|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Nov 27, 2022 16:14:30 GMT
www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/23148131.jeremy-bamber-innocent-new-white-house-farm-documentary/Whilst Jeremy Bamber's sister was receiving psychiatric treatment at The Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead she was prescribed a side effect medication for the psychiatric drug she was taking. When taken to excess this drug can cause "manic paranoia". His sister was well-known around Hampstead for her "extreme behaviour". Some years ago I emailed Bamber with this info ... the response I got back ... the words he used ... which I can't now remember ... got me thinking: "Either this guy is extremely cunning ... or he is innocent". After 37 years in prison he is still claiming to be innocent ... despite the fact that refusing to admit his guilt will likely keep him in prison until he dies. I'm familiar the effects that overdosing on this side effect drug can have because someone I knew had an hours long manic psychotic episode involving hostility towards everybody present (when he was a resident in a Mind hostel ... staff were not present at the time. I was visiting someone I knew there). The drugs effects are known to street addicts. There is a picture of Bamber at the funeral of one of his supposed victims ... the look on his face is that of someone experiencing "extreme grief".
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 28, 2022 19:49:03 GMT
I don't know, but if I'd been wrongly imprisoned for a crime I hadn't committed, I would never confess to it either, not even if it meant dying in prison.
My last words would be "I am innocent".
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 28, 2022 21:38:24 GMT
It's very hard to see that the case was proven to the criminal standard but the truth is juries don't necessarily apply that in their individual thinking.
The prosecution case boiled down to Jeremy Bamber couldn't prove his sister put the blood stained silencer back in the gun cupboard therefore he must have shot her with the silencer fitted and so it was he and not her that was the mass murderer. Hardly convincing is it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 28, 2022 23:51:58 GMT
It's very hard to see that the case was proven to the criminal standard but the truth is juries don't necessarily apply that in their individual thinking. The prosecution case boiled down to Jeremy Bamber couldn't prove his sister put the blood stained silencer back in the gun cupboard therefore he must have shot her with the silencer fitted and so it was he and not her that was the mass murderer. Hardly convincing is it.
Don't be daft, Stevie.
"The prosecution argued that there was no evidence that Bamber's father had telephoned him, stating that Nevill was too badly injured to have spoken to anyone; that there was no blood on the kitchen phone; and that he would have called the police, not Bamber..."
Not to mention:
"A few weeks before the murders, Bamber broke into and robbed the caravan park; this was only revealed following the murders, when he admitted to the robbery after his girlfriend Julie Mugford came forward as a witness against him..."
That being the caravan park owned by his (murdered) family against whom he clearly had a grudge.
And:
"...Bamber reportedly boasted of smuggling heroin overseas and broke into a jewellery shop to steal two expensive watches, one of which he gave to a girlfriend in the UK..."
He was a serial offender and guess what? Yep, they tell lies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 29, 2022 0:08:54 GMT
Or in short there was no 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' just like I said.
It was a hugely bungled police investigation and being unable to prove the defendant's account is nothing like proof beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
Just like not proving to beyond reasonable doubt is not the same as not showing it was on the balance of probabilities likely, which it was.
Logic, try it some time Middle
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 29, 2022 0:44:15 GMT
Seems to me that you're both making good points.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 29, 2022 1:01:43 GMT
Or in short there was no 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' just like I said... Except that there was since he was convicted by a jury who actually heard the evidence. Unlike you. It was a hugely bungled police investigation and being unable to prove the defendant's account is nothing like proof beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty... Except that there's no subsequent evidence or appeal court judge that agrees with you. Just like not proving to beyond reasonable doubt is not the same as not showing it was on the balance of probabilities likely, which it was... Irrelevant whataboutery. So, as usual in a legal thread, you're wrong. Logic, try it sometime Stevie. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 29, 2022 10:20:26 GMT
So you got muddled again Middle. Nothing new there then.
I'd explain yet again the point I made but you are so determined to attack me for something I never said it's just not worth it is it?
In English you might understand: Jeremy Bamber more likely than not was the murderer but it was never properly proved and the jury was played.
And for those of some intellect: why was his sister's DNA not found on the silencer when re-examined? The whole prosecution case hinges on the assertion that he shot her at point blank range with the silencer still attached.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 29, 2022 10:23:37 GMT
Now who shall I believe - internet wing-nut or the jury and the judges various that actually heard and reviewed the evidence? Hmmm... That's a toughie!  |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 29, 2022 10:25:43 GMT
Now who shall I believe - internet wing-nut or the jury and the judges various that actually heard and reviewed the evidence? Hmmm... That's a toughie! Oh look Middle can't actually argue what passes for his case so as ever resorts to abusive ad homs. Maybe I used too many multi syllable words in my post and he's got muddled again |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 29, 2022 10:41:26 GMT
Now who shall I believe - internet wing-nut or the jury and the judges various that actually heard and reviewed the evidence? Hmmm... That's a toughie! Oh look Middle can't actually argue what passes for his case so as ever resorts to abusive ad homs. Maybe I used too many multi syllable words in my post and he's got muddled again What case would that be, Stevie?
The real one or your imaginary one? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 29, 2022 11:45:06 GMT
So, to get back on subject, the man is guilty as charged and convicted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 29, 2022 12:14:00 GMT
Yes, to date no successful appeal has been made to say his Conviction is not safe
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 29, 2022 12:18:40 GMT
I recall reading the reports at the time in the papers.
There were concerns that all the material for the forensics went missing.
Bamber had allegedly been out drinking and was questioned by two police sergeants not a detective.
There was concern about two junior police officers manning the phones the night of the murders.
The report then was that shotguns were originally used and yet Bamber loved his sisters kids.
Both Bamber and his sister were adopted and with the family dead and Bamber arrested other extended family members stood to inherit a farm house.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 29, 2022 14:25:30 GMT
I recall reading the reports at the time in the papers. There were concerns that all the material for the forensics went missing. Bamber had allegedly been out drinking and was questioned by two police sergeants not a detective. There was concern about two junior police officers manning the phones the night of the murders. The report then was that shotguns were originally used and yet Bamber loved his sisters kids. Both Bamber and his sister were adopted and with the family dead and Bamber arrested other extended family members stood to inherit a farm house. I recall it from the time too and not feeling then it was a safe conviction. Either he or the sister could have done it, could have wanted to do it and had access to the weapon (a rifle not a shotgun). Once a jury has said that they believe it's been proven then the burden of proof for any change falls on the convicted, he's going to die in prison and we'll never really know if he should have. |
|
