UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on February 07, 2020, 01:49:10 PM
-
No IMO.
Although forensics, like everything else, has moved on since 1985/6 it was possible then to carry out at a soc reconstruction and more importantly take jurors to WHF to show them how events unfolded. As the rifle was discharged 25/26 times with victims' sustaining 25/26 gunshot wounds this provided a mountain of hard data. So why didn't this happen at the time?
DCI Jones said he checked all doors and windows and found them locked and/or secured from within. The relatives then claimed they identified a window which could be shut into the closed position from outside. The prosecution is unclear which windows JB used to enter/exit with the trial judge saying words to the effect it didn't matter. But surely it did and does matter? If it was possible for JB to do what the prosecution claimed then why not take jurors to WHF for jurors to see for themselves?
Other high profile cases have involved jurors taken to soc to see the arguments presented by defence and prosecution but for some reason this doesn't seem to be the case here.
Jurors were taken to an outdoors shooting range in Essex to hear the sound of the rifle discharged with and without the silencer. But given the rifle was discharged indoors this may have affected the sound in any event so what was the point?
-
I don't think that Jeremy Bamber got a fair trial so for me there will always be more than a reasonable doubt. Lots of things that were decidedly dodgy.
I can't tell you exactly what because my interest and knowledge has always been periphery. And this documentary is hardly verbatim. But The Police weren't short of stitching people up in those days.
Will an Appeal have any chance of success? Probably not. The thought of the compensation will frighten them all half to death.
I remain seriously concerned, in so far as I am able.
-
Of course he got a fair trial! He was given every opportunity to come clean, but chose to lie his way throughout, just like he did a year before when interviewed under caution by Taff Jones, Stan Jones and Bob Miller. Chucking in a good dollop of arrogance sealed his fate... "That is what you have got to establish", in response to Arlidge's questioning disbelief about his leaving the Anschutz in the scullery. No wonder Mike Ainsley thought "You've just convicted yourself!" when he heard that.
-
Of course he got a fair trial! He was given every opportunity to come clean, but chose to lie his way throughout, just like he did a year before when interviewed under caution by Taff Jones, Stan Jones and Bob Miller. Chucking in a good dollop of arrogance sealed his fate... "That is what you have got to establish", in response to Arlidge's questioning disbelief about his leaving the Anschutz in the scullery. No wonder Mike Ainsley thought "You've just convicted yourself!" when he heard that.
Did Di Miller interview him?
The above is all subjective.
What about all the physical evidence at soc?
-
Of course he got a fair trial! He was given every opportunity to come clean, but chose to lie his way throughout, just like he did a year before when interviewed under caution by Taff Jones, Stan Jones and Bob Miller. Chucking in a good dollop of arrogance sealed his fate... "That is what you have got to establish", in response to Arlidge's questioning disbelief about his leaving the Anschutz in the scullery. No wonder Mike Ainsley thought "You've just convicted yourself!" when he heard that.
They were very casual with guns in that house. No locking cabinet and leaving them lying around where children could get hold of them.
-
I don't think that Jeremy Bamber got a fair trial so for me there will always be more than a reasonable doubt. Lots of things that were decidedly dodgy.
I can't tell you exactly what because my interest and knowledge has always been periphery. And this documentary is hardly verbatim. But The Police weren't short of stitching people up in those days.
Will an Appeal have any chance of success? Probably not. The thought of the compensation will frighten them all half to death.
I remain seriously concerned, in so far as I am able.
Do you think he didn't do it or there's not enough to convince you he had,theres a difference.
-
No IMO.
Although forensics, like everything else, has moved on since 1985/6 it was possible then to carry out at a soc reconstruction and more importantly take jurors to WHF to show them how events unfolded. As the rifle was discharged 25/26 times with victims' sustaining 25/26 gunshot wounds this provided a mountain of hard data. So why didn't this happen at the time?
DCI Jones said he checked all doors and windows and found them locked and/or secured from within. The relatives then claimed they identified a window which could be shut into the closed position from outside. The prosecution is unclear which windows JB used to enter/exit with the trial judge saying words to the effect it didn't matter. But surely it did and does matter? If it was possible for JB to do what the prosecution claimed then why not take jurors to WHF for jurors to see for themselves?
