To find it hard to overcome Jeremy Bambers 'evil monster' status when thinking about his claims of innocence?

[AgentZigzag]

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?

saw a programme on this the other day, apparently they have the record of a call made to the police at the time, by the father, saying 'please help daughter gone mad with gun'.

So surely he must be innocent??

I think he is guilty as charged - a complete sociopath.
He talked about it beforehand. Told people he hated his parents and there is good reason to think he was guilty. The phone calls? I think he made them both himself - one purporting to be from his father. The farmhouse phone ib the kitchen was left "off the hook", and I suspect this was to stop anyone else being able to call from help on the extension.
Lots of circumstantial evidence plus some scientific evidence of his guilt. He needs to ve on prison.

If the conviction were set aside Bamber would have to sue for the property and the relations who inherited it would only have to show he did it to the civil standard - more likely than not - not the criminal standard - beyond reasonable doubt.

Incidentally LaVrai his own website says that he is not alleging some Establishment plot.

La vrai verite means 'the real truth' or Im a conspiracy theorist .

Ooh, you're studying forensic psychology Zigzag.
As an addict of crime novels, like Val Macdermid and many many more it must be fascinating.

But couldn't the message have been ' .....please help daughter..... [He's] gone mad with the gun'.

I've always been interested in the subject LadyE, it is fascinating, but I'd rather not be reading reasearch papers on child sexual assault and violent rapes

Not minimising other types of serious crimes, but some are definately worse to have to read about than others that you can maybe detach yourself from to a certain extent.

I'm partial to a bit of conspiracy on the odd occasion Scarah

I don't know how he's done it but he clearly has garnered a lot of public support hasn't he - if you google his name almost every hit on the first couple of pages is a sit or report protesting his innocence, so he's clearly got some ardent supporters out there. I'm interested to know what it was about him that makes you certain he was guilty though norks. He's an interesting character, seems to bring out polar opposites of feeling in people.

Site, not sit...