What does your gut say?

[Erik Narramore]

Scenario 1:
Here we have a young woman with paranoid schizophrenia and a history of violence and threats of violence, who is estranged from her husband and works in dead-end jobs, dislikes her mentally-ill mother who adopted her and has disturbing psychotic delusions about her own twin sons.  She is disappointed by a meeting with her biological mother, who returns to Canada.  She is also a recreational drug user.  Her psychotropic dosage has been reduced drastically in the last month or two.  She is already in the house and has access to a rifle and a loaded magazine, with more ammunition nearby.  She argues with her father and she starts threatening to go upstairs with the rifle.  He cannot lay his hands on her and is also concerned to keep her downstairs and away from her mother and her own sons, so he tries to calm her down in the kitchen and also rings his son (her brother) while she is present.  When the son answers, she runs upstairs and starts shooting.  She kills her family, all at close range, including her sons, then turns the gun on herself.  She is duly found with the rifle on or by her body.  She is forensically clean, but it is believed she washed herself prior to suicide, as is fairly common.

Scenario 2:
Now we have a young man with no history of violence, who lives 2/3 miles away.  We say that he goes out in the middle of the night to the house, enters and leaves undetected and without leaving any blood traces.  He proceeds to kill his entire family, including two little boys in their beds, simply so he can have lots of money now and drink champagne and have meals at restaurants and go to St Tropez.  He may also buy a smallholding in Dorset - he hasn't decided yet, let's see what happens with probate.  He does this even though he already has a lot of money and a secure future with a large inheritance down the line.  He also tells his girlfriend what he is planning to do and then reveals to her what has happened after he does the deed, albeit obliquely in the form of a made-up story about a hitman - in effect, he is confessing to her.  She spills the beans to a friend, and this friend engages in horseplay with this mass murderer at her 21st. birthday party a few days later.  He'd planned it all out and even staged a few phone calls to put the police off the trail.  The police fall for it.  Except for one detective.  The killer spends much of his inheritance before he receives it, splashing out like there's no tomorrow.  He also allows the relatives, whom he does not see eye-to-eye with, keys to the crime scene.  This, after the police had offered the keys to him, which would have allowed him to easily dispose of any further incriminating evidence missed by the police.  The relatives come forward with the evidence instead, which had been mysteriously overlooked by the police themselves.  These same relatives stand to gain if he is convicted and imprisoned.  He even dropped hints to one or two people of his murderous intentions beforehand, including a hostile uncle.

Honestly, which of these two scenarios is the more plausible?

[Zak Beresford]

Why do the relatives seem to have a strong dislike towards Jeremy than to Shelia?

It has to be said that other than the occasional meetings and family celebrations etc. They had separate life's and were not the close.

I think we can all agree that Jeremys upbringing and general behaviour was a lot more trouble free than Shelias was

[Erik Narramore]

Why do the relatives seem to have a strong dislike towards Jeremy than to Shelia?

It has to be said that other than the occasional meetings and family celebrations etc. They had separate life's and were not the close.

I think we can all agree that Jeremys upbringing and general behaviour was a lot more trouble free than Shelias was

Hello Zack, nice to see you back.

I think it's likely the relatives disliked both of them, but appeared better disposed towards Sheila as she would have been perceived as less of a threat to their interests.  As a man, Jeremy was in a direct position to take over the farm.  Sheila, too, was in a position to do so, but more indirectly, through her twin boys, who may have grown up wanting to be involved in the various businesses.  However, the twins were still very young and away in London.

[Rob Garland]

Scenario 1:
Here we have a young woman with paranoid schizophrenia and a history of violence and threats of violence, who is estranged from her husband and works in dead-end jobs, dislikes her mentally-ill mother who adopted her and has disturbing psychotic delusions about her own twin sons.  She is disappointed by a meeting with her biological mother, who returns to Canada.  She is also a recreational drug user.  Her psychotropic dosage has been reduced drastically in the last month or two.  She is already in the house and has access to a rifle and a loaded magazine, with more ammunition nearby.  She argues with her father and she starts threatening to go upstairs with the rifle.  He cannot lay his hands on her and is also concerned to keep her downstairs and away from her mother and her own sons, so he tries to calm her down in the kitchen and also rings his son (her brother) while she is present.  When the son answers, she runs upstairs and starts shooting.  She kills her family, all at close range, including her sons, then turns the gun on herself.  She is duly found with the rifle on or by her body.  She is forensically clean, but it is believed she washed herself prior to suicide, as is fairly common.

Scenario 2:
Now we have a young man with no history of violence, who lives 2/3 miles away.  We say that he goes out in the middle of the night to the house, enters and leaves undetected and without leaving any blood traces.  He proceeds to kill his entire family, including two little boys in their beds, simply so he can have lots of money now and drink champagne and have meals at restaurants and go to St Tropez.  He may also buy a smallholding in Dorset - he hasn't decided yet, let's see what happens with probate.  He does this even though he already has a lot of money and a secure future with a large inheritance down the line.  He also tells his girlfriend what he is planning to do and then reveals to her what has happened after he does the deed, albeit obliquely in the form of a made-up story about a hitman - in effect, he is confessing to her.  She spills the beans to a friend, and this friend engages in horseplay with this mass murderer at her 21st. birthday party a few days later.  He'd planned it all out and even staged a few phone calls to put the police off the trail.  The police fall for it.  Except for one detective.  The killer spends much of his inheritance before he receives it, splashing out like there's no tomorrow.  He also allows the relatives, whom he does not see eye-to-eye with, keys to the crime scene.  This, after the police had offered the keys to him, which would have allowed him to easily dispose of any further incriminating evidence missed by the police.  The relatives come forward with the evidence instead, which had been mysteriously overlooked by the police themselves.  These same relatives stand to gain if he is convicted and imprisoned.  He even dropped hints to one or two people of his murderous intentions beforehand, including a hostile uncle.

