Was Brett Collins Involved?

Started by Erik Narramore, January 30, 2022, 02:02:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Erik Narramore

I am finding it very difficult to believe Brett was not involved.  Like Julie's involvement, it's another one of those 'elephants in the room' that this case throws up.  I think you would have to be pretty obtuse not to see it really.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

The necessary rider is of course that Jeremy was guilty in the first place.  But even if Jeremy is innocent, I believe Brett morally corrupted him and was the driving influence behind Jeremy's insensitive behaviour after the deaths.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Zak Beresford

Believe Brett held influence over Jeremy. Brett liked the good life and probably introduced jeremy to this back in Auckland in 1981.

Some seven years senior than bamber and a man of the world. Brett was a hustler trying to make a quick buck. Having no ties to the grief side of things

Rob Garland

#3
Quote from: Erik Narramore on January 30, 2022, 02:02:31 AMI am finding it very difficult to believe Brett was not involved.  Like Julie's involvement, it's another one of those 'elephants in the room' that this case throws up.  I think you would have to be pretty obtuse not to see it really.

If JB had assistance then that changes everything, controlling three adults is now much easier. The problem I have with this is that the phone call from WHF can now be easily faked with no time delay on JB's part. After the crime has been committed JB goes back to his cottage, waits for his accomplice to call from WHF, gives him five minutes to make his escape then calls the police.

If guilty I think JB acted alone.




Erik Narramore

Brett's potential involvement would be along a spectrum of possibilities.

It may be that he morally corrupted Jeremy and steered him or inspired him in a particular direction, maybe even suggested things to him subtly, but nothing more than that.

Or he may have been in on the plan at some level and gave Jeremy moral encouragement towards executing it, but did not give practical assistance.

Or it could be that he was immersed in the plan.

Brett sneaking out of Greece to be present at the murders seems far-fetched - though it is not impossible, and could be seen as plausible when you consider the efforts that Essex Police are supposed to have gone to in order to verify Brett's alibi.  They clearly entertained the possibility.

I think Brett as a non-present accomplice is a more plausible notion.  I think the same about Julie, but more so.  If Jeremy is guilty, for me Julie as his accomplice is a near-certainty. 
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams