Jeremy Bamber White House Farm...Innocent or Evil scumbag?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date
zinedine said:
One of the problems with so much time passing since the murders, is that the once clear lines become blurred.
New investigations, new guesses at what happened and dramatised TV shows all combine to put doubt out there. The guilty then become innocent and the innocent look guilty. All it needs is one source to cast doubt on the conviction. Be it a journalist, a TV producer or someone involved in the original investigation.
Suddenly we are asking, did he really do it? Then more amateur investigators jump on the bandwagon to smear the police, the witnesses and the courts. Easy to do decades after the trial. Unless there is concrete evidence it needs to stop.
Click to expand...
It has a lot of similarities to the Staircase investigation in that the Police decided very early on who was responsible and concentrated on making the evidence fit. It just shows how much damage a poor investigation and one sided prosecution can do to a case, the waters are muddied, evidence is tainted and what could have been a straight forward case drags on for decades.
 


Gene Hunt said:
It has a lot of similarities to the Staircase investigation in that the Police decided very early on who was responsible and concentrated on making the evidence fit. It just shows how much damage a poor investigation and one sided prosecution can do to a case, the waters are muddied, evidence is tainted and what could have been a straight forward case drags on for decades.
Click to expand...
It was a straight forward case it was either Jeremy or Sheila. That's where the police concentrated. The evidence showed that Sheila couldn't have shot herself twice. Shielas injuries weren't conducive with what happened. The silencer couldn't have been put into the cupboard by someone who was dead.
So how do the verdict doubters get around the silencer evidence? Well somebody who would gain a few thousand in inheritance must have put it there. What about her injuries? Well she might have been able to shoot herself twice and she might not have got any injuries in a struggle with a big man. It's guesswork, just iffs and buts.
 
zinedine said:
It was a straight forward case it was either Jeremy or Sheila. That's where the police concentrated. The evidence showed that Sheila couldn't have shot herself twice. Shielas injuries weren't conducive with what happened. The silencer couldn't have been put into the cupboard by someone who was dead.
So how do the verdict doubters get around the silencer evidence? Well somebody who would gain a few thousand in inheritance must have put it there. What about her injuries? Well she might have been able to shoot herself twice and she might not have got any injuries in a struggle with a big man. It's guesswork, just iffs and buts.
Click to expand...
Ballistics experts do not believe a sound moderator was used in the shootings. Did you also read the CCRC Watch article? Not that you have to mind.. just asking.
 
Roker Skate said:
Ballistics experts do not believe a sound moderator was used in the shootings. Did you also read the CCRC Watch article? Not that you have to mind.. just asking.
Click to expand...
Which takes us back to the evidence subsequently found on the silencer. How did the blood get on it if it was in the cupboard during the killings? It must have been planted by one of the inheritance beneficiaries. Possible yes but again no proof. The sad thing with all of these after the trial theories is the innocent people they smear. Sheila, the family and the policemen involved in the case. It clearly wasn't the best investigation in the history of policing but that doesn't mean we should set s callous and brutal killer free.we need more than conjecture.
No I haven't read the ccrc article.
 
zinedine said:
It was a straight forward case it was either Jeremy or Sheila. That's where the police concentrated. The evidence showed that Sheila couldn't have shot herself twice. Shielas injuries weren't conducive with what happened. The silencer couldn't have been put into the cupboard by someone who was dead.
So how do the verdict doubters get around the silencer evidence? Well somebody who would gain a few thousand in inheritance must have put it there. What about her injuries? Well she might have been able to shoot herself twice and she might not have got any injuries in a struggle with a big man. It's guesswork, just iffs and buts.
Click to expand...
Listened to a podcast and watched the doc on this recently. Was it confirmed the silencer was used? I could have sworn they said it might not have been. Now nothing with regards to the silencer makes sense. 1) If you're Jeremy using a silencer, why leave it in the house? 2) If it's Sheila not using a silencer, I don't understand how you kill 4 people making that much racket. 3) I don't like how it's family members with the most to gain who found the silencer.

Genuinely have no idea who did it mind.
 
TZMouk said:
Listened to a podcast and watched the doc on this recently. Was it confirmed the silencer was used? I could have sworn they said it might not have been. Now nothing with regards to the silencer makes sense. 1) If you're Jeremy using a silencer, why leave it in the house? 2) If it's Sheila not using a silencer, I don't understand how you kill 4 people making that much racket. 3) I don't like how it's family members with the most to gain who found the silencer.

