Bamber was convicted in 1986 of murdering five of his family the previous year, including his two six year old nephews (who would have been 32 YO now).
He's lost two appeals against his conviction, and one against his sentence, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission refused to refer his case back to the court of appeal again in February of this year.
If it wasn't Bamber I was reading about, I would find the reasons he says his original conviction was flawed, pretty strong, (if you're interested just google 'Jeremy Bamber innocent' to decide which website you'd rather read them on), especially the fourty thousand odd documents and 211 pictures that have yet to be disclosed (can anyone shed any light on whether this is the norm?).
But how does someone who is innocent of the crime they've been convicted of, overcome the picture the media and their conviction has painted of them and gather public support?
Most high profile cases have some degree of public interest, do you think 'trial by media' really does figure in these types of situations? (like the Knox case showed)
Or do you have complete confidence in our criminal justice system? And he hasn't won his appeals (or been referred back to the court of appeal) because the evidence he says is there, just isn't strong enough?
AIBU?
To find it hard to overcome Jeremy Bambers 'evil monster' status when thinking about his claims of innocence?
AgentZigzag · 14/10/2011 22:23
?Hehe, fuck off bibs 
I'm interested because of what I've studied/am studying Norks (I didn't think 'what's it got to do with you' would come up until at least the tenth post ), and I also think it's within the publics interest for people to wonder about the guilt and innocence of convicted criminals.
Personally I think it'd be a coincidence too far for a person who said they wanted to kill their parents before they were killed in such a way, to not have done it, but stranger things have happened.
Thanks for the link squeaky.
What a bizarre page the Sunday Sport article page makes 
It's not something I would want referencing to add credibility to my pleas of innocence.
Maybe the other newspapers won't touch him with a barge pole?
This reply has been deleted
Message deleted by Mumsnet.
I wouldn't put it so strongly worded as you LaVrai (I've googled your user name and am still none the wiser, please put me out of my misery ) but I was also thinking the only reason the family would plant the silencer would be to inherit the farm etc.
I was going to say I really don't believe someone would go to the lengths of killing six year old twins to get their hands on some cash, but that's exactly what I think Bamber did.
Maybe the difference for me is that it'd mean they would've had to conspire together to do it, as well as being able to accurately predict Bambers movements and behaviour that night, and I find that extremely unlikely.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.