Yes....and I appreciate the point. Nothing in what follows is aimed at you and this is just my opinion. I think this is a good discussion.
The thing is - I have been callous, greedy, money-oriented, deceitful and fake at points in my life.
I've done terrible, terrible things. I hated my mother. I disliked my father. I didn't care when they died. On the day of my father's death, after hearing of his demise, I faked being upset and had an extra helping of cocoa-pops with whole milk.
I'm still not a murderer or a psychopath of any sort.
Of course, there hadn't been a murder, nevertheless the point I am highlighting is the danger of inferring things from patterns of behaviour that are susceptible to context and interpretation and which may not be very important in proving anything.
You are right when you say character traits can have a bearing on proving a criminal case, but there are rules about bad character evidence. It's dangerous to significantly base a criminal conviction on it because it's often essentially subjective and it doesn't actually prove the criminal act.
Virtually all (with one exception) of the 'behavioural' points highlighted in this and other threads are, to me, non-suspicious, so they don’t form a pattern except in your own head. It’s one notch above, “He looks a bit funny”. You can call it evidence, but it can’t be taken seriously because it proves nothing of importance.
And much of it also depends on interpretation of wording and context. A lot of it is ‘verballing’ by relatives and Stan Jones, and other officers, a routine police practice back then prior to the full implementation of PACE, but something ordinary coppers still do to this day. Have you much experience with the police? Some of it, especially from Colin Caffell, is presented as ‘being wiser after the event’, but may in fact be confirmatory biasing of inappropriate but innocent behaviour in order to fit a retrospective narrative. That doesn’t mean Colin Caffell is lying. Far from it. I would never call Colin Caffell a liar. He's a lovely man. But if Jeremy, still a young man, takes his cues from Colin about how to behave so that he can fake grieving (if that’s how you want to put it), is that suspicious?
Don't worry, I do 'get' the point you're all making here and possibly I'm being a but 'autistic' about it, but at the same time, what I'm trying to do is focus on the evidence. I'm not very interested in the 'gossipy' angle on Jeremy because I know that it's unreliable. I have experience of the legal system - from both sides of it - and I have extensive experience of the police and the courts, and I know the dangers involved in adopting these views, which I do think are indicative of bias and can lead you to wrong conclusions.
But I accept he was a proper tanker, a nasty character. You're pushing at an open door with me on that point.
Why don’t you start a forum to speak about YOU?
No-one’s interested in your life; what milk you had with your coco-pops...even that’s weird to go into such unnecessary detail.
You seem to forget, Jeremy Bamber wasn’t convicted of mass murder for cooking himself breakfast (and no, the police refused any — they felt sick), Jeremy was convicted on a whole HOST of irrefutable evidence. Some of which were:
Forensic evidence
His lies about the phone calls; rifle; silencer etc, etc, etc, etc...
Giving information to Julie that ONLY the killer could have known
Telling Julie and others how he planned to kill them
Being caught out that he’d broken in through the bathroom window when they found the hacksaw he hid
The thick mud on June’s new bike
His wetsuit mysteriously being at WHF
He snooped at the wills and had a HUGE MOTIVE
He was greedy
He was a thief
He behaved like he’d won the lottery when they were dead
He didn’t just eat out of hunger — he dined out that expensive restaurants, drank Champagne all night, roared with laughter, went on two holidays (one a drug run)
Had sex with anyone he could
Tried to sell his life story almost immediately
Tried to sell Sheila’s nude photographs
Told lie, after lie, after lie
Lied about Nevill phoning him
Lied about the rabbit
Liked about the rifle not having the scope/silencer attached when it ALWAYS did
Lied about timings if the phone calls that night
Never called 999
He had no alibi
He made two separate statements under caution in which he changed his story
And there’s a whole lot more too...
Littered in your posts are frequent suggestions, despite you making out you're “on the fence” nasty little digs, and what you probably think are clever observations. Such as when Jeremy went on holiday soon after he was buckling at the knees and acting distraught at the funerals: “Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back” of course he came back — he needed to get his inheritance! I know EXACTLY what you’re trying to infer...and you make yourself look stupid.
You talk about lies and contradictions, but you do them yourself, don’t you, eh?
You said you dint like Colin (and said it in a sickly sneaky way, pretending you felt bad saying it). YOU said words to the effect “I just don’t like him. I won’t say why, for reasons I can’t go into. Something about him Ii can’t put my finger on. I don’t like him at all and cannot take to him”
You said all that.
Then in your post above you said:
“ I would never call Colin Caffell a liar. He's a lovely man.”