Genuinely have no idea who did it mind.
Click to expand...
The most likely silencer scenario is the one that is now being doubted. For much more unlikely scenarios.
Jeremy used the silencer to kill the family then set up the fake suicide by shiela. He realised the length of the silencer meant that shiela couldn't have killed herself with it fitted so he removed it. He didn't take it with him because if it was subsequently found then that would be hard evidence against him.
 
zinedine said:
Which takes us back to the evidence subsequently found on the silencer. How did the blood get on it if it was in the cupboard during the killings? It must have been planted by one of the inheritance beneficiaries. Possible yes but again no proof. The sad thing with all of these after the trial theories is the innocent people they smear. Sheila, the family and the policemen involved in the case. It clearly wasn't the best investigation in the history of policing but that doesn't mean we should set s callous and brutal killer free.we need more than conjecture.
No I haven't read the ccrc article.
Click to expand...
But in all fairness, why would anyone intentionally leave direct evidence of planting blood in a silencer? A policeman's reputation was tarnished, it's just that policeman happened to be on the losing side.
zinedine said:
The most likely silencer scenario is the one that is now being doubted. For much more unlikely scenarios.
Jeremy used the silencer to kill the family then set up the fake suicide by shiela. He realised the length of the silencer meant that shiela couldn't have killed herself with it fitted so he removed it. He didn't take it with him because if it was subsequently found then that would be hard evidence against him.
Click to expand...
This version of the case has become canon. But it is based upon limited evidence that was used for the purpose of prosecution. It is not based upon all the evidence; and in some instances it's not even based on actual evidence. It's largely conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Roker Skate said:
But in all fairness, why would anyone intentionally leave direct evidence of planting blood in a silencer? A policeman's reputation was tarnished, it's just that policeman happened to be on the losing side.

This version of the case has become canon. But it is based upon limited evidence that was used for the purpose of prosecution. It is not based upon all the evidence; and in some instances it's not even based on actual evidence. It's largely conjecture.
Click to expand...
The blood got there from the first shot at shiela. The silencer was then removed to make it look like suicide for the second shot. The silencer was then placed in the cupboard where the police wouldn't be likely to see it as evidence. After all why would they think a silencer in a cupboard was used in the killings and then decide to examine it? They wouldn't.

Your second paragraph.
You say that version is based on limited evidence? The other version of an inheritor smearing the silencer then giving it to the police is based on no evidence.
 
zinedine said:
The blood got there from the first shot at shiela. The silencer was then re
Click to expand...

zinedine said:
The blood got there from the first shot at shiela. The silencer was then removed to make it look like suicide for the second shot. The silencer was then placed in the cupboard where the police wouldn't be likely to see it as evidence. After all why would they think a silencer in a cupboard was used in the killings and then decide to examine it? They wouldn't.

Your second paragraph.
You say that version is based on limited evidence? The other version of an inheritor smearing the silencer then giving it to the police is based on no evidence.
Click to expand...
What scientific evidence was used to show that blood specific to her first shot was transferred to the sound moderator? Did you know that no experiments were carried out to replicate this? The ballistic expert got the theory from a text book or similar tract.
 
Roker Skate said:
What scientific evidence was used to show that blood specific to her first shot was transferred to the sound moderator? Did you know that no experiments were carried out to replicate this? The ballistic expert got the theory from a text book or similar tract.
Click to expand...
If there was blood from shiela on the silencer it got there by one of only two methods.
One was when she was shot at close range by a gun with the silencer fitted. The other was somebody smeared her blood on it at a later date.
This inheritor who smeared it was very clever. He worked out that if the police found Sheila's blood on the silencer they'd realise that Shiela couldn't have shot herself. He cleverly noted that her arms weren't long enough to hold a gun with a silencer attached so the police would blame jeremy. The inheritor worked out that Jeremy would get the blame then the inheritor would get the money and the property.
Or is it more likely the killer put the silencer in the cupboard for reasons I said earlier? I know which one I'm going with.
 
Last edited:
zinedine said:
If there was blood from shiela on the silencer it got there by one of only two methods.
One was when she was shot at close range by a gun with the silencer fitted. The other was somebody smeared her blood on it at a later date.
This inheritor who smeared it was very clever. He worked out that if the police found Sheila's blood on the silencer they'd realise that Shiela couldn't have shot herself. He cleverly noted that her arms weren't long enough to hold a gun with a silencer attached so the police would blame jeremy. The inheritor worked out that Jeremy would get the blame then the inheritor would get the money and the property.
Or is it more likely the killer put the silencer in the cupboard for reasons I said earlier? I know which one I'm going with.
Click to expand...
Malcolm Fletcher the ballistics expert carried out no experiments with sound moderator on the murder weapon, to replicate what he was claiming took place. I think you may be assuming that there was no collusion between some police and some relatives. If I was you I would give the CCRC Watch article a whirl. It's only five to ten minutes of your life.
 
Roker Skate said:
Malcolm Fletcher the ballistics expert carried out no experiments with sound moderator on the murder weapon, to replicate what he was claiming took place. I think you may be assuming that there was no collusion between some police and some relatives. If I was you I would give the CCRC Watch article a whirl. It's only five to ten minutes of your life.
Click to expand...
When you make accusations against the police and the relative or relatives you really should have concrete evidence, as it's unfair to make the accusations without it. As that concrete evidence either doesn't exist or is very unlikely to come forward then we should stay with the court verdict.
I'll have a look at the ccrc watch though.
 
zinedine said:
When you make accusations against the police and the relative or relatives you really should have concrete evidence, as it's unfair to make the accusations without it. As that concrete evidence either doesn't exist or is very unlikely to come forward then we should stay with the court verdict.
I'll have a look at the ccrc watch though.
Click to expand...
The defence have submitted complaints to the CCRC about the actions of two officers in the case. That doesn't mean anything will happen. Once a stall has been set out, as it so obviously has in this case, the authorities tend to close ranks.
 

Back
Top