Other high profile cases have involved jurors taken to soc to see the arguments presented by defence and prosecution but for some reason this doesn't seem to be the case here.
Jurors were taken to an outdoors shooting range in Essex to hear the sound of the rifle discharged with and without the silencer. But given the rifle was discharged indoors this may have affected the sound in any event so what was the point?
Bolded bit,a phone call with a damaged tongue and no blood splatter would be something to behold.
-
Do you think he didn't do it or there's not enough to convince you he had,theres a difference.
I do know the difference, thank you. It's called Reasonable Doubt.
As quoted. "Why shoot them so many times?"
"To make it look like a deranged person had done it."
It is far more simple to believe that it was a deranged person.
Even the Pathologist said that Sheila could have shot herself twice. Or was he mistaken as well?
And of course, the investigation was a bit of a farce.
-
I do know the difference, thank you. It's called Reasonable Doubt.
As quoted. "Why shoot them so many times?"
"To make it look like a deranged person had done it."
It is far more simple to believe that it was a deranged person.
Even the Pathologist said that Sheila could have shot herself twice. Or was he mistaken as well?
And of course, the investigation was a bit of a farce.
A pathologist isn't an investigator.
-
As said, he may have.planned an 11 shot massacre. The deranged bit being June shot in different locations.
Nevill waking changed that.
Were there two of the same rifle at WHF? If planning a 20+ shot massacre he could have gone upstairs with two rifles. Save him having to go downstairs and re.load.
Having two rifles in the main bedroom would have certainly helped him against Nevill.
Once the massacre was completed, he could frame it as a one rifle murder/suicide.
-
Yes, I think Bamber had a fair and just trial and can have no great complaints about the Guilty verdict.
He painted himself into a corner with his own narrative of the phone call, eliminating the possibility of a 3rd party and narrowing it down to himself or Sheila. And all the evidence points to Sheila not being the culprit.
Coupled with the convincing testimony of Julie Mugford, which had the "ring of truth about it" he was rightly convicted.
All that remains now is for him to salve his own conscience and provide closure to all involved with a full confession.
Perhaps if he did so he might even eventually be freed as a frail octogenarian on compassionate grounds.
-
As said, he may have.planned an 11 shot massacre. The deranged bit being June shot in different locations.
Nevill waking changed that.
Were there two of the same rifle at WHF? If planning a 20+ shot massacre he could have gone upstairs with two rifles. Save him having to go downstairs and re.load.
Having two rifles in the main bedroom would have certainly helped him against Nevill.
Once the massacre was completed, he could frame it as a one rifle murder/suicide.
Wouldn't the rifling be different if two guns used?
-
A pathologist isn't an investigator.
Oh, I see. Despite years of experience the opinion of a Pathologist is worthless. So why bother with a Post Mortem? You might as well cut to the chase and deem everyone Guilty. In fact, why bother with a Trial at all?
-
Bolded bit,a phone call with a damaged tongue and no blood splatter would be something to behold.
All physical evidence supports the phone call made before anyone sustained any gunshot wounds.
-
Of course he got a fair trial! He was given every opportunity to come clean, but chose to lie his way throughout, just like he did a year before when interviewed under caution by Taff Jones, Stan Jones and Bob Miller. Chucking in a good dollop of arrogance sealed his fate... "That is what you have got to establish", in response to Arlidge's questioning disbelief about his leaving the Anschutz in the scullery. No wonder Mike Ainsley thought "You've just convicted yourself!" when he heard that.
This is not logical.
-
I do know the difference, thank you. It's called Reasonable Doubt.
As quoted. "Why shoot them so many times?"
"To make it look like a deranged person had done it."
It is far more simple to believe that it was a deranged person.
Even the Pathologist said that Sheila could have shot herself twice. Or was he mistaken as well?
And of course, the investigation was a bit of a farce.
Surely "could have" isn't a definitive? It allows for doubt.
-
All physical evidence supports the phone call made before anyone sustained any gunshot wounds.
So Sheila hadn't gone crazy with the gun then.
-
Yes, I think Bamber had a fair and just trial and can have no great complaints about the Guilty verdict.
