The Lies of Jeremy Bamber

[starryian]

Gosh,sorry not sure what that's all about  -- was that in answer to me,Stephanie? if so,I'm not John,KC or any body else.I'm Cathy,a retired school teacher from Brighton and the views I gave earlier about MOJs are genuine

It is OK Cathy no problems. It is just that some people are posting things on this thread that are irrelavant to the subject being discussed. Cathy you have some excellent points and you appear to be a very good analyst of the case. Keep your posts coming as they are most interesting.

[sika]

Gosh,sorry not sure what that's all about  -- was that in answer to me,Stephanie? if so,I'm not John,KC or any body else.I'm Cathy,a retired school teacher from Brighton and the views I gave earlier about MOJs are genuine

It is OK Cathy no problems. It is just thats some people are posting things on this thread that are irrelavant to the subject being discussed. Cathy you have some excellent points and you appear to be a very good analyst of the case. Kep your posts coming as they are most interesting.

Hear,hear.  Is it safe yet?  Have the lunatics gone?

[starryian]

Gosh,sorry not sure what that's all about  -- was that in answer to me,Stephanie? if so,I'm not John,KC or any body else.I'm Cathy,a retired school teacher from Brighton and the views I gave earlier about MOJs are genuine

It is OK Cathy no problems. It is just thats some people are posting things on this thread that are irrelavant to the subject being discussed. Cathy you have some excellent points and you appear to be a very good analyst of the case. Kep your posts coming as they are most interesting.

Hear,hear.  Is it safe yet?  Have the lunatics gone?

Let's hope so Sika,
We can resume where we left off. You are also an excellent poster Sika. When did you first become interested in the case? You have contributed well with many excellent and deeply astute observations.

[cathiethesceptic]

Thanks v.much indeed guys

I have 1 thing I have been wondering about and would like to know what others think

Bob woffinden was generally derided in his volte face article,when he suggested that JB could have been wearing a wet-suit to commit the murders and this would account for why there were no marks on him and no blood-stained clothes.But I think its quite a plausible out- fit to wear (minus the flippers of course!) if you think you could get scratched or splattered in blood.You could just hop in the shower withit still on,and hey presto! all blood stains washed away.He would have showered at WHF ( wasn't it stated by AE that there was evidence somebody had showered that night  the nozzle not replaced,or something?)before leaving


Also,didn't JM mention some where in her notes that she,JB and some friends had gone scuba-diving in Kent a couple of weeks after the murders AND JB had to borrow somebody else's wet-suit cos his was damaged,or lost or something

Also,didn't Julie Mugford mention in passing that a couple of weeks after the murders that she, JB and some friends went scuba diving in Kent BUT JB had to borrow somebody else's wet-suit cos his was damaged or something?

Sorry if this has all been discussed before  -- I cpuldn't find a thread about it ,but I'm not that proficient on searching for things on forums

[cathiethesceptic]

sorry seem to have said the same thing twice  -- all this going on about trolls and infiltration is making me go gaga!!

either that or I need a large glass of wine -  but not Lambrusco LOL...

[Dillon]

Hi cathiethesceptic ( cor what a mouthful ! ) I think the wetsuit theory is a bit speculative and I have not come across any real evidence to support it. However, the killer must have been absolutely covered in blood so might have resorted to some sort of protective garment, slaughterman (person) style. 

