If Jeremy Bamber cannot persuade us of his innocence...

[John]

If Jeremy Bamber cannot persuade us of his innocence he is unlikely to ever persuade the Court of Appeal.  And therein lies the crux of the problem facing him.  If he were to uncover some overwhelming piece of evidence or some material fact which not only throws doubt on his conviction but leaves one with the single compelling thought that he must be innocent, then that would see him walk free.  I have my severe doubts however that such evidence will ever be found or more importantly, even exists.

I wish him luck!

[Nicholas]

If Jeremy Bamber cannot persuade us of his innocence he is unlikely to ever persuade the Court of Appeal.  And therein lies the crux of the problem facing him.  If he were to uncover some overwhelming piece of evidence or some material fact which not only throws doubt on his conviction but leaves one with the single compelling thought that he must be innocent, then that would see him walk free.  I have my severe doubts however that such evidence will ever be found or more importantly, even exists.

I wish him luck!

Let's face it John not one single supporter of Bamber's sings from the same hymn sheet for starters. Many of the supporters have their own apparent axe to grind over some past wrong doing or slight and some appear to have a scewed view of reality.

[John]

Let's face it John not one single supporter of Bamber's sings from the same hymn sheet for starters. Many of the supporters have their own apparent axe to grind over some past wrong doing or slight and some appear to have a scewed view of reality.

I have been following the supporters arguments for years and am yet to see anything compelling which could in any way support his claims.  The police misbehaviour, the confused communications reports, the silencer issues etc etc..., none of it will make any difference.

[Nicholas]

I have been following the supporters arguments for years and am yet to see anything compelling which could in any way support his claims.  The police misbehaviour, the confused communications reports, the silencer issues etc etc..., none of it will make any difference.

As I keep saying John, most of Bamber's "supporters" have been groomed and conned. It all starts with Bamber. I don't include people like Mike Tesco because he's of a similar ilk as Bamber; a failed con artist.

But it all leads back to Bamber, he's manufactured his entire campaign. Just like he manufactures his personality to suit each and everyone of of his "friends." The Jeremy Bamber his "friends" think they know is all an illusion.

He pits his supporters against each other, as Daisy and Aunt A have showed us. Whilst they cannot bring themselves to publicly admit he's guilty, their doubts are there none the less. They admit Bamber lies, they admit he's arrogant and manipulative etc but to admit they've been duped appears too difficult. Which is a shame because IMO there will come a time in the very near future when they will all learn he is a psychopath.

And whilst they are too busy focusing on each other, they cannot fully focus on what is starring right in front of them. A cold blooded killer..

But as you say, if he cannot persuade us he has no hope of persuading the courts. It really is that simple.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think experts, lawyers and lay people view the case very differently. 

Only experts and lawyers can change JB's fate.

[Nicholas]

I think experts, lawyers and lay people view the case very differently. 

Only experts and lawyers can change JB's fate.

How many experts and lawyers have failed in these past 33 years?

[Nicholas]

The real Jeremy Bamber has been exposed by his friends and supporters

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3187.msg119150#msg119150

The exact SAME Jeremy Bamber who Julie Mugford described all those years ago?

He was and is a consummate actor!

[Alice]

I'm new here but have spent a lot of time over the years reading up on this case. For a while I believed the weepy persuasion of Bamber and his loony supporters and did actually think that there was a possibility of Sheila's guilt. For me now the truth of Bamber's guilt is Sheila's innocence and no amount of silencers, moonlight shadows or anything else Bamber cares to throw into the mixing pot can alter the fact that Sheila's body tells its own story - a woman woken from sleep into a house of horror and coldly shot dead on the second attempt.

[Holly Goodhead]

I'm new here but have spent a lot of time over the years reading up on this case. For a while I believed the weepy persuasion of Bamber and his loony supporters and did actually think that there was a possibility of Sheila's guilt. For me now the truth of Bamber's guilt is Sheila's innocence and no amount of silencers, moonlight shadows or anything else Bamber cares to throw into the mixing pot can alter the fact that Sheila's body tells its own story - a woman woken from sleep into a house of horror and coldly shot dead on the second attempt.

I wouldn't describe myself as "loony" but I'm sure others might beg to differ! 

JB's fate can only be changed by 3 appeal court judges who consider his conviction unsafe based on sound forensic evidence.  Either such evidence exists or it doesn't.   If it exists he'll walk if it doesn't he won't.  Simples. 

[Caroline]

I'm new here but have spent a lot of time over the years reading up on this case. For a while I believed the weepy persuasion of Bamber and his loony supporters and did actually think that there was a possibility of Sheila's guilt. For me now the truth of Bamber's guilt is Sheila's innocence and no amount of silencers, moonlight shadows or anything else Bamber cares to throw into the mixing pot can alter the fact that Sheila's body tells its own story - a woman woken from sleep into a house of horror and coldly shot dead on the second attempt.

Welcome Alice - always great to hear another voice of reason 

[Caroline]

I wouldn't describe myself as "loony" but I'm sure others might beg to differ! 

JB's fate can only be changed by 3 appeal court judges who consider his conviction unsafe based on sound forensic evidence.  Either such evidence exists or it doesn't.   If it exists he'll walk if it doesn't he won't.  Simples.

I don't think you're a loony Holly, you certainly don't leap blindly on any hair brained theory or cling to old myths with a vice grip of desperation. And you do have the good grace to admit when you're wrong.

[Alice]

Not my intention to offend but the campaigns such as the bake off, the graveside reading and the totally offensive 'Sheila alive' are in my opinion the work of loonies!

[APRIL]

Not my intention to offend but the campaigns such as the bake off, the graveside reading and the totally offensive 'Sheila alive' are in my opinion the work of loonies!

Or simply those willing to suppress how vile and horrendous are the crimes he's been convicted of, perhaps?

[Nicholas]

I think experts, lawyers and lay people view the case very differently. 

Only experts and lawyers can change JB's fate.

Don't forget to factor in Julie Migford's evidence

"It is understood that Ms Mugford will be questioned about the role of police in her decision to confess to a bank about her part in a cheque fraud prior to giving evidence at Bamber's trial.
Bamber claims in the appeal that police suppressed certain information in order to bolster the character of their star witness.
It has also been claimed during the hearing that she had sold her story to the News of the World for £25,000 before the trial and not afterwards.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-144370/Ex-girlfriend-face-Bamber-dock.html#ixzz5E5hCNDXp


"Doubt should also be cast on the "selfish" motives of Julie Mugford, Bamber's girlfriend at the time, who told police Bamber had spoken of killing them, Mr Turner said. A bank accountant would give evidence that she had confessed to a cheque fraud, and she had sold her story to the News of the World for £25,000, with her solicitor opening negotiations before the start of the trial. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/oct/18/ukcrime.sarahhall


"Bamber claims in his appeal that police tried to bolster Mrs Smerchanski's image, as she was their star witness.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2358021.stm

[Alice]

I agree that Mugford comes across as totally dishonest and self serving and she had charges against her that she would want to lose. That aside I do think that her evidence gives us the truth on one major point and that is the detail of Matthew M as hitman. It would make perfect sense that a guilty Bamber having told her of his plans and keen to keep her on side would then try to distance himself from the bloody horror that must have shocked her to the core by palming it off on a hitman.