He painted himself into a corner with his own narrative of the phone call, eliminating the possibility of a 3rd party and narrowing it down to himself or Sheila. And all the evidence points to Sheila not being the culprit.
Coupled with the convincing testimony of Julie Mugford, which had the "ring of truth about it" he was rightly convicted.
All that remains now is for him to salve his own conscience and provide closure to all involved with a full confession.
Perhaps if he did so he might even eventually be freed as a frail octogenarian on compassionate grounds.
To me, it suggests that he never saw the need to try and make it look like an outside job. It says how much he wanted Sheila to take the blame.
-
Oh, I see. Despite years of experience the opinion of a Pathologist is worthless. So why bother with a Post Mortem? You might as well cut to the chase and deem everyone Guilty. In fact, why bother with a Trial at all?
Familiarise yourself with the Lubbock case,the first pathologist was wrong according to the next three.It happens.
A report by a since-discredited pathologist who was the first to examine Stuart Lubbock's body may have played a part in hampering the police investigation into what happened at Michael Barrymore's £2million Essex home.
-
Surely "could have" isn't a definitive? It allows for doubt.
That was my point.
-
Familiarise yourself with the Lubbock case,the first pathologist was wrong according to the next three.It happens.
A report by a since-discredited pathologist who was the first to examine Stuart Lubbock's body may have played a part in hampering the police investigation into what happened at Michael Barrymore's £2million Essex home.
Topic, Please.
-
I do know the difference, thank you. It's called Reasonable Doubt.
As quoted. "Why shoot them so many times?"
"To make it look like a deranged person had done it."
It is far more simple to believe that it was a deranged person.
Even the Pathologist said that Sheila could have shot herself twice. Or was he mistaken as well?
And of course, the investigation was a bit of a farce.
He also said that if he has seen Sheil in situ at the crime scene he would have had doubts about suicide.
-
He also said that if he has seen Sheil in situ at the crime scene he would have had doubts about suicide.
Thank you. I didn't know that.
But he didn't see her in situ. Why not?
-
Thank you. I didn't know that.
But he didn't see her in situ. Why not?
You're welcome.
He didn't see her in situ because of the snap judgement of 4 murders and 1 suicide. He simply wasn't called out. This might have been so different if he wasn't given the official stance prior to the autopsy i.e. he was allowed to make a decision based on his own findings, including seeing the bodies in situ.
-
You're welcome.
He didn't see her in situ because of the snap judgement of 4 murders and 1 suicide. He simply wasn't called out. This might have been so different if he wasn't given the official stance prior to the autopsy i.e. he was allowed to make a decision based on his own findings, including seeing the bodies in situ.
So another example of what wouldn't happen today.
-
So another example of what wouldn't happen today.
No, but this case did allow for such changes. Lessons were learned and practice improved. Doubt there will ever be a perfect system but I do think that the errors have allowed Bamber to draw this whole things out for so long.
-
No, but this case did allow for such changes. Lessons were learned and practice improved. Doubt there will ever be a perfect system but I do think that the errors have allowed Bamber to draw this whole things out for so long.
That statement is such a laugh. They cocked up on his trial, but never mind, it might help others.
-
So another example of what wouldn't happen today.
Perhaps. But you may rest assured that something similar will. Nothing is ever going to be 100% fail-safe, or even approved. Guilt to one person is usually going to be innocent to another.
-
He also said that if he has seen Sheil in situ at the crime scene he would have had doubts about suicide.
No that's not exactly what he said. He said he would have had concerns about one or two points based on soc images which included the position of the rifle and bible. However there's strong evidence SC was moved between first respondents entering and soc images taken.
-
No that's not exactly what he said. He said he would have had concerns about one or two points based on soc images which included the position of the rifle and bible. However there's strong evidence SC was moved between first respondents entering and soc images taken.
I think that';s splitting hairs Holly.
-
That statement is such a laugh. They cocked up on his trial, but never mind, it might help others.
I don 't think they did cock up his trial, they cocked up when they didn't secure the CS properly.
-
I don 't think they did cock up his trial, they cocked up when they didn't secure the CS properly.