[sika]

Thanks for your kind words Ian.  I am old enough to have been aware of the murders at the time, and living in Chelmsford, as I did and still do, have been fascinated ever since.  I have followed all the twists and turns over the years without going into it all in any great depth.....until now!  All the headline defence claims that have been made over the years, for example the scratches on the Aga, the telephone logs, the figure at the window, have been proved to have no substance.  Even if you were ale to find enough doubt to believe that Jeremy might not be guilty, you then have to find enough to convince you that Shelia was!  The whole legal appeal system has indulged Bamber to an extraordinary extent, so to suggest conspiracies and cover ups is foolish.  Had the initial investigation by Essex Police
been carried out properly, they would have had a mountain of irrefutable evidence to convict Bamber.  Despite this, due to the fact that Bamber's plan was ill thought through and clumsy, we know that it could only be him that carried out the deed.  It beats me how he thought he would get away with it!  The more I have read about this case, and I have spent a lot of time on the pro Bamber site, the more convinced I become.  Forget all the talk of telephone calls, silencers, News of the World contracts, burn marks etc etc and apply commonsense.  How on earth could Shelia have done it?  Case closed.  Incidentally, my mum was at the original court for most of the trial in a professional capacity, I always remember her saying 'it was him, he did it, no doubt'.  What more proof do you need?  .  One final point, I don't think that the importance of hearing and seeing a witness give evidence on the stand, can be underestimated. 

You did ask!!

[sika]

Hi Cathie, I'm not really sure how a wet suit would have been beneficial.  Given the amount of time it took for Police to start investigating JB, he would have had plenty of time to dispose of clothing.

[starryian]

Thanks v.much indeed guys

I have 1 thing I have been wondering about and would like to know what others think

Bob woffinden was generally derided in his volte face article,when he suggested that JB could have been wearing a wet-suit to commit the murders and this would account for why there were no marks on him and no blood-stained clothes.But I think its quite a plausible out- fit to wear (minus the flippers of course!) if you think you could get scratched or splattered in blood.You could just hop in the shower withit still on,and hey presto! all blood stains washed away.He would have showered at WHF ( wasn't it stated by AE that there was evidence somebody had showered that night  the nozzle not replaced,or something?)before leaving


Also,didn't JM mention some where in her notes that she,JB and some friends had gone scuba-diving in Kent a couple of weeks after the murders AND JB had to borrow somebody else's wet-suit cos his was damaged,or lost or something

Also,didn't Julie Mugford mention in passing that a couple of weeks after the murders that she, JB and some friends went scuba diving in Kent BUT JB had to borrow somebody else's wet-suit cos his was damaged or something?

Sorry if this has all been discussed before  -- I cpuldn't find a thread about it ,but I'm not that proficient on searching for things on forums

Cathy, You are correct there was some discussion over a wetsuit and very interesting it became. Apparently the top half to a wetsuit was found on the farm grounds a short time after the murders. Unfortunately nothing could be proven that it belonged to Bamber or it's reasons for being there. Robert Boutflour believed that Bamber wore the wetsuit when carrying out the killings in order to protect himself from blood contamination. Robert also believed Bamber took a shower whilst wearing the suit so as to remove any evidence on him.
Obviously this got no further in the case as no evidence could link Bamber to it.

[cathiethesceptic]

Hi Dillon you can call me Cath for short

Yes,guess the wet-suit might be a long shot -- farm overalls,yes that sounds plausible

[sika]

I've got to say Ian, for all the mistakes that Bamber made, would he have left such a potentially incriminating piece of clothing at the scene?

[starryian]

Thanks for your kind words Ian.  I am old enough to have been aware of the murders at the time, and living in Chelmsford, as I did and still do, have been fascinated ever since.  I have followed all the twists and turns over the years without going into it all in any great depth.....until now!  All the headline defence claims that have been made over the years, for example the scratches on the Aga, the telephone logs, the figure at the window, have been proved to have no substance.  Even if you were ale to find enough doubt to believe that Jeremy might not be guilty, you then have to find enough to convince you that Shelia was!  The whole legal appeal system has indulged Bamber to an extraordinary extent, so to suggest conspiracies and cover ups is foolish.  Had the initial investigation by Essex Police
been carried out properly, they would have had a mountain of irrefutable evidence to convict Bamber.  Despite this, due to the fact that Bamber's plan was ill thought through and clumsy, we know that it could only be him that carried out the deed.  It beats me how he thought he would get away with it!  The more I have read about this case, and I have spent a lot of time on the pro Bamber site, the more convinced I become.  Forget all the talk of telephone calls, silencers, News of the World contracts, burn marks etc etc and apply commonsense.  How on earth could Shelia have done it?  Case closed.  Incidentally, my mum was at the original court for most of the trial in a professional capacity, I always remember her saying 'it was him, he did it, no doubt'.  What more proof do you need?  .  One final point, I don't think that the importance of hearing and seeing a witness give evidence on the stand, can be underestimated. 

