What doubts on Jeremy's innocence do supporters have ?

[adam]

Jeremy's supporters are very determined. Creating the OS, CT Youtube videos and fund raising campaigns.

Away from official support, supporters on the forums are just as determined, Mike posting his theories, Lookout saying 'Jeremy is innocent' & Nigel managing his threads.  David monitors the Blue forum 24/7, ready to attack any guilty posters. All unpaid.

Nigel said 'he would put his life on Jeremy being innocent', while Trudie is more cautious saying she 'believes' Jeremy is innocent.

With a unbreached 33 year old conviction, one alive suspect with motives, an opportunity and no alibi, there must be big doubts from all supporters. All the forensic & circumstantial evidence points to Jeremy.

David is a hardcore supporter & only poster who used to be a hardcore guilter. Nugs claimed he used to be a guilter after I brought up David's stance change, although he's never said why & has always been a conspiracy theorist poster. Mike said he believed Jeremy was guilty before he met him. These posters have serious doubts on Jeremy's innocence, which they are not making public.

All supporters promote things to make Jeremy look innocent & defend or ignore things that make him look guilty. But they will all have a lot of major  doubts. What are these doubts ?

[APRIL]

I imagine it might be very much more difficult for supporters to give voice to any doubts than for those of us who believe him guilty -I'm certain we all agree it would be THE most appalling MoJ if an innocent man had been convicted- the problem is that once they give voice to any doubts that may have been in their heads, those doubts become reality and might not go away. It becomes increasingly difficult to believe -especially when we're treated to Walt Disney type fantasies allegedly proving him innocent- that they're truly convinced he's innocent.

[Real justice]

I imagine it might be very much more difficult for supporters to give voice to any doubts than for those of us who believe him guilty -I'm certain we all agree it would be THE most appalling MoJ if an innocent man had been convicted- the problem is that once they give voice to any doubts that may have been in their heads, those doubts become reality and might not go away. It becomes increasingly difficult to believe -especially when we're treated to Walt Disney type fantasies allegedly proving him innocent- that they're truly convinced he's innocent.

Good post April, I think we were all drawn to the case because of doubts?  Having the ability to see the untruths and not rely on gut instinct helps.

[adam]

I came into the case with an open mind. Basically had no choice as knew nothing about it.

The internet & Youtube is very 50/50 & Wilkes's book is unbiased. As all posters will testify, once I read up on the case,  I have never had any doubts of guilt -

Julie lying  - No.

Relatives fabricating the silencer - No.

Police fabricating evidence - No.

Nevill ringing Jeremy - No.

Credible Sheila scenario - No.

Important missing evidence - No.

Sheila still alive - No.

----------

Supporters will passionately support each posibility. However when I suggested an Industrial frame no one supported it & Mike got quite upset.

[adam]

I imagine it might be very much more difficult for supporters to give voice to any doubts than for those of us who believe him guilty -I'm certain we all agree it would be THE most appalling MoJ if an innocent man had been convicted- the problem is that once they give voice to any doubts that may have been in their heads, those doubts become reality and might not go away. It becomes increasingly difficult to believe -especially when we're treated to Walt Disney type fantasies allegedly proving him innocent- that they're truly convinced he's innocent.

What were you're doubts when you were a supporter ? How did you deal with them ?

[APRIL]

What were you're doubts when you were a supporter ? How did you deal with them ?

Well, there was no Epiphany. At times it was a struggle. Thoughts, that I never voiced, had been running around in my head for some time. You have to understand that my reasons for believing him innocent were entirely emotional -our upbringings were as close as makes no difference- naively, I couldn't accept it possible that someone who was adopted would be 'ungrateful' enough to do such a thing. It was something which, at the time, my own circumstances wouldn't allow me to separate from. There is also the point -at the time it occurred- that Julie's portrayal by the media, indeed, her own actions- muddied the waters. Of the two, it was generally felt that she was the worst. It may have served to make him appear 'more' innocent.

Anyway, once the emotional veil started to lift, it was clear that he was subject to the same psychologies as the rest of us and strangely, it made him MORE -rather than- less human. It allowed for sibling rivalry. It allowed for resentment. It allowed for greed. It allowed for him feeling trapped by a life he felt compelled to lead. Once this understanding dawned, his actions -on the night- took on a different complexion. His behaviours throughout his adult life were entirely at odds with the person he tried to present himself as being. There was never any ONE thing...................but that alleged phone call -and his casual arrogance in saying he didn't think calling 999 would have got the police there faster- probably sealed it for me.

[adam]

Well, there was no Epiphany. At times it was a struggle. Thoughts, that I never voiced, had been running around in my head for some time. You have to understand that my reasons for believing him innocent were entirely emotional -our upbringings were as close as makes no difference- naively, I couldn't accept it possible that someone who was adopted would be 'ungrateful' enough to do such a thing. It was something which, at the time, my own circumstances wouldn't allow me to separate from. There is also the point -at the time it occurred- that Julie's portrayal by the media, indeed, her own actions- muddied the waters. Of the two, it was generally felt that she was the worst. It may have served to make him appear 'more' innocent.

Anyway, once the emotional veil started to lift, it was clear that he was subject to the same psychologies as the rest of us and strangely, it made him MORE -rather than- less human. It allowed for sibling rivalry. It allowed for resentment. It allowed for greed. It allowed for him feeling trapped by a life he felt compelled to lead. Once this understanding dawned, his actions -on the night- took on a different complexion. His behaviours throughout his adult life were entirely at odds with the person he tried to present himself as being. There was never any ONE thing...................but that alleged phone call -and his casual arrogance in saying he didn't think calling 999 would have got the police there faster- probably sealed it for me.