................and the reason they cocked up the crime scene was because Jeremy had total control of it from the moment he spoke to the police about what his father had allegedly said. He then went on to give them chapter and verse about Sheila's history, her mental illness, her gun competency, her suicide attempts, and the conversation about the children being fostered. He set the scene and found what he's spent a couple of hours covertly telling them they'd find. Why on earth would they think to look for anything other than murder/suicide?
-
Yes, I think Bamber had a fair and just trial and can have no great complaints about the Guilty verdict.
He painted himself into a corner with his own narrative of the phone call, eliminating the possibility of a 3rd party and narrowing it down to himself or Sheila. And all the evidence points to Sheila not being the culprit.
Coupled with the convincing testimony of Julie Mugford, which had the "ring of truth about it" he was rightly convicted.
All that remains now is for him to salve his own conscience and provide closure to all involved with a full confession.
Perhaps if he did so he might even eventually be freed as a frail octogenarian on compassionate grounds.
If he is innocent, why should he confess?
If he is guilty, IMO, he wont----not after all this time. He would have nothing left to live for.
-
Considering he would alienate/lose his band of supporters as well as his perks within prison as a potential MoJ then your right yes.
It may be unlikely but not Impossible we may all be in for a surprise at some point.
-
Breaking news -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7982223/Girlfriend-evidence-helped-jail-Jeremy-Bamber-White-House-Farm-murders.html
-
Breaking news -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7982223/Girlfriend-evidence-helped-jail-Jeremy-Bamber-White-House-Farm-murders.html
Interesting. Not a very flattering picture of her.
-
Interesting. Not a very flattering picture of her.
Possibly a pre-implant modelling shoot.
-
Breaking news -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7982223/Girlfriend-evidence-helped-jail-Jeremy-Bamber-White-House-Farm-murders.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7982223/Girlfriend-evidence-helped-jail-Jeremy-Bamber-White-House-Farm-murders.html)
Best not let Jackie see that newspaper cut-out or she'll have a funny fanny fit.
-
Interesting. Not a very flattering picture of her.
Possibly a pre-implant modelling shoot.
Oops! I thought you meant the one of Sheila.
-
Breaking news -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7982223/Girlfriend-evidence-helped-jail-Jeremy-Bamber-White-House-Farm-murders.html
”Today, Julie’s own nemesis is Trudi Benjamin, the woman leading the charge on Bamber’s behalf. A recently qualified law graduate, the 51-year-old is convinced of Bamber’s innocence and has been campaigning for his release since 2010. She is also a director of The JB Campaign Ltd, set up to finance Bamber’s legal battles. Fundraising has involved a Jeremy Bamber ‘Bake Off’ involving, grotesquely, recipes favoured by his mother and the sale of pens inscribed with his signature.
‘I know Jeremy did not and could not have killed his family,’ Mrs Benjamin states on the campaign website. ‘Jeremy loved his family very much.’
Julie Mugford, she argues, was ‘a bitter, jealous, jilted woman’ bent on saving her own skin and seeking revenge for her lover’s infidelity.
Seems Trudi Benjamin runs two twitter accounts?
Jeremy Bamber
@JBamberFacebook
Replying to
@alisonjcampbel2
Visit www. Jeremy-Bamber. Co. UK. Fact upon fact upon fact is discussed and evidence to support the assertions is presented in full.
7:51 PM · Feb 8, 2020·Twitter for Android
https://mobile.twitter.com/JBamberFacebook/status/1226232108152164365
or maybe 3?
Jeremy Bamber
@JBamberFacebook
Oct 16, 2018
Meet the team at UAI: Jeremy Bamber Bamber Campaign, @jbcampaignltd Trudi Benjamin @tru68
, Philip Walker, Yvonne Hartley, and patron, Dr Dennis Eady of Cardiff Law School
https://mobile.twitter.com/JBamberFacebook/status/1052134268099538944
susan penhaligon
@susanpenhaligon
Jan 26, 2016
Meeting @FreeBamberNow campaign lady today, Trudi Benjamin. Very much looking forward to it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/susanpenhaligon/status/691922187595423745
Jackiepreece
”She never looked very healthy that must have been the heroin on the other hand Jeremy looked the picture of health http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1696.msg52084.html#msg52084
Gemini
”Not hard to find her on the internet. I wonder if she would be in the position she is now with convictions for robbery and cheque book fraud and without a tidy sum to set her up.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1696.msg52275.html#msg52275
Gemini
”I'm sorry but I can't help myself but I always refer to her as "Fugly Muggly".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1319.msg40974.html#msg40974
You can learn a lot more about Bamber’s character by what his supporters and CT say about those once close to him
Did Bamber ever refer to JM as "Fugly Muggly“ ?
