Thread: Jeremy Bamber
View Single Post
Old 21st September 2015, 04:39 AM   #20
No longer the 1
catsmate's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,923
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I said Robin Bain killed his family, not Neville Bamber.
Then I suggest you post more clearly and refrain from dragging in other, irrelevant, cases. If you want to discuss the Bain case start a thread on it.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I am not introducing any left field theory. I have just read Julie Mugford's statement, it is very long and detailed, and I am not so sure of Bamber's innocence. Mainly because it would make her the most vindictive jilted lover in history.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The problem remains however. What was Sheila doing while Bamber was on the alleged murderous rampage?

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
If she was sleeping then there is some chance the plot worked, but if she awoke, how did he persuade her to pose for suicide?
I suggest you look into the evidence for Bamber's planning of the massacre, i.e. his selection of a night when his nephews (and obstructions to his inheritance) would be present and conversions with Colin and Nevill regarding Sheila and her medication.
I suspect if she'd been awake Bamber would have threatened her children.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Yes, I've seen it. It reinforces Bamber's preparation and planning for the murders, and his premeditated attempt to incriminate Sheila.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I agree generally. I see irreconcilable features describing the events as suggested must have occurred with either suspect.
This is a real brain teaser, and a concensus might emerge here if enough shoulders drive the wheel.
Not really. The faked phone call is immensely suspicious, the lack of belief in Sheila's capacity for violence towards her father and children and Bamber's lies regarding Sheila's familiarity with firearms; all-in-all they point to one conclusion, that Jeremy Bamber murdered five people primarily motivated by financial gain.
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top