Joining the Blue forum in 2012 would have helped nullified any doubts at the time. It was very pro Jeremy then.

[adam]

I've previously accused David of attempting a quiet stance change, so he could use his images to goad guilters. Knowing he couldn't goad supporters as some are moderators who are also fiercely protective of Lookout, Buddy & Roch. He brown nosed a moderator with his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' & there was always a slim chance he would get into Bamber's inner circle.

However if he really changed stance from hardcore guilter because he 'realised the relatives could have fabricated the silencer without police assistance', he must still have dozens of doubts. The other things that made him so strongly believe Bamber was guilty, can't just disappear.

Hopefully he will be man enough to say what his doubts are.

[Samson]

Jeremy's supporters are very determined. Creating the OS, CT Youtube videos and fund raising campaigns.

Away from official support, supporters on the forums are just as determined, Mike posting his theories, Lookout saying 'Jeremy is innocent' & Nigel managing his threads.  David monitors the Blue forum 24/7, ready to attack any guilty posters. All unpaid.

Nigel said 'he would put his life on Jeremy being innocent', while Trudie is more cautious saying she 'believes' Jeremy is innocent.

With a unbreached 33 year old conviction, one alive suspect with motives, an opportunity and no alibi, there must be big doubts from all supporters. All the forensic & circumstantial evidence points to Jeremy.

David is a hardcore supporter & only poster who used to be a hardcore guilter. Nugs claimed he used to be a guilter after I brought up David's stance change, although he's never said why & has always been a conspiracy theorist poster. Mike said he believed Jeremy was guilty before he met him. These posters have serious doubts on Jeremy's innocence, which they are not making public.

All supporters promote things to make Jeremy look innocent & defend or ignore things that make him look guilty. But they will all have a lot of major  doubts. What are these doubts ?

No one on injustice anywhere posts any more suggesting he is guilty, I suggest you read the thread.
On the facts we have it is impossible Bamber did this crime, so the corollary is as it appears, the relatives have stolen his life and his inheritance.
Adam you simply have not studied other cases to see this one is an exact mirror of several, including Mark Lundy, Amanda Knox, Russ Faria, Kirsten Lobato.

This sort of injustice is rare on a statistical basis, but surprisingly commonplace over the world population.
Until you broaden your research methods you and your friends here are doomed to holding a position that is completely impossible at all levels.
Sorry mate.

[Caroline]

No one on injustice anywhere posts any more suggesting he is guilty, I suggest you read the thread.
On the facts we have it is impossible Bamber did this crime, so the corollary is as it appears, the relatives have stolen his life and his inheritance.
Adam you simply have not studied other cases to see this one is an exact mirror of several, including Mark Lundy, Amanda Knox, Russ Faria, Kirsten Lobato.

This sort of injustice is rare on a statistical basis, but surprisingly commonplace over the world population.
Until you broaden your research methods you and your friends here are doomed to holding a position that is completely impossible at all levels.
Sorry mate.

Because no one over there knows the case (Holly aside) so they rely on the rubbish posted by Zelots (again - Holly aside).

[adam]

Because no one over there knows the case (Holly aside) so they rely on the rubbish posted by Zelots (again - Holly aside).

What doubts did you have when a supporter. How did you deal with them ? 

[Caroline]

What doubts did you have when a supporter. How did you deal with them ?

I was never comfortable with the idea of the phone call, not dialling 999 etc. It just never sat right. It was writing to Jeremy himself though that convinced me. His habit of avoiding particular questions. Like "did you try and sell explicit pictures of Sheila?". And of course the wallet.

[adam]

I was never comfortable with the idea of the phone call, not dialling 999 etc. It just never sat right. It was writing to Jeremy himself though that convinced me. His habit of avoiding particular questions. Like "did you try and sell explicit pictures of Sheila?". And of course the wallet.

The OS says The Sun contacted him -

'For Jeremy Bamber, media intrusion continued and a tabloid journalist invited Jeremy to tell his story to the paper. Brett Collins had advised Jeremy to go along to meet with the journalist who was offering money.'

---------

Michael Fielder says Brett contacted him. Nugs's theory is Jeremy offerred The Sun his story for free, but The Sun rejected this to print a false story about photos instead. What did Jeremy tell you ?

[adam]

No one on injustice anywhere posts any more suggesting he is guilty, I suggest you read the thread.
On the facts we have it is impossible Bamber did this crime, so the corollary is as it appears, the relatives have stolen his life and his inheritance.
Adam you simply have not studied other cases to see this one is an exact mirror of several, including Mark Lundy, Amanda Knox, Russ Faria, Kirsten Lobato.

This sort of injustice is rare on a statistical basis, but surprisingly commonplace over the world population.
Until you broaden your research methods you and your friends here are doomed to holding a position that is completely impossible at all levels.
Sorry mate.

I looked at the 'Injustice Anywhere' site.

I knew Luminous Wanderer had cried onto it after I pulled apart his Sheila scenario. But didn't know TomG was there as well. He used to deny posting something whenever I questioned him. Then go silent when I quoted his post.

The sight is called 'Injustice Anywhere', so safety in numbers with everyone pulling in the same direction.

[Caroline]

The OS says The Sun contacted him -

'For Jeremy Bamber, media intrusion continued and a tabloid journalist invited Jeremy to tell his story to the paper. Brett Collins had advised Jeremy to go along to meet with the journalist who was offering money.'

---------

Michael Fielder says Brett contacted him. Nugs's theory is Jeremy offerred The Sun his story for free, but The Sun rejected this to print a false story about photos instead. What did Jeremy tell you ?

That's BS, how would they know such pictures existed if Bamber hadn't told them? He used the same words to Fielder as he has with Colin.

He didn't tell me anything, he simply ignored the question.