Has he told Jackie she was on “heroin” ?
-
Possibly a pre-implant modelling shoot.
Sorry, I meant the description.
-
‘I know Jeremy did not and could not have killed his family,’ Mrs Benjamin states on the campaign website. ‘Jeremy loved his family very much.’
----------
What is Trudie basing that on. Jeremy telling her?
-
‘I know Jeremy did not and could not have killed his family,’ Mrs Benjamin states on the campaign website. ‘Jeremy loved his family very much.’
----------
What is Trudie basing that on. Jeremy telling her?
Trudi Benjamin
“When I fist wrote to Jeremy at the tail end of 2010 I already believed that he was innocent, although I probably wasn’t exactly sure why. I knew the basic facts of course, I had followed it in the media from day one. You could say I had grown up with the case. Over the last four years I have done as much in depth research as I can and I now spout with confidence (and I do often!) why I know Jeremy did not and could not have killed his family. I have spent probably 100’s of hours reading all the information that is available to me and I know the following to be true or point to Jeremy’s innocence, in no particular order and certainly not exhaustive:
• No forensics link Jeremy to the murders.
• There was more than one sound moderator, exhibit labels were manipulated and four moderators were passed off to the jury as one and recent forensics have revealed that the silencer wasn’t even used in the murders.
“It still doesn’t explain why I campaign for Jeremy, so I believe he is innocent but I’m often asked why dedicate so much of my time and energy for someone I have no connection to and have never met. Well that is simple I hate injustice. I hate it with a passion. I have watched other miscarriage of justices and seen innocent men and women walk from the Court of Appeal, whilst Jeremy continues to be left behind.
“It also makes me angry how he has been misrepresented in the press, how people who once supported him give accounts to newspapers that they never mentioned previously and how awful it is for Jeremy to have had his family almost demonized at times, as if they somehow deserved what happened to them. Jeremy loved his family very much and I have no doubt that they loved him. Suggesting anything else and having to hear all the lies about them is an injustice all by itself.(sic) http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tru
What did AuntAgatha tell Trudi about Bamber?
-
Trudi Benjamin
“When I fist wrote to Jeremy at the tail end of 2010 I already believed that he was innocent, although I probably wasn’t exactly sure why. I knew the basic facts of course, I had followed it in the media from day one. You could say I had grown up with the case. Over the last four years I have done as much in depth research as I can and I now spout with confidence (and I do often!) why I know Jeremy did not and could not have killed his family. I have spent probably 100’s of hours reading all the information that is available to me and I know the following to be true or point to Jeremy’s innocence, in no particular order and certainly not exhaustive:
• No forensics link Jeremy to the murders.
• There was more than one sound moderator, exhibit labels were manipulated and four moderators were passed off to the jury as one and recent forensics have revealed that the silencer wasn’t even used in the murders.
“It still doesn’t explain why I campaign for Jeremy, so I believe he is innocent but I’m often asked why dedicate so much of my time and energy for someone I have no connection to and have never met. Well that is simple I hate injustice. I hate it with a passion. I have watched other miscarriage of justices and seen innocent men and women walk from the Court of Appeal, whilst Jeremy continues to be left behind.
“It also makes me angry how he has been misrepresented in the press, how people who once supported him give accounts to newspapers that they never mentioned previously and how awful it is for Jeremy to have had his family almost demonized at times, as if they somehow deserved what happened to them. Jeremy loved his family very much and I have no doubt that they loved him. Suggesting anything else and having to hear all the lies about them is an injustice all by itself.http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tru
What did AuntAgatha tell Trudi about Bamber?
Trudi Benjamin’s comments about “injustice” are interesting.
