Buddy

[Jerry]

John, you are explaining things to me that I already know.

  ....sorry abs....I just had to laugh at that put-down!

Laugh away.
BTW, I am not a supporter, I am a fence sitter. Just not convinced either way. Two (or was it three?) of the jurors weren´t convinced of Jeremy´s guilt either, so I guess it is not that far out.

Give me undecided any day   

At least they didn't think he was innocent?

[abs]

John, you are explaining things to me that I already know.

  ....sorry abs....I just had to laugh at that put-down!

Laugh away.
BTW, I am not a supporter, I am a fence sitter. Just not convinced either way. Two (or was it three?) of the jurors weren´t convinced of Jeremy´s guilt either, so I guess it is not that far out.

I know abs....... I've read your posts long enough to realise you're undecided, and I did suggest once you were sitting on the fence.

No offence intended, by the way. 

Don´t worry, Myster. 

[Admin]

Laugh away.
BTW, I am not a supporter, I am a fence sitter. Just not convinced either way. Two (or was it three?) of the jurors weren´t convinced of Jeremy´s guilt either, so I guess it is not that far out.

I know abs....... I've read your posts long enough to realise you're undecided, and I did suggest once you were sitting on the fence.

No offence intended, by the way. 

Don´t worry, Myster. 

Can you see the logic yet abs?  All the facts do come together concerning the second telephone call which never was and the woman's body in the kitchen which never was.  Come on abs you are an intelligent girl, can you not see when they are taking the proverbial?

[abs]

Laugh away.
BTW, I am not a supporter, I am a fence sitter. Just not convinced either way. Two (or was it three?) of the jurors weren´t convinced of Jeremy´s guilt either, so I guess it is not that far out.

I know abs....... I've read your posts long enough to realise you're undecided, and I did suggest once you were sitting on the fence.

No offence intended, by the way. 

Don´t worry, Myster. 

Can you see the logic yet abs?  All the facts do come together concerning the second telephone call which never was and the woman's body in the kitchen which never was.  Come on abs you are an intelligent girl, can you not see when they are taking the proverbial?

When I say I am not convinced, I actually mean it.

[John]

Laugh away.
BTW, I am not a supporter, I am a fence sitter. Just not convinced either way. Two (or was it three?) of the jurors weren´t convinced of Jeremy´s guilt either, so I guess it is not that far out.

I know abs....... I've read your posts long enough to realise you're undecided, and I did suggest once you were sitting on the fence.

No offence intended, by the way. 

Don´t worry, Myster. 

Can you see the logic yet abs?  All the facts do come together concerning the second telephone call which never was and the woman's body in the kitchen which never was.  Come on abs you are an intelligent girl, can you not see when they are taking the proverbial?

When I say I am not convinced, I actually mean it.

Do you believe in evidence abs?   >@@(*&)

[abs]

Laugh away.
BTW, I am not a supporter, I am a fence sitter. Just not convinced either way. Two (or was it three?) of the jurors weren´t convinced of Jeremy´s guilt either, so I guess it is not that far out.

I know abs....... I've read your posts long enough to realise you're undecided, and I did suggest once you were sitting on the fence.

No offence intended, by the way. 

Don´t worry, Myster. 

Can you see the logic yet abs?  All the facts do come together concerning the second telephone call which never was and the woman's body in the kitchen which never was.  Come on abs you are an intelligent girl, can you not see when they are taking the proverbial?

When I say I am not convinced, I actually mean it.

Do you believe in evidence abs?   >@@(*&)

What a question!  I do, but in this case I don´t see much.

[John]

What a question!  I do, but in this case I don´t see much.

It's a genuine question abs.   You see evidence is all important in a case like Jeremy Bamber.  You have to look at all of the evidence abs before you can make a decision about someone's guilt or innocence.  Looking at isolated bits of papers some 27 years after the crime won't tell you much but that is how Tesko works.  He pulls out these scraps of documents which in themself don't mean anything but he takes them and spins them into a conspiracy theory. 

You are totally wrong by the way when you say that there isn't much evidence in the Bamber case because there is loads.  Granted much of it is circumstantial but very little of it is exculpatory or useful to the defence.  The vast majority of the evidence puts Jeremy smack bang in the middle of these murders by his own testimony.

He has told everyone (except Julie) that Sheila did it so if Sheila didn't do it then he is the prime suspect.

[puglove]

What a question!  I do, but in this case I don´t see much.

It's a genuine question abs.   You see evidence is all important in a case like Jeremy Bamber.  You have to look at all of the evidence abs before you can make a decision about someone's guilt or innocence.  Looking at isolated bits of papers some 27 years after the crime won't tell you much but that is how Tesko works.  He pulls out these scraps of documents which in themself don't mean anything but he takes them and spins them into a conspiracy theory. 

You are totally wrong by the way when you say that there isn't much evidence in the Bamber case because there is loads.  Granted much of it is circumstantial but very little of it is exculpatory or useful to the defence.  The vast majority of the evidence puts Jeremy smack bang in the middle of these murders by his own testimony.

He has told everyone (except Julie) that Sheila did it so if Sheila didn't do it then he is the prime suspect.

