Lets review the evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber.

[Holly Goodhead]

You have missed the important evidence yet again.  We know that the killer had to be Jeremy or Sheila, nobody else could gain access to the property.  The substantial evidence provided by Sheila rules her out leaving only one other person. 

It is unnecessary to prove Jeremy did it, all we have to prove is that Sheila most certainly didn't do it!

Yes, I've never believed in a third party was involved in any shape or form.

For a whole month plus the official line was SC was responsible.  DS Jones might have been considered a "dissenter" but even he was unsure either way as follows:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5616.msg199700#msg199700

As you are no doubt aware following on from the relatives 'concerns' Det Supt Ainsley instructed a case review.  This was led by Det Supt Kenneally.  On Friday 6th September 1985 a meeting was held to discuss the outcome.  Those present included:

Chief Constable Bunyard
ACC Simpson
Det Supt Ainsely
Det Supt Kenneally

CONCLUSION:  SC was responsible

If the evidence proved SC most certainly didn't do it then how can we account for the above?

[John]

Yes, I've never believed in a third party was involved in any shape or form.

For a whole month plus the official line was SC was responsible.  DS Jones might have been considered a "dissenter" but even he was unsure either way as follows:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5616.msg199700#msg199700

As you are no doubt aware following on from the relatives 'concerns' Det Supt Ainsley instructed a case review.  This was led by Det Supt Kenneally.  On Friday 6th September 1985 a meeting was held to discuss the outcome.  Those present included:

Chief Constable Bunyard
ACC Simpson
Det Supt Ainsely
Det Supt Kenneally

CONCLUSION:  SC was responsible

If the evidence proved SC most certainly didn't do it then how can we account for the above?

They must have felt like complete idiots when Julie came forward the next day and made a full 24-page statement two days later.  As usual it was the grassroots detectives who made the difference!

[Holly Goodhead]

They must have felt like complete idiots when Julie came forward the next day and made a full 24-page statement two days later.  As usual it was the grassroots detectives who made the difference!

I doubt they felt like complete idiots - why would they?

Why should JM's WS, that came a month after the tragedy and completely contradicted her WS of 8th Aug '85, take automatic precedence over a review carried out by senior investigating officers which concluded SC was responsible?

It was a highly unusual case in that even if more care had been taken with the soc I'm not sure much more could be gleaned?  Both SC and JB had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle the contents. 

Had the pathologist and ballistics attended and communicated with officers at the soc this may have resolved any doubts in the early stages.

In JB's case his relatives putting pressure on police so much that they effectively led the investigation in the end and his girlfriend coming forward claiming JB was responsible put him in an unenviable position.

There was no real forensic and in the absence of such of course the relatives and ex-girlfriend carried a lot of weight. 

[John]

Julie had everything to lose by telling likes to the police and what's more she knew it.  It was a case of cooperate with the police or go down with Bamber.

What would you choose Holly?

[david1819]

Julie had everything to lose by telling likes to the police and what's moire she knew it.  It was a case of cooperate with the police or go down with Bamber.

What would you choose Holly?

Why would she have gone down with him?

[John]

Why would she have gone down with him?

Had she not cooperated with police and turned Queen's evidence, she could very well have been prosecuted too.

[scipio_usmc]

Why would she have gone down with him?

One of her friends went to police and told them about how Julie told her that Bamber confessed to her...

That naturally made the police wonder if she was involved in some manner even as an accessory and whether she obstructed justice. She basically had to come clean at that point to avoid liability herself. But TO BE SURE she had told her friend in the first place and didn't feel that bad about telling on him because she felt bad and wanted to relieve her conscience and they had broken up already.  If they were still together she probably would have still tried to see if she could find a way to protect him.  She had no need to lie for him anymore though and that made a huge difference. In fact, if they had still been together she could have told him that if he married her then they could not force her to testify against him so he should marry her ASAP.

There are relatives who initially cover for relatives who commit crimes but then turn on them and spill the beans when their conscience is too much for them, when they realize the offender is a s..mbag who doesn't deserve protection (usually because of the way the offender acts afterwards), when the offender does something to piss off the relative helping or a combination of these.  That is the same mix that resulted in Julie not wanting to protect him anymore.