Think she means she “hates” a certain kind of perceived “injustice” to her
Trudis ‘friend’ Michelle Diskin Bates refers to knowing ‘right from wrong’ here,
“Barry had previously been convicted for attempted rape and indecent assault some years earlier, and he lived in the vicinity of Dando’s flat. When I ask Michelle about these serious charges, she doesn’t respond defensively or try to protect her brother; instead she explains, gently, that she too was horrified when she discovered the truth – and told her brother so:
“I’m afraid he was given quite a tough time from me; he didn’t enjoy that visit one bit,”
she says, briskly.
“But I think it needs to be understood that Barry is like a nine-year-old boy living in an adult’s body. These things should not happen, and he knows right from wrong, but at the same time, he has a whole host of disabilities
https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2019/April-2019/My-brother-was-wrongly-convicted-of-murdering-Jill-Dando
Presumably she’ll also know of her ‘friends’ comments following Halls confession?
She knows Bamber’s campaign is a farce and she’s one of the key players of the farce
She has a law degree now apparently so there are no excuses for the way she chooses to behave.
She knows how the criminal justice system works. She knows a criminal trial is about guilt and non guilt and she knows the Court of Appeal aren’t interested in innocence or guilt.
Her, and the CT’s attempts at manipulating the case papers and presenting them in the way they have is foolish and no different to what her ‘hero’ and convicted fraudster Mike Tesco have done before her.
Trudi, Michelle Diskin Bates, they are all a ‘joke’ and a bunch of hypocrites! They see nothing wrong in doing something like this https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/278106/mass-murderer-jeremy-bamber-has-bizarre-mothers-day-rant-read-at-grave-of-parents-he-killed-30-years-ago/ then slag off a TV drama which is only half way through.
Mark Newby stated there would be no further comments pending the JR; that didn’t last long did it!?
And let’s not forget Trudi Benjamin chose to put herself and Jeremy Bamber ‘front and centre’ as she called it not long after Simon Halls guilt was exposed!
”Ms Benjamin, 47, defended the video, saying: “We were sensitive to the fact we were at a graveside. We decided it was a way to put him front and centre.”
She didn’t know Bamber prior to him going to prison, she wasn’t at his trial, she’s a very very foolish women!
She should have demanded Bamber have a brain scan before getting involved with him!
🎀 Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
5h
Very important...did you or yours provide information in the past? We need to hear from you again please. https://twitter.com/bambertweets/status/1220690484676395008
https://mobile.twitter.com/Michelle_Diskin/status/1220690961858166784
They are showing nothing but desperation
Didn’t Michelle Diskin Bates warn Trudi Benjamin of David Jessel’s comments following the justice gap article on Simon Halls confession, her comment was made under his
‘you always have to reserve a part of your brain for the possibility that the person you campaign for just might be guilty.
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/simon-hall-confession-a-time-to-take-stock-by-professor-julie-price-originally-published-by-jon-robins-of-the-justice-gap/
-
Trudi Benjamin
“When I fist wrote to Jeremy at the tail end of 2010 I already believed that he was innocent, although I probably wasn’t exactly sure why. I knew the basic facts of course, I had followed it in the media from day one. You could say I had grown up with the case. Over the last four years I have done as much in depth research as I can and I now spout with confidence (and I do often!) why I know Jeremy did not and could not have killed his family. I have spent probably 100’s of hours reading all the information that is available to me and I know the following to be true or point to Jeremy’s innocence, in no particular order and certainly not exhaustive:
• No forensics link Jeremy to the murders.
• There was more than one sound moderator, exhibit labels were manipulated and four moderators were passed off to the jury as one and recent forensics have revealed that the silencer wasn’t even used in the murders.
“It still doesn’t explain why I campaign for Jeremy, so I believe he is innocent but I’m often asked why dedicate so much of my time and energy for someone I have no connection to and have never met. Well that is simple I hate injustice. I hate it with a passion. I have watched other miscarriage of justices and seen innocent men and women walk from the Court of Appeal, whilst Jeremy continues to be left behind.
