can anyone who believes Jeremy is innocent actaully provide a basis for such

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I resent being called a "guilter." An ugly word that doesn't mean anything.

Maybe I'm an "innocenter." Because it's so obvious that Sheila was innocent. Not a speck of anyone else's blood on her, and no blood in her lungs and throat, even though apparently she shot herself in the throat, then shot herself again. So, even though we can all see a pouch of blood collected in her neck, she didn't gasp or cough or gag, she calmy repositioned the gun and shot herself again. She didn't panic, or feel pain. She didn't gasp. And inhale the blood that ran from the first gunshot.

Madness.

Gosh, I’m learning new things every day

I didn’t realise Sheila had no blood in her lungs, so that’s even further evidence that she couldn’t have stood up, gone downstairs, hid the silencer after unscrewing it, walked back upstairs...then supposedly shot herself a SECOND time without even coughing once!

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Scipio when the CCRC referred JB's case back to the CoA in 2002 they did so based on the silencer evidence.  If any of the other so-called evidence was strong enough in its own right or even collectively eg phone calls. bike, state of SC, SC receiving two gunshot wounds, JM's testimony etc, etc the case would not have been referred.  The reason it was referred is that the other evidence that was presented at trial was weak.

If you read the Judge's summing up you will see the jury's deliberations centred on the silencer and it is this that underpinned the prosecution's case and ultimately convicted JB. 

The tragedy happened on 7th August 1985.  JB was not arrested and charged until a month later.  Why would a mass murderer be allowed to roam free for a month and leave the country?  If it was as obvious as you seem to think how come experienced police officers, pathologist and doctor didn't at least have niggling doubts?  DS jones claims he had doubts from the off but as the pathologist said DS Jones said nothing of significance it was based on a gut feeling as a result of JB's behaviour eg bacon butty etc

You’re wrong, Holly

The judge actually said to the jury that they could come to a decision on “Julie Mugford’s statement alone”...

[G-Unit]

The policeman Myall judged the conversation to be “very strange”, according to CAL’s book.

In the interest of balance other conversations occured;

Jeremy Bamber asked Dr Craig and Chief Superintendant Harris if he could go into the farmhouse. Upon his request being refused he asked "Can't I see my Dad?". Harris explained that his parents were dead. "I want to see him. Why can't my Dad come out to see me?" [CAL page 177]

[Caroline]

Gosh, I’m learning new things every day

I didn’t realise Sheila had no blood in her lungs, so that’s even further evidence that she couldn’t have stood up, gone downstairs, hid the silencer after unscrewing it, walked back upstairs...then supposedly shot herself a SECOND time without even coughing once!

Even stranger.

[Holly Goodhead]

You’re wrong, Holly

The judge actually said to the jury that they could come to a decision on “Julie Mugford’s statement alone”...

No I'm no wrong.  This is what the trial judge said:

The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.

154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.

It was the evidence relating to the sound moderator that the judge said could "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.

[Vertigo Swirl]

In the interest of balance other conversations occured;

Jeremy Bamber asked Dr Craig and Chief Superintendant Harris if he could go into the farmhouse. Upon his request being refused he asked "Can't I see my Dad?". Harris explained that his parents were dead. "I want to see him. Why can't my Dad come out to see me?" [CAL page 177]

I expect if Gerry McCann had been chatting about buying a Porsche on the night Madeleine went missing you probably wouldn’t be so keen to point out other conversations that occurred, 

[Holly Goodhead]

I expect if Gerry McCann had been chatting about buying a Porsche on the night Madeleine went missing you probably wouldn’t be so keen to point out other conversations that occurred,

JB did not initiate the conversations.  They were engineered by the police to take his mind off the situation.  And the Porsche referred to was a kit car. Have you read PC Myall's statements along with the other first respondents?

[Vertigo Swirl]

JB did not initiate the conversations.  They were engineered by the police to take his mind off the situation.  And the Porsche referred to was a kit car. Have you read PC Myall's statements along with the other first respondents?

No.  Are you saying that CAL misreported him when he said the conversation was “very strange”?

[Holly Goodhead]

No.  Are you saying that CAL misreported him when he said the conversation was “very strange”?

For those who are interested in the case I don't understand why they would want to go to third parties when full statements and reports exist straight from the horse's mouth. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

For those who are interested in the case I don't understand why they would want to go to third parties when full statements and reports exist straight from the horse's mouth.

Did CAL not conduct her own research and interviews?  Is her book not reliable?  I am new to the case and have started with her book, perhaps my lack of in-depth knowledge of each and every statement means I’m not worthy of your time, in which case just ignore my comments and I’ll talk to others about it.

[Holly Goodhead]

Did CAL not conduct her own research and interviews?  Is her book not reliable?  I am new to the case and have started with her book, perhaps my lack of in-depth knowledge of each and every statement means I’m not worthy of your time, in which case just ignore my comments and I’ll talk to others about it.

I would recommend cross referencing with the primary source. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

I would recommend cross referencing with the primary source.

I am not planning on devoting a large proportion of my life to this case and and satisfied with the information I am getting from the book I’m reading.  If the police officer did not say that Jeremy’s conversation was “very strange” then perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary, because this is what he said to the author of the book in 2014.  In fact if he hadn’t thought the conversation worthy of note at the time, I don’t suppose it would have appeared in the statement in the first place.

[APRIL]

I am not planning on devoting a large proportion of my life to this case and and satisfied with the information I am getting from the book I’m reading.  If the police officer did not say that Jeremy’s conversation was “very strange” then perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary, because this is what he said to the author of the book in 2014.  In fact if he hadn’t thought the conversation worthy of note at the time, I don’t suppose it would have appeared in the statement in the first place.

For what it's worth, I, too, believe his response to have been very strange. I've done grief counselling and been privy to grieving on many levels. It's been my own experience that those who are grieving can't focus on anything other than their grief and the loss responsible for it. They will often talk at length about the person lost to them.

[G-Unit]

There were different opinions about Jeremy Bamber's reactions, despite people concentrating only on those which paint him in a bad light.

Sgt Jeapes reported that Jeremy Bamber was in a very distressed state. Dr Craig said Jeremy was grief stricken and suffering from emotional shock. DC Clark thought Jeremy hadn't taken in the fact that his family were all dead.

[APRIL]

There were different opinions about Jeremy Bamber's reactions, despite people concentrating only on those which paint him in a bad light.

Sgt Jeapes reported that Jeremy Bamber was in a very distressed state. Dr Craig said Jeremy was grief stricken and suffering from emotional shock. DC Clark thought Jeremy hadn't taken in the fact that his family were all dead.

He certainly gave them what they expected to see. A good impression of a grieving son.