, a kitchen fight, one rifle load, two reloads and 26 shots. I trust you know where the cartridges were.

A breakdown of Jeremy committing the massacre has already been done, which matches the crime scene evidence.

Not forgetting that Sheila was weak, frail,  lacked coordination and strength; was shaky, disorientated, and could barely move or hold anything due to the Haloperidol in her system — which toxicology reports proved.


Another big problem for Jeremy was when he was on remand his defence team brought in a firearms expert to do an exact reconstruction loading the bullets of the actual murder weapon.

Freddie Mead, the firearms expert hired by the defence went to the laboratory in Huntingdon on the 29th April, 1986 where the murder weapon was kept.

He was asked to examine the photographs of the bodies, X-rays, crime scene, and study the clothing, the rifle, silencer, bullets and cartridge cases.

He was then asked to do the reconstruction with the rifle.

Freddie Mead said, “I loaded the the cartridge into the magazine without touching the bullets (as requested), which was all fine and good — yes, you can do it, but it’s contrived. You’ve got to put the base of the cartridge case in and then press it and slide it down without touching the bullet itself, which isn’t easy. Once you get up to the ninth and tenth cartridge it’s damn near impossible.”


The defence team gave Jeremy this deeply disappointing news, which clearly didn’t make him a happy bunny.

[G-Unit]

Not forgetting that Sheila was weak, frail,  lacked coordination and strength; was shaky, disorientated, and could barely move or hold anything due to the Haloperidol in her system — which toxicology reports proved.


Another big problem for Jeremy was when he was on remand his defence team brought in a firearms expert to do an exact reconstruction loading the bullets of the actual murder weapon.

Freddie Mead, the firearms expert hired by the defence went to the laboratory in Huntingdon on the 29th April, 1986 where the murder weapon was kept.

He was asked to examine the photographs of the bodies, X-rays, crime scene, and study the clothing, the rifle, silencer, bullets and cartridge cases.

He was then asked to do the reconstruction with the rifle.

Freddie Mead said, “I loaded the the cartridge into the magazine without touching the bullets (as requested), which was all fine and good — yes, you can do it, but it’s contrived. You’ve got to put the base of the cartridge case in and then press it and slide it down without touching the bullet itself, which isn’t easy. Once you get up to the ninth and tenth cartridge it’s damn near impossible.”


The defence team gave Jeremy this deeply disappointing news, which clearly didn’t make him a happy bunny.

However, another expert, who also gave evidence for the Crown, said that the .22 Anschutz was unlikely to produce backspatter - and even less likely to when fitted with a silencer.

Major Freddy Mead, a firearms expert appearing for the defence, noted that there were no grounds for believing that the silencer had been used at all during the attacks.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-455875/Is-Bambis-killer-innocent.html

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Julie's reputation would have been irreparable if she'd been charged with robbing the caravan site office and with conspiring to defraud a bank.

Julie didn’t Rob the Caravan Park — thief Jeremy Bamber did.

He sprung it on her and told her to wait outside as a lookout. He coerced her. And she’d have got off with a slapped wrist.

The cheque book of hers she reported stolen was wrong, yes, but it was hardly akin to the Great Train Robbery. She confessed to it, repaid the money, and that was the end of the matter.

Stop making her out to be a gangster — it’s ludicrous.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

However, another expert, who also gave evidence for the Crown, said that the .22 Anschutz was unlikely to produce backspatter - and even less likely to when fitted with a silencer.

Major Freddy Mead, a firearms expert appearing for the defence, noted that there were no grounds for believing that the silencer had been used at all during the attacks.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-455875/Is-Bambis-killer-innocent.html

You’re posting notes that have been distorted by Jeremy Bamber’s team and which the Daily Mail simply printed.

His defence team have been cherry picking snippets without giving the true facts and full picture — why do you think he always fails?😌

[Aunt Agatha]

Julie broke down as her heart was breaking at having to remember all the horrific details.

Once the flood gates open it pours out like a tsunami — and that’s a TRUE sign of someone with genuine emotions and who’s telling the truth. That’s when they’re at their most vulnerable and don’t care how the truth hurts. Julie felt shame that she’d not realised Jeremy was being serious when he told her he wanted to kill his family; she felt shame that she didn’t step forward sooner, because she was weak, frightened, confused, and was fighting her feelings she then had for him — trying to work out how she could be in love with a man who’d killed his family. It was when the twins were mentioned she REALLY fell to pieces ...

Julie wasn’t a scorned woman: that was propaganda made up by the defence, as it was their only shot at trying to cast doubt on her. A genuinely scorned woman would have been angry, acted disgusted, and would have been relatively calm. Julie didn’t once show any of those emotions. And why would a scorned woman feel such grief for the family, especially the twins, a year after the event if Jeremy hadn’t done it...

What horrific details?

Was she there that night?

Did she do it?

Then what horrific details was she crying uncontrollably about?

She was lying....and that is enough to cause trauma, though self enduced I must add.