“It also makes me angry how he has been misrepresented in the press, how people who once supported him give accounts to newspapers that they never mentioned previously and how awful it is for Jeremy to have had his family almost demonized at times, as if they somehow deserved what happened to them. Jeremy loved his family very much and I have no doubt that they loved him. Suggesting anything else and having to hear all the lies about them is an injustice all by itself.http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tru
What did AuntAgatha tell Trudi about Bamber?
That is not saying how Trudie knows Bamber 'loved his family very much'. Have to assume it is just from Bamber telling her.
The forensic evidence shows it was not Sheila. So it is Bamber.
Two silencers 8(8-))
-
That is not saying how Trudie knows Bamber 'loved his family very much'. Have to assume it is just from Bamber telling her.
The forensic evidence shows it was not Sheila. So it is Bamber.
Two silencers 8(8-))
Given Trudi Benjamin has read and commented on Michelle Diskin Bates book ‘Stand Against Injustice”
Mrs Trudi Benjamin
5.0 out of 5 stars A devastating example of the harm caused by miscarriages of justice
29 October 2018
Format: Kindle Edition
Michelle's book is beautifully written and perfectly encapsulates the devastating effects for a whole family when an individual is wrongly convicted of murder. Michelle's selfless crusade to support her brother and mother, at the sacrifice of being with her young children and husband, is an example to us all.
Barry George was a vulnerable individual who became the police's scape goat in order to satisfy a frenzied media and a public who wanted justice for the much beloved Jill Dando. Barry's wrongful conviction served neither. Michelle's faith in God and strength of character sustained her and her family throughout the fight against a criminal justice system who never wants to right it's own wrongs. Perhaps most illuminating are the extraordinary events following Barry's acquittal at retrial and the measures that had to be taken to protect him.
I sincerely hope that one day justice is served for Jill with the correct murderer arrested but also for Barry with the compensation he so rightly deserves.
Congratulations Michelle, 'Stand Against Injustice' is a must read for all and gives hope to those currently fighting miscarriages of justice.
She may now want to consider reading,
“The Confidence Game: Why We Fall for It . . . Every Time by Maria Konnikova
"It’s a startling and disconcerting read that should make you think twice every time a friend of a friend offers you the opportunity of a lifetime.”
—Erik Larson, #1 New York Times bestselling author of Dead Wake and bestselling author of Devil in the White City
Think you can’t get conned? Think again. The New York Times bestselling author of Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes explains how to spot the con before they spot you.
“[An] excellent study of Con Artists, stories & the human need to believe” –Neil Gaiman, via Twitter
“A compelling investigation into the minds, motives, and methods of con artists—and the people who fall for their cons over and over again.
While cheats and swindlers may be a dime a dozen, true conmen—the Bernie Madoffs, the Jim Bakkers, the Lance Armstrongs—are elegant, outsized personalities, artists of persuasion and exploiters of trust. How do they do it? Why are they successful? And what keeps us falling for it, over and over again? These are the questions that journalist and psychologist Maria Konnikova tackles in her mesmerizing new book.
From multimillion-dollar Ponzi schemes to small-time frauds, Konnikova pulls together a selection of fascinating stories to demonstrate what all cons share in common, drawing on scientific, dramatic, and psychological perspectives. Insightful and gripping, the book brings readers into the world of the con, examining the relationship between artist and victim. The Confidence Game asks not only why we believe con artists, but also examines the very act of believing and how our sense of truth can be manipulated by those around us.
https://www.amazon.com/The-Confidence-Game-Fall-Every/dp/0525427414?creativeASIN=0525427414&linkCode=w61&imprToken=dMyGTWEryPIOsmevcKhknw&slotNum=2&ascsubtag=%5B%5Dc2%5Bp%5Da-1646d2e434aece5b50f81a0345bf980e%5Bi%5DLuhy3V%5Bd%5DT%5Bz%5Dm%5Bt%5Dw%5Br%5Dt.co&tag=thecutonsite-20
-
Trudi Benjamin
“When I fist wrote to Jeremy at the tail end of 2010 I already believed that he was innocent, although I probably wasn’t exactly sure why. (Sic)
The Confidence Game asks not only why we believe con artists, but also examines the very act of believing and how our sense of truth can be manipulated by those around us.