If Jeremy was aware of the mistakes he made and aware of what the lab would find then he might have played things different and tried to keep Julie in his corner and perhaps even marry her.  But he was unaware of his mistakes and figured it would just be her word not any evidence to support her claims.  He was wrong though quite obviously.

[simong]

You have missed the important evidence yet again.  We know that the killer had to be Jeremy or Sheila, nobody else could gain access to the property.  The substantial evidence provided by Sheila rules her out leaving only one other person. 

It is unnecessary to prove Jeremy did it, all we have to prove is that Sheila most certainly didn't do it!

What i love about being the only person who feels this was carried out by a third person is they way everyone on the Jeremy/ Sheila did it camps, dismisses the third party theory so easily. Everyone has this impression of a hollywood style hitman. Which if this crime wasn't so grotesque, i would find laughable!

Sheila had partly digested food in her body. Her post mortem shows traces of cannabis in her system. She was obviously in the kitchen to prepare her food. Could she not have simply let someone in whilst everyone else was sleeping, who was bringing her some weed to smoke. Maybe this is why there is no evidence of forced entry? Could this late night drug deal have been pre-arranged by perhaps Jeremy? Maybe Sheila eat some food whilst waiting for someone? I wonder who admits to cultivating weed in their statement? It would seem easier to me to subdue all three adults in the house by leading one at gunpoint into the bedroom where the other two adults are gathered/sleeping. Dismissing a third party carrying out the crime is odd when the Police looked into this very seriously. Whether you believe Sheila or Jeremy did this, everyone from both sides of the argument has to admit that the Police investigation was poor/ incompetent at best. Dismissing the chances of Police incompetence when checking out alibi's for third party involvement would seem odd also.

[scipio_usmc]

What i love about being the only person who feels this was carried out by a third person is they way everyone on the Jeremy/ Sheila did it camps, dismisses the third party theory so easily. Everyone has this impression of a hollywood style hitman. Which if this crime wasn't so grotesque, i would find laughable!

Sheila had partly digested food in her body. Her post mortem shows traces of cannabis in her system. She was obviously in the kitchen to prepare her food. Could she not have simply let someone in whilst everyone else was sleeping, who was bringing her some weed to smoke. Maybe this is why there is no evidence of forced entry? Could this late night drug deal have been pre-arranged by perhaps Jeremy? Maybe Sheila eat some food whilst waiting for someone? I wonder who admits to cultivating weed in their statement? It would seem easier to me to subdue all three adults in the house by leading one at gunpoint into the bedroom where the other two adults are gathered/sleeping. Dismissing a third party carrying out the crime is odd when the Police looked into this very seriously. Whether you believe Sheila or Jeremy did this, everyone from both sides of the argument has to admit that the Police investigation was poor/ incompetent at best. Dismissing the chances of Police incompetence when checking out alibi's for third party involvement would seem odd also.

1) The results prove she smoked the cannabis several days before the murders because it was not in her bloodstream only her urine.  It was smoked before she went to visit WHF.  What relevance does this have to anything?

2) Her last known meal was at 9-9:30, according to Jeremy she was in the kitchen eating.  The food was partially digested so was eaten at least 2 hours prior to her death.  It takes 6 hours to clear the stomach so the food in her stomach simply establishes she ate 2-6 hours prior to her death.  So the food could have been the last meal Jeremy described.  As long as she was killed by 3AM that was her last meal.   What does this prove? Nothing at all.

3) The reason why the third person theory is rejected is because it is not credible. 

A) For a third person to be responsible Neville had to call Jeremy and lie stating Sheila was going crazy to try to get him to come over.  Why would Neville lie and say she was going crazy to get his son to come over and be killed instead of telling his son they are being held hostage call police?

B) Why would someone break in to kill the entire family including the children?  Who would have a motive to kill them all?  No one except Jeremy and the house clearly wasn't broken into.  Who would know how to lock the kitchen window let alone decide to leave through it and lock it and try to stage it as Sheila killing everyone?  The only one who would want everyone dead and stage it as a murder suicide would be Jeremy and he even told Julie he was going to do that.   