I know where abs is coming from here, I don't see much evidence, either. But I think there should be MORE evidence on Sheila. JB had the opportunity to sort himself out, before he called JM and then the police, but Sheila didn't. When you look at that image of Sheila, that's what she is supposed to have looked like after the precise, close contact shots to the boys, a close contact shot to June, and, whether he was already incapacitated or not, basically smashing Ralph's head in. Not to mention the question of how she carried extra bullets or another loaded magazine.

[John]

All that is evidence Shona.  Photographs, swabbings, blood tests, scrapings, fingerprints, blood trails, bullets, bullet casings, footprints, clothing, footwear, blood type analysis, DNA results... etc  etc.

[puglove]

All that is evidence Shona.  Photographs, swabbings, blood tests, scrapings, fingerprints, blood trails, bullets, bullet casings, footprints, clothing, footwear, blood type analysis, DNA results... etc  etc.

Totally. Evidence that it couldn't have possibly been Sheila. BUT. Not enough evidence to prove JB's culpability. That's why it's so important that Mike provides the proof that he insists that he's got, that Ralph called JB.

[John]

Sorry for being so intense about this abs.  It's been a long week!   

[goatboy]

I really don't blame people for feeling uncomfortable that there is no direct forensic evidence to prove Bamber committed the murders, that did bother me at first when I looked at the case. But the facts are that either Neville called Bamber or he didn't, and if he did then Sheila was the murderer. For many reasons it could not have been Sheila (even Mike has tried to explain this away by inventing a second rifle and proposing the theory that June could have been involved too) so if this means there was no telephone call from Neville then Jeremy must have been lying about this. The only reason for lying is that he was the murderer. It has been surmised that he was a fool for inventing this phone call if he did because it could have implicated him. Why run that risk? You've got to remember as well that this was his alibi and it was absolutely accepted by most of the police investigating the murders for a whole month. Another important part of his alibi was to arrive at WHF after the police (imagine if he had genuinely received the call from Neville and was genuinely concerned about his and everybody else's welfare? He would have made sure he got there as quickly as possible even if it meant arriving before the police and waiting. I know I would).

[Milly]

I really don't blame people for feeling uncomfortable that there is no direct forensic evidence to prove Bamber committed the murders, that did bother me at first when I looked at the case. But the facts are that either Neville called Bamber or he didn't, and if he did then Sheila was the murderer. For many reasons it could not have been Sheila (even Mike has tried to explain this away by inventing a second rifle and proposing the theory that June could have been involved too) so if this means there was no telephone call from Neville then Jeremy must have been lying about this. The only reason for lying is that he was the murderer. It has been surmised that he was a fool for inventing this phone call if he did because it could have implicated him. Why run that risk? You've got to remember as well that this was his alibi and it was absolutely accepted by most of the police investigating the murders for a whole month. Another important part of his alibi was to arrive at WHF after the police (imagine if he had genuinely received the call from Neville and was genuinely concerned about his and everybody else's welfare? He would have made sure he got there as quickly as possible even if it meant arriving before the police and waiting. I know I would).

Didn't he even stop on the way to the farm to put on another jumper?    I don't believe that for a moment as the trip from Goldhanger to the farm only takes a few minutes.  It is more likely that he wanted to make sure the police passed him and got there before him as you say goatboy.   Jeremy telephoned Julie at 3am witnessed by two flat mates yet he took another 25 mins to phone Chelmsford police so where was the urgency?   The answer to this is there was none.

[Tim Invictus]

Laugh away.
BTW, I am not a supporter, I am a fence sitter. Just not convinced either way. Two (or was it three?) of the jurors weren´t convinced of Jeremy´s guilt either, so I guess it is not that far out.

I know abs....... I've read your posts long enough to realise you're undecided, and I did suggest once you were sitting on the fence.

No offence intended, by the way. 

Don´t worry, Myster. 

Can you see the logic yet abs?  All the facts do come together concerning the second telephone call which never was and the woman's body in the kitchen which never was.  Come on abs you are an intelligent girl, can you not see when they are taking the proverbial?

When I say I am not convinced, I actually mean it.

Do you believe in evidence abs?   >@@(*&)

John I agree entirely with you and the trial judge that there is an absolute mountain of circumstantial evidence that proves Bamber is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. BUT you really do have to let Abs, Buddy or whoever be undecided, fence sitters, Bamber supporters or whatever! You want an open forum don't you?

 

[John]

John I agree entirely with you and the trial judge that there is an absolute mountain of circumstantial evidence that proves Bamber is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. BUT you really do have to let Abs, Buddy or whoever be undecided, fence sitters, Bamber supporters or whatever! You want an open forum don't you?

 

Why yes of course.  Abs and buddy can have any view they wish.  All I was doing was pointing out the evidence which is overwhelming.  That aside, Jeremy's conduct before and after the trial is very telling.  Innocent people don't hide under a blanket or their cardigan. Innocent people like myself come out smiling and holding our head high!  That's the big difference.  Cowards and killers hide all the time.

You will notice that the guy who has been arrested for the murder of April Jones has also hidden under a blanket.