News1 min ago
Jeremy Bamber Is Innocent
15 Answers
Former MP Andrew Hunter claims the existence of fresh evidence will prove Jeremy Bamber innocent.
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/art icle-24 56759/J eremy-B amber-D o-macab re-pict ures-pr ove-inn ocent.h tml
I was living in Colchester at the time of the original trial, and there was a feeling that, despite the police doing their best to bungle the case, the right result was the outcome.
And yet.......
If Mr Bamber really is innocent, this will have been one of the longest-enduring miscarriages in British legal history. With the spotlight very firmly on police integrity in the wake of Hillsborough, is it time for a retrial?
http://
I was living in Colchester at the time of the original trial, and there was a feeling that, despite the police doing their best to bungle the case, the right result was the outcome.
And yet.......
If Mr Bamber really is innocent, this will have been one of the longest-enduring miscarriages in British legal history. With the spotlight very firmly on police integrity in the wake of Hillsborough, is it time for a retrial?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.And where has the photograph of a foot been all these years ? And what is the proof of its provenance or that it shows what it is claimed to show ?
At his trial, Bamber came across as a cold, psychopathic individual, who had concocted a scheme in which he could blame his sister and collect the family money
That Bamber refuses to accept guilt proves nothing; plenty of killers don't, and, as he's serving a full life term, there's no advantage in his doing so
At his trial, Bamber came across as a cold, psychopathic individual, who had concocted a scheme in which he could blame his sister and collect the family money
That Bamber refuses to accept guilt proves nothing; plenty of killers don't, and, as he's serving a full life term, there's no advantage in his doing so
I recently read the book by Scott Lomax on this case and he made a case for Bamber's innocence which I certainly found discomforting.
Having said that, I guess you had to have been at the trial to get a more complete picture.
More info available at his website http:// www.jer emy-bam ber.co. uk/
Having said that, I guess you had to have been at the trial to get a more complete picture.
More info available at his website http://
Its totally off the subject, and probably wildly inappropriate too, but - anyone else think that his adoptive sister, Sheila was an exceptionally good looking woman?
I do not have enough detailed knowledge of the case to speculate really, but it is my understanding that the forensic evidence relating to Sheilas bullet wounds, the amount of the blood and the state of the blood means that she could not be the killer, as Jeremy Bamber claims.
I do not have enough detailed knowledge of the case to speculate really, but it is my understanding that the forensic evidence relating to Sheilas bullet wounds, the amount of the blood and the state of the blood means that she could not be the killer, as Jeremy Bamber claims.
There does appear to be a consensus that the police investigation was piss-poor, which itself hampers any discussion of the case.
Based upon what I have read though, the impression I get after reading all the different points of evidence, as well as the background issues of professed hatred of family and burglary etc is that he was guilty.
Based upon what I have read though, the impression I get after reading all the different points of evidence, as well as the background issues of professed hatred of family and burglary etc is that he was guilty.
I am afraid that this was one of those cases that defence counsel hate. Circumstantial evidence is always harder than direct evidence. You can always hope to discredit the eye witness who says he saw the client shoot the victim. You can explain total confessions away. With circumstantial evidence, all you can do is demolish bits of it; knocking bricks off the building; but it is rare to remove enough of it ; the building is damaged but still stands. And here, belatedly, is the defence trying to remove odd bricks. And, in the end, whatever bricks you remove, you usually have to call he client. That can do for you and commonly does. The jury see him, and they see he is a liar and psychopathic, with a motive, and must have done it
There's a petition here: http:// epetiti ons.dir ect.gov .uk/pet itions/ 55107 retrial or pardon....let him go I say.