Did JB Receive A Fair Trial?

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

[Eleanor]

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.

[Myster]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

[G-Unit]

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.

[barrier]

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.

[barrier]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[barrier]

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.

[adam]

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.

[steve_trousers]

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.

[barrier]

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?

[Eleanor]

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?

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.