Hi Herlock - many thanks for your genuinely interesting and very considered reply. I'm out for the day shortly but will give more of a reply tonight or tomorrow.
Best regards,
OneRound
-
Hi OneRound,Originally posted by OneRound View Post
I read a book a few years ago which got me interested because I just believed that it was obvious that he was guilty. Then I read Why Jeremy Is Innocent which left me amazed that people could still say that he was obviously guilty. I can’t recall all of the details or the pro and con arguments but there appeared to be…..
The police logs show that Jeremy’s father did call the police before Jeremy did. If that’s the case then he’s obviously innocent. If there wasn’t 2 calls why were 2 separate cars sent out to the farm?
The police log that there was movement from inside the house while Jeremy was outside the house with the police.
The police log shows the police saying that they were in contact with someone from inside the farm. Again while Jeremy was outside the farm.
A policeman said that he’d looked into the kitchen window and saw 2 bodies yet there was only Jeremy’s father there when they broke down the door.
The DNA on the moderator couldn’t be tied to Bamber.
There was no forensic evidence against Bamber.
I believe that the moderator was missed by the police but conveniently found by the very people that benefitted from Jeremy being imprisoned.
A family friend reported ill feeling between Shiela and the in-laws at the farm that night because Bamber’s parents had suggested that Shiela’s children should be cared for until she’s recovered.
She’d stopped taking her medication and was smoking marijuana.
Julie Mugford changed her story dramatically. She also admitted putting a pillow over Jeremy’s face while he was sleeping. And if I remember correctly the jury was split so the judge asked if there was any evidence that they’d like to see again. They asked for Mugford’s statement. So basically the jury was swayed by a proven liar.
Its generally believe that someone committing those kinds of murders that involve things like shooting children (and family members) in the head would have psychological issues. Bamber has been checked by teams of psychologist and have found zero evidence of psychopathy or any ‘illness’ of that kind.
Bamber fought to be allowed to take a lie detector test. He finally got one a few years ago and passed with flying colours.
Also, if I recall correctly, a doctor said that it wasn’t an issue that Shiela had 2 wounds as she could have definitely survived one of them.
Added to the above it has been discovered that the police used the scene as a training exercise with extra officers being bought in. It’s been ‘suggested’ that Shiela’s second wound might have been caused during these exercises with the gun gong off.
There’s more than this but I’m only going on memory OneRound so apologies for the lack of detail. I intend to re-read the book. I also met someone a few years ago that worked in prisons in some capacity. He met Bamber and was convinced of his innocence.
Maybe the image that was created of Bamber at the time didn’t help? Maybe he was on the arrogant side? For me to say that there’s room for doubt would be a massive understatement. Lots of stuff ‘missing ‘too. I can’t recall the details but there’s some record that show that copies of the phone recordings should still exist. Where are they? Maybe the police don’t want the recording of a phone call from Bamber’s father surfacing?Leave a comment:
-
Hi Herlock,
I hope you and no one else minds me picking up here on the final para of your last post but I would be very interested to learn more about why you claim innocence on the part of Jeremy Bamber.
Many thanks,
OneRoundLeave a comment:
-
This bloke says that the girls were never at Huntleys house and yet….
“During his trial, Huntley insisted Holly had suffered a nosebleed. He claimed he'd been trying to help her attend to it when he 'accidentally knocked her into his bath' where she apparently drowned.”
Then there’s this……
“Tapes leaked in February 2018 revealed Ian Huntley speaking out about the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman for the first time. Obtained by The Sun, the recordings - which were made at his prison - depict Huntley admitting his wrongdoing. "What I will say is that I am so terribly, terribly sorry for what I have done... I am sorry for what I have done, sorry for the pain I have caused to the families and friends of Holly and Jessica, for the pain I have caused my family and friends, and for the pain I have caused the community of Soham," he reportedly says.
The recordings continue, with the murderer appearing to reflect on where Holly and Jessica might be now if he hadn't cruelly taken their lives. "I can’t change anything. I cannot remove that day from history, what I have done. I know those girls would be 26 this year with families of their own, jobs and lives. I thought about them when they were turning 21 and when they were turning 18."
…..
He’s a textbook Conspiracy Theorists and people wonder why I’m so averse to them.
Miscarriages of justices certainly occur (I think that Jeremy Bamber is innocent for example) but there’s no support for this. It seems like it’s a one man bandwagon. Even Huntley has accepted that he’ll never be released.
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment:
-
Unsafe convictions lobby groups in modern UK murder cases
I have come across the phenomenon, in two high profile crime cases - Ian Huntley (The Soham Murders) and Thomas Mair (The Murder of Jo Cox) - that lobby groups for both men's commuted sentences or even freedom has arisen. Both seem rooted in conspiracy theory (that Soham was perpetrated by other agencies and, in Mair's case, that Cox was an intelligence hit for which he was patsy or that she was not murdered at all.)
Does anyone else have any more on this or know of other Lord Longford style "fool's errand" groups championing the clearly guilty?
Leave a comment: