• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jeremy Bamber

MikeG said:
Therein lies the root of your problem, Samson: instead of focusing on trying to work out who is guilty and who is the victim of a miscarriage, you have just made it clear you make up your mind then "discuss" your decision.
Click to expand...
I explained with considerable detail why I have concluded Bamber is innocent, and it is partly because the Mugford testimony has been explained, immunity, motive and so on. But the overriding problem is that Sheila so obviously committed suicide when examining the photographs. The idea of a coerced pose is further compromised by the fact her mother's body is in a bloody heap nearby, scarcely suggesting any compliant behaviour would help her.

I see no issue with moving right on to discussing how to fastest get the poor sucker out of jail. Of course this does not apply to you Mike, because you don't agree he is innocent.
 
Bear in mind, Samson, that the police photos had been re-posed in some instances. They weren't of the scene as found, but were of the aftermath of the tramping through the crime-scene of some 40 or more officers, who moved stuff around. Relying on them to come to the conclusion that it was "obviously suicide" is flawed, in my view. You're talking to someone who held doubts about Bamber's guilt for 20 or more years, BTW.
 
Samson said:
but I actually believe in my basic research,
Click to expand...
Are you aware of the Dunning–Kruger effect?

Samson said:
Mugford's story was too detailed to be made up.
Click to expand...
Unsupported and completely subjective opinion.

Samson said:
Just today on IA Charlie pointed out:<snip>
Click to expand...
More unsupported opinions laced with factual inaccuracies and mistakes.

Samson said:
Summary: Never trust an informant, never believe a word they say without corroboration, wire them up whenever possible.
Click to expand...
Correct. And her evidence wasn't used without supporting evidence.

Samson said:
I realize the cops who investigated Bamber were incompetent,
Click to expand...
Further opinion.

Samson said:
They must have had some reason for ignoring those procedures with Mugford.
Click to expand...
You really should do some basic research on her input to the case.

Samson said:
The only reason I can think of is that they didn't believe a word she said.
Click to expand...
Unsupported and completely biased opinion.

Samson said:
Can anyone think of a more likely reason?
Click to expand...
Because her input led to new lines of enquiry that eventually proved Bamber guilty of a horrible quintuple murder for personal gain.

Samson said:
Can you, catsmate, deliver a death blow to that reasoning?
Click to expand...
What "reasoning"? You're merely made a number of unsupported accusations.
 
That was Charlie's post from IA you are responding to. There's a lively thread running there, the crux of the matter is the crown have conceded Sheila was shot without a silencer, so the blood in it can't be hers.
That means Robert Boutflour found it and scratched the under side of the mantle piece.
Bamber was framed by the jealous old monster.
 
Samson said:
........the crown have conceded Sheila was shot without a silencer.........
Click to expand...

When did this happen? There isn't an ongoing reinvestigation or trial, so what does "the crown" actually mean in this context? There is no prosecution team, or anyone else I can think of who could possibly concede such a point.
 
Samson said:
..I realize the cops who investigated Bamber were incompetent.....
Click to expand...

catsmate said:
......Further opinion.......
Click to expand...

To be fair, I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with that assessment, including Essex Police themselves. They ballsed the whole thing up from start to finish, including having some 40 officers tramping all over the crime scene, not recording the crime scene intact, losing records of phone calls, and destroying evidence before all the appeals were finished.
 
MikeG said:
When did this happen? There isn't an ongoing reinvestigation or trial, so what does "the crown" actually mean in this context? There is no prosecution team, or anyone else I can think of who could possibly concede such a point.
Click to expand...
David 1918 at IA appears close to the defence team. He really does know his stuff, and this seems to be the state of play.
All tests show that there is a different soot pattern with a silencer with a contact wound, and Sheila's bullet holes are graphically clean.
The reason I quote Charlie is he is a specialist in the context of amateur crime analysis. Professionals are paid to get the answer you want, someone like Charlie is a reliable encyclopedic source with no vested interest.

"Suicide as plain as a can of spilled paint" quoth he. Have you seen the photos?
Not all are doctored, and just like the Robin Bain pathologist, first observations rule. In that case Alec Dempster said the 4 mil hole with a 10 mil ring of soot is a CONTACT WOUND, the gun touching the temple.
But the crown prosecuted on a gun a meter away, and got away with it.
 
None of which answers my question, in the least. You claimed the crown had accepted that Sheila was shot without a silencer. Who exactly do you mean by "the crown"?
 
MikeG said:
None of which answers my question, in the least. You claimed the crown had accepted that Sheila was shot without a silencer. Who exactly do you mean by "the crown"?
Click to expand...
I will come back to this, but it is since 2002 hearing.
 
Samson said:
That was Charlie's post from IA you are responding to.
Click to expand...
No. I was responding to your post here.

Samson said:
the crown have conceded Sheila was shot without a silencer, so the blood in it can't be hers.
Click to expand...
Citation required.

