No, they were guilty. Jane Mary Veloso is innocent from the same batch, but different case. She will be spared.
Aepervius, Jeremy Bamber had to be sure he could kill his family, including Bambi's two children, and stage her suicide.
It is not incredulity but a well worn pathway to wrongful conviction. The silencer was discovered by the inheritors, long after the crime scene was abandoned. But Anglolawyer is on the case. He may agree with you. I am incredulous that Sheila Bamber could be persuaded to pose for suicide after her family was killed.
He's guilty. Reasons:
These are all intriguing points, particularly 8a.
It's in her statements to police which weren't admitted at the time as they fell under the hearsay rule. Perhaps you should "use the internet for [your] own research".
She had mental problems and was being treated for them.
He hated his adoptive parents, confessed to his then girlfriend and wanted money (hence his earlier criminality)
Instead of invoking supposed parallels why not deal with the mass of evidence of Bamber's guilt?
Right...Utterly irrelevant. Why not deal with the case you brought up?
Yep and he didn't do a very good job. Most of the investigating officers saw straight through his attempt. As did the court and the appeals courts.
Again study the case before engaging in silly hyperbole.Again with the irrelevant parallels, you seem rather obsessed. And what exactly is your "far more logical alternative"?
I've taken an interest in it for years, without coming to any sort of conclusion. The reason for my interest is that this happened in a village near me, and the pub-talk has always been that he is innocent. There was a BBC documentary many years ago in which police incompetence, "lost" evidence, scene of crime photos which didn't tally with police statements, and so on, were aired. At the very least, even if Jeremy Bamber is guilty, the police come out of the story fairly badly, it seems.
I've also had a long term interest in the case. And I agree that the investigation was poorly managed, mainly down to Bamber being a charismatic psychopath and the utter incompetence of DCI Jones. However the case against Bamber is quite solid and has withstood several appeal attempts and a number of media investigations.Well, at last!
I'm glad you lot have finally got around to this drama.
Now......get to it, and don't bicker. I'm watching with interest.
I said Robin Bain killed his family, not Neville Bamber. I am not introducing any left field theory. I have just read Julie Mugford's statement, it is very long and detailed, and I am not so sure of Bamber's innocence. Mainly because it would make her the most vindictive jilted lover in history.It's in her statements to police which weren't admitted at the time as they fell under the hearsay rule. Perhaps you should "use the internet for [your] own research".
She had mental problems and was being treated for them.
She wasn't told on that occasion that "she was an unfit mother" as the letter to her adoptive father from her ex-husband wasn't sent at that time.
Further I suggest you address the evidence from the medical professionals, who were treating her, and from her ex-husband, that she wasn't likely to have engaged in murderous violence, especially towards her father and children.
He hated his adoptive parents, confessed to his then girlfriend and wanted money (hence his earlier criminality)
Instead of invoking supposed parallels why not deal with the mass of evidence of Bamber's guilt?
You clearly know nothing about the case if you can make such a ridiculous assertion.
Utterly irrelevant. Why not deal with the case you brought up?
Yep and he didn't do a very good job. Most of the investigating officers saw straight through his attempt. As did the court and the appeals courts.
Again with the irrelevant parallels, you seem rather obsessed. And what exactly is your "far more logical alternative"?
I note Samson that you haven't addressed any of the following points:
1. The phony phone call.
2. The lack of forensic evidence on Sheila's clothes, or on her fathers'.
3. The matter of the moving telephones. This especially mitigates against your apparent belief in Nevill's guilt.
Nor have you elucidated a timeline that explains the events of that night or a motive for Nevill to murder his wide, daughter and grandchildren, nor why Bamber then told police his sister was the killer.
I agree generally. I see irreconcilable features describing the events as suggested must have occurred with either suspect.
Sutherst's conclusions are rather over-emphesised; firstly the details of the silencer scratches, while damning, is only one element of the case against Bamber. There is no doubt the investigation, especially the performance of DCI Jones, was poor.
Has anyone made such a claim? Certainly no-one claiming she was guilty has shown how she could have handed the rifle so competently (and leaving no traces on her skin or clothes) as to kill her parents in the manner indicated, nor how she battered her father to death despite the disparity in physical size.
Then I suggest you post more clearly and refrain from dragging in other, irrelevant, cases. If you want to discuss the Bain case start a thread on it.
Yes.
Asleep.
I suggest you look into the evidence for Bamber's planning of the massacre, i.e. his selection of a night when his nephews (and obstructions to his inheritance) would be present and conversions with Colin and Nevill regarding Sheila and her medication.
Yes, I've seen it. It reinforces Bamber's preparation and planning for the murders, and his premeditated attempt to incriminate Sheila.
Not really. The faked phone call is immensely suspicious, the lack of belief in Sheila's capacity for violence towards her father and children and Bamber's lies regarding Sheila's familiarity with firearms; all-in-all they point to one conclusion, that Jeremy Bamber murdered five people primarily motivated by financial gain.