You did ask!!

Good, sound reasoning Sika. Good to see you are from the vacinity. I hear that there was a lot of talk immediately after the murders about who was responsible etc. I also hear that Bamber used to work in Chelmsford at a fast food outlet called 'Sloppy Joe's' It was here that he was to meet Julie Mugford for the first time.
I agree with your reasoning.  Sheila could not possibly have carried out the killings. This is true on so many levels.
I also remember the case. I was a very young lad at the time, very much came froma close-knit family and I remember thinking to myself .........how appalling that someone could kill their own family. I just couldn't believe it. I couldnt take it in how evil someone would have to be to brutally murder the very people that gave him a home, support, money and most things in life that working class boys like me could only dream of. It was then that I learned for the first time in my life that there are some truly evil, despicable people out there that will go to any lengths in order to get what they want. To me this case marks a watershed in my own naivity.

[John]

Thanks v.much indeed guys

I have 1 thing I have been wondering about and would like to know what others think

Bob woffinden was generally derided in his volte face article,when he suggested that JB could have been wearing a wet-suit to commit the murders and this would account for why there were no marks on him and no blood-stained clothes.But I think its quite a plausible out- fit to wear (minus the flippers of course!) if you think you could get scratched or splattered in blood.You could just hop in the shower withit still on,and hey presto! all blood stains washed away.He would have showered at WHF ( wasn't it stated by AE that there was evidence somebody had showered that night  the nozzle not replaced,or something?)before leaving


Also,didn't JM mention some where in her notes that she,JB and some friends had gone scuba-diving in Kent a couple of weeks after the murders AND JB had to borrow somebody else's wet-suit cos his was damaged,or lost or something

Also,didn't Julie Mugford mention in passing that a couple of weeks after the murders that she, JB and some friends went scuba diving in Kent BUT JB had to borrow somebody else's wet-suit cos his was damaged or something?

Sorry if this has all been discussed before  -- I cpuldn't find a thread about it ,but I'm not that proficient on searching for things on forums

Cathy, You are correct there was some discussion over a wetsuit and very interesting it became. Apparently the top half to a wetsuit was found on the farm grounds a short time after the murders. Unfortunately nothing could be proven that it belonged to Bamber or it's reasons for being there. Robert Boutflour believed that Bamber wore the wetsuit when carrying out the killings in order to protect himself from blood contamination. Robert also believed Bamber took a shower whilst wearing the suit so as to remove any evidence on him.
Obviously this got no further in the case as no evidence could link Bamber to it.

I wonder why it was discarded out in the grounds?  Jeremy certainly had a wetsuit as he went out to New Zealand to do diver training.  Discarding a wetsuit is a bit suspicious.

[starryian]

I've got to say Ian, for all the mistakes that Bamber made, would he have left such a potentially incriminating piece of clothing at the scene?

You would have thought so would you? However, I believe that Bamber thought he could get away with it without much difficulty. If he did wear and then dispose of the wetsuit he knew it couldn't be linked to him. He probably removed it because it would have looked highly suspicious if the police pulled him over he would have a lot of explaining to do. Also he would have been sweating profusely from his cycling exertions and rubber is a non-porous material. He would have almost certainly overheated. So it makes perfect sense to dump it straight after the murders. However, this is pure speculation as there is no evidence. It is very interesting though 

[abs]

I think the wetsuit theory sounds like a Donald Duck story - no offence! Just too "out there" in my opinion.