Honestly, which of these two scenarios is the more plausible?

I know you are in the reasonable doubt camp Erik, but I am not I think JB is innocent.

Hopefully you don't think I am biased I have tried to look at all the evidence but the more I research the more convinced I am. To me it's a clear MOJ.

[Leslie Aalders]

I am split,I really dont know what my gut tells me.

The problem for me is the lack of hearing Jeremy Bambers side of the story,I mean actually seeing him being interviewed and answering all the questions we want to know about and seeing his reactions.

I would also like to hear from all those who have had contact with him in the early days and months after his conviction.I realise for a while he would have been in total shock[if innocent that is],but afterwards I presume that he did nothing but protest his innocence to everyone he came into contact with.

I know if it was me,I woukd not have been able to settle at all knowing I was innocent.Is this what he was like? What reports do we have,what about the prison guards,the wardens,his doctors and psychologists?

And of course the other inmates,if they thought he was guilty,was it because of his attitude,did he come across as a psychopath?

It cant be because he addmitted his crimes to inmates,if any of them thought JB was guilty it must have been a mixture of his demeanour and the belief the courts simply got it right.

Of course many have been in contact with him from the outside,indeed he has a campaign team who are convinced he is innocent.Most of which appear to be quite sound and intelligent,actors,MPs and human rights campaigners amongst them.

Anyway,all I am saying is,its hard to judge someone when youv'e hardly heard them speak or see them protest their innocence.Know what I mean?

[Zak Beresford]

Why do the relatives seem to have a strong dislike towards Jeremy than to Shelia?

It has to be said that other than the occasional meetings and family celebrations etc. They had separate life's and were not the close.

I think we can all agree that Jeremys upbringing and general behaviour was a lot more trouble free than Shelias was

Hello Zack, nice to see you back.

I think it's likely the relatives disliked both of them, but appeared better disposed towards Sheila as she would have been perceived as less of a threat to their interests.  As a man, Jeremy was in a direct position to take over the farm.  Sheila, too, was in a position to do so, but more indirectly, through her twin boys, who may have grown up wanting to be involved in the various businesses.  However, the twins were still very young and away in London.

Agree Erik.

What's interesting though if we are talking from a relatives being jealous of Jeremy taking over and inheriting. It was a slow burning candle. He had been adopted by nevill and June from six weeks of age. He was their child. nevill was his middle name. It wasn't as if he was plucked from a care home at the age of 14. I find the term cuckoo completely childish and horrible to put it blunt.

Boutflour and co must have known from an early era that Jeremy would inevitably inherit all the assets. Then we are left with a situation that regardless of who committed the massacre. That boutflour and co jumped on the bandwagon and used the event to benefit themselves. Shelia gone. And to help engineer a campaign to put Jeremy in the nick.

There's the old addage of no smoke without fire. Though I must admit the idea that the relatives effectively "ganged" up on Jeremy to help put him away. I struggle now to see the difference that they genuinely thought he was guilty or they to put it bluntly just wanted the assets

[Erik Narramore]

Hello Zack, nice to see you back.

I think it's likely the relatives disliked both of them, but appeared better disposed towards Sheila as she would have been perceived as less of a threat to their interests.  As a man, Jeremy was in a direct position to take over the farm.  Sheila, too, was in a position to do so, but more indirectly, through her twin boys, who may have grown up wanting to be involved in the various businesses.  However, the twins were still very young and away in London.

Agree Erik.

What's interesting though if we are talking from a relatives being jealous of Jeremy taking over and inheriting. It was a slow burning candle. He had been adopted by nevill and June from six weeks of age. He was their child. nevill was his middle name. It wasn't as if he was plucked from a care home at the age of 14. I find the term cuckoo completely childish and horrible to put it blunt.

Boutflour and co must have known from an early era that Jeremy would inevitably inherit all the assets. Then we are left with a situation that regardless of who committed the massacre. That boutflour and co jumped on the bandwagon and used the event to benefit themselves. Shelia gone. And to help engineer a campaign to put Jeremy in the nick.

There's the old addage of no smoke without fire. Though I must admit the idea that the relatives effectively "ganged" up on Jeremy to help put him away. I struggle now to see the difference that they genuinely thought he was guilty or they to put it bluntly just wanted the assets
[/quote]

Looked in on the Blue Forum the other day.  I honestly don't know how you put up with that crap.

[Erik Narramore]

Agree Erik.

What's interesting though if we are talking from a relatives being jealous of Jeremy taking over and inheriting. It was a slow burning candle. He had been adopted by nevill and June from six weeks of age. He was their child. nevill was his middle name. It wasn't as if he was plucked from a care home at the age of 14. I find the term cuckoo completely childish and horrible to put it blunt.

Boutflour and co must have known from an early era that Jeremy would inevitably inherit all the assets. Then we are left with a situation that regardless of who committed the massacre. That boutflour and co jumped on the bandwagon and used the event to benefit themselves. Shelia gone. And to help engineer a campaign to put Jeremy in the nick.

There's the old addage of no smoke without fire. Though I must admit the idea that the relatives effectively "ganged" up on Jeremy to help put him away. I struggle now to see the difference that they genuinely thought he was guilty or they to put it bluntly just wanted the assets

Looked in on the Blue Forum the other day.  I honestly don't know how you put up with that crap.