There is nothing at all to support a third party doing it what do you have to support your position?  Nothing at all which is why everyone else rejects it.
 

[simong]

I never said she did smoke cannabis that night, you read into to what i had written, what you wanted to read. I will also say that, that applies to most of your post. I would love to debate and question your points in more detail but i have got to say that i find your debating style, a bit long winded. You can consider that victory if you want and i can look back on my life and say i have saved myself a lot of valuable time. 

[sika]

I never said she did smoke cannabis that night, you read into to what i had written, what you wanted to read. I will also say that, that applies to most of your post. I would love to debate and question your points in more detail but i have got to say that i find your debating style, a bit long winded. You can consider that victory if you want and i can look back on my life and say i have saved myself a lot of valuable time. 

Doesn't have to be long winded.  Why do you think that Neville lied to Jeremy during the phone call?

[John]

There could very well have been a third party there that night, maybe even a lookout.  The point is however that only Jeremy knew how to get into and out of the house undetected.  Only Jeremy was capable of approaching the farmhouse without setting off the dog.

I have always believed that Jeremy had encouragement with his murderous scheme, he should not have stood alone in that dock.

[scipio_usmc]

I never said she did smoke cannabis that night, you read into to what i had written, what you wanted to read. I will also say that, that applies to most of your post. I would love to debate and question your points in more detail but i have got to say that i find your debating style, a bit long winded. You can consider that victory if you want and i can look back on my life and say i have saved myself a lot of valuable time. 

Your debating style consists of you making unsubstantiated allegations that make no sense then mentioning a bunch of points that have no relevance at all to the murders let alone to the allegations you made in an attempt to distract from the fact you have no evidence to support your nonsense claims.

My debating style is the norm. You make claims and present evidence to support them and you evaluate the relvant factors.

You can't debate me because you have n oway of refuting my points.

You didn't even make any sense in your response to me.

Let's recap:

You made allegations about a third pary being involved.  Then you mentioned she smoked cannabis some unspecified time prior to the murders implying it was shortly before and seeming to imply she had done so with some third party who committed the crimes.

My response:
 
1) The results prove she smoked the cannabis several days before the murders because it was not in her bloodstream only her urine.  It was smoked before she went to visit WHF.  What relevance does this have to anything?

All I did was post evidence that she smoked pot before she vistied WHF and that it has no relevance to the murders at all.  I didn't bother to go into more detail about where you were trying to go with it. I nipped your efforts in the bud by pointing out it had no relevance and challenging you to establish otherwise.

You seem to admit it has no relevance, seem to suggest you mentioned it for no reaosn at all thus wasting everyone's time including your own by posting it then make this stupid claim:

"I never said she did smoke cannabis that night, you read into to what i had written, what you wanted to read."

I didn't read anything itno it I pointed out merely that she smoked it days earlier and tha tit had no relevance.

You won't debate me in detail because you can;t you would be humiliated if you tried debating in detail. You are a hit and run poster.  You make unsubstantiated allegations then run away so you can try to pretend you didn't get defeated in debate.

[scipio_usmc]

Doesn't have to be long winded.  Why do you think that Neville lied to Jeremy during the phone call?

The only person who ever put forth a reason claimed that Neville knew he was going to die and as long as everyone else was going to die he wanted Jeremy to die with them.

That sounds absurd of course.  No one else asked such question was willing to even venture an excuse.

[simong]

Doesn't have to be long winded.  Why do you think that Neville lied to Jeremy during the phone call?

One of either of these theories. Either Nevill got to the phone and tried to make a call. The killer not knowing if Nevill had made a call or not, panicked and rang JB as they were not sure of how to proceed. They concocted the flimsy Nevill to JB phonecall story. Or....

Nevill didn't call Jeremy. The third party called Jeremy to establish JB's alibi. Jeremy seems shocked, almost disappointed in his interview, that the Police/ BT do not have the technology to ascertain whether a call was made from WHF.