Jeremy Bamber-Fitted up or wot?

B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#3
i've scanned him....creepy ******
I've spoke to him on e mail (honest!). It was part of a Uni project. Having studied this case at length, there were so many **** ups by the police, he shouldn't be in jail. Their SOCO and Crime Scene Management was a joke. if the same thing was to happen today, they'd have had their arses handed to them in a Tesco bag and he'd have walked. I'm pretty convince of that.
 
#4
Justice would give him a retrial with all the available evidence released, as large amount is locked away under PII for reasons I cannot understand.
 
#5
I've spoke to him on e mail (honest!). It was part of a Uni project. Having studied this case at length, there were so many **** ups by the police, he shouldn't be in jail. Their SOCO and Crime Scene Management was a joke. if the same thing was to happen today, they'd have had their arses handed to them in a Tesco bag and he'd have walked. I'm pretty convince of that.
No reflection of guilt or innocence...I just personally found him to be a creepy bloke and was very glad of the armed guard with him. He made my hair stand on end.
 
#6
How many times does he appeal? Until he gets the answer he wants?

Essex plod f#cked up beyond doubt, because they actually believed him.

He's convinced himself of his own innocence now and nothing will persuade him otherwise, not even a seance with his dead relatives
 
#7
He's done 25 years inside , whether he did it or not.
Tha's a long sentence whichever way you look at it.
I say let him go on the off chance he IS innnocent , but don't re- settle him
anywhere near me in case he isn't , as he has probably got some serious anger management issues .
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#8
How many times does he appeal? Until he gets the answer he wants?

Essex plod f#cked up beyond doubt, because they actually believed him.

He's convinced himself of his own innocence now and nothing will persuade him otherwise, not even a seance with his dead relatives
1. I would imagine that's the general idea, unless you think that he's doing it for fun?

2. They did, but not for the reason which you believe.

3. Do you really, really, really think that would hold water in the Appeals process?
 
#10
1. I would imagine that's the general idea, unless you think that he's doing it for fun?
I know, but there's a limit. It's like screaming for an ice cream and no you can't have one.

2. They did, but not for the reason which you believe.
Really? You've read the police reports then? Or are you just repeating what he says?

3. Do you really, really, really think that would hold water in the Appeals process?
He's offered if not taken a lie detector. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. I'm saying that he has convinced himself of his own innocence. Not sure why you think I would raise that in any appeal process.
 
#11
Isn't there some controversy over how the rifle suppressor was found?

Saw something on telly about this case a while ago and there does seem to be something a bit iffy from the police/authorities area.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#12
No reflection of guilt or innocence...I just personally found him to be a creepy bloke and was very glad of the armed guard with him. He made my hair stand on end.
He spoke highly of you. He said that you'd get it. Peter Sutcliffe has the hots for you as well.
 
#13
A friend of mine is an officer at his prison and has know Bamber for a fair while. His verdict is that he is an evil scheming bastard who is in exactly the right place.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#14
I know, but there's a limit. It's like screaming for an ice cream and no you can't have one.


Really? You've read the police reports then? Or are you just repeating what he says?


He's offered if not taken a lie detector. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. I'm saying that he has convinced himself of his own innocence. Not sure why you think I would raise that in any appeal process.

1. He's been screaming for that ice cream a long time then.

2. As a matter of fact I've read substantially on the matter.

3. Of course he has. Ever thought that he might just be innocent. As for the seance...hey, you started it.
 
#15
1. He's been screaming for that ice cream a long time then.
I know, doesn't mean he should get one

2. As a matter of fact I've read substantially on the matter.
So you've read (guesstimate) thirty or so storage boxes of police reports then?

3. Of course he has. Ever thought that he might just be innocent.
Me? Based on discussions I've had, no. But then I could be wrong.

There's plenty who believe him, particularly the closer you get to the village. IMO there just needs to be a limit where he's told there's no new evidence. Yes Essex plod f#cked up but you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt and have been proved as such repeatedly.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#16
I know, doesn't mean he should get one



So you've read (guesstimate) thirty or so storage boxes of police reports then?



Me? Based on discussions I've had, no. But then I could be wrong.

There's plenty who believe him, particularly the closer you get to the village. IMO there just needs to be a limit where he's told there's no new evidence. Yes Essex plod f#cked up but you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt and have been proved as such repeatedly.
1. He should and that was agreed by the Appeals system.

2. No I haven't. I'm not allowed access. But I would 'guess' that neither have you.

3. Wouldn't be the first time that an innocent man has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt would it? Hence the reason for an Appeals process.
 
#17
IMO there just needs to be a limit where he's told there's no new evidence.
It isn't necessarily a case of new evidence - I want him to be retried, but based on the evidence that has come to light since his last trial, and the evidence that has been withheld.

I caan understand withholding evidence on national security, but does anyone know why it would be withheld in a "normal" crime.
 
#18
1. He should and that was agreed by the Appeals system.
Get a retrial? Source? Or get an ice cream?

2. No I haven't. I'm not allowed access. But I would 'guess' that neither have you.
I haven't read the files. I've never had the time or at least didn't or could justify why I would need to read them . Then again, I didn't say I'd read up on the case extensively or otherwise.

3. Wouldn't be the first time that an innocent man has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt would it? Hence the reason for an Appeals process.
It wouldn't but this is how many appeals and referrals and at what cost? Even if there was a retrial and he was still found guilty, whould he be happy? Would you? Would all of his supporters? It goes on and on and IMO he should just admit it and look for rehabilitation to get back in the wide world. Let his solicitor offer him a place to stay :)
 
#19
I caan understand withholding evidence on national security, but does anyone know why it would be withheld in a "normal" crime.
PII is sources and methods type stuff. Even national security uses methodology used for normal crime.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#20
Get a retrial? Source? Or get an ice cream?



I haven't read the files. I've never had the time or at least didn't or could justify why I would need to read them . Then again, I didn't say I'd read up on the case extensively or otherwise.



It wouldn't but this is how many appeals and referrals and at what cost? Even if there was a retrial and he was still found guilty, whould he be happy? Would you? Would all of his supporters? It goes on and on and IMO he should just admit it and look for rehabilitation to get back in the wide world. Let his solicitor offer him a place to stay :)
Whatever.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top