Samson said:
That means Robert Boutflour found it and scratched the under side of the mantle piece.
Click to expand...
Rubbish.

Samson said:
Bamber was framed by the jealous old monster.
Click to expand...
Still an unsupported assertion.
 
Samson said:
David 1918 at IA appears close to the defence team.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Samson said:
He really does know his stuff,
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Samson said:
and this seems to be the state of play.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Samson said:
All tests show that there is a different soot pattern with a silencer with a contact wound, and Sheila's bullet holes are graphically clean.
Click to expand...
Right...
Who carried out the tests? When? By what authority?
Unless the court ordered additional testing, which would be in the context of an appeal (which hasn't be lodged), I do not believe your assertion.

Samson said:
The reason I quote Charlie is he is a specialist in the context of amateur crime analysis.
Click to expand...
Right......
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Samson said:
Professionals are paid to get the answer you want, someone like Charlie is a reliable encyclopedic source with no vested interest.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Samson said:
"Suicide as plain as a can of spilled paint" quoth he.
Click to expand...
Right......
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Samson said:
Have you seen the photos?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Samson said:
Not all are doctored,
Click to expand...
Your evidence that any were "doctored"?
 
Here is Jeremy Bamber's own website.

You'd think that if "the crown has accepted that Sheila was shot without the silencer" that Bamber himself would have mentioned it, wouldn't you? In fact he says "I believe it will be (accepted by the crown at any new appeal)". There is certainly a clip (made in 2012) making the claim that Bambi was shot without the silencer being on the gun, but no claim anywhere that this evidence has been accepted by the crown.

Someone, somewhere, is telling porkies about this.
 
MikeG said:
Here is Jeremy Bamber's own website.

You'd think that if "the crown has accepted that Sheila was shot without the silencer" that Bamber himself would have mentioned it, wouldn't you? In fact he says "I believe it will be (accepted by the crown at any new appeal)". There is certainly a clip (made in 2012) making the claim that Bambi was shot without the silencer being on the gun, but no claim anywhere that this evidence has been accepted by the crown.

Someone, somewhere, is telling porkies about this.
Click to expand...
I will find out. I think the argument becomes he removed the silencer after the struggle with Neville that got the paint on it, then shot the kids, then Sheila.
I suppose she was having a cuppa during all this waiting her turn.
 
Never mind that. I'm not too interested ATM in what was going on in the farmhouse. First things first. I am interested in the claim that somehow this "evidence" has been accepted by "the crown".
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
David1819's answer:

"Yes but its not explicit or clear-cut."

Everyone gets a prize. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No. Whoever answered that doesn't get a prize at all. That is an admission that no such thing has been accepted, and it is no explanation for whom "The Crown" actually is. Does he mean the Crown Prosecution Service? More likely the Criminal Cases Review Commission (although it is ridiculous to suggest that they represent "the Crown")? Is the CPRC actively looking at this case? And just exactly what are the credentials claimed by the person posting at IA? What is his/ her connection with these or other bodies? I'm trying to get a picture of why you think that his posts should be treated with such reverence.

You have ascribed too much credence to a statement by some guy on the internet, without asking the obvious questions. You shouldn't be passing on claims such as "accepted by The Crown" with the absolute certainty that you did without doing some very basic checks first. You do realise, don't you, that if this claim of yours were the actuality, then the story would be on the front page of every newspaper, and the case would be heading back to court? Is there any reason you can think of why this isn't happening?
 
MikeG said:
No. Whoever answered that doesn't get a prize at all. That is an admission that no such thing has been accepted, and it is no explanation for whom "The Crown" actually is. Does he mean the Crown Prosecution Service? More likely the Criminal Cases Review Commission (although it is ridiculous to suggest that they represent "the Crown")? Is the CPRC actively looking at this case? And just exactly what are the credentials claimed by the person posting at IA? What is his/ her connection with these or other bodies? I'm trying to get a picture of why you think that his posts should be treated with such reverence.

You have ascribed too much credence to a statement by some guy on the internet, without asking the obvious questions. You shouldn't be passing on claims such as "accepted by The Crown" with the absolute certainty that you did without doing some very basic checks first. You do realise, don't you, that if this claim of yours were the actuality, then the story would be on the front page of every newspaper, and the case would be heading back to court? Is there any reason you can think of why this isn't happening?
Click to expand...
I could write a fair essay on all that, essentially there is a thread here, a thread on IA, the "blue" forum and the "red" forum.

On IA I might say right now

"Charlie's good tonight".

Charlie is around 100% certain Jeremy Bamber has been stitched up, and I am the same, as is the activist David !819, the Bain specialist Nostalgia-NZ and Holly Goodhead, admin from red forum.

Bamber never did that crime, which ironically was the buzz where you were for awhile if I remember correctly.

ETA I realise you have posted IA, the thread is genuinely interesting there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom