Author Topic: Bambers Convictions/sentences are 'Fundamentally' and 'Critically Flawed"  (Read 460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49227
Why am I unable to open Mike's new Mugford thread?

Mugfords answer, when she was being interviewed as part of the COLP enquiry debacle, illustrates clearly the means by which the jury were deceived into thinking, that Jeremy Bamber had called Julie, (3.00am, 3.10am, 3.12am), before he had called the police, the time discrepancy between 3.36am, and 3.26am, was being  enquired into, was of itself mistakenly argued as if there had only ever been one phone call to the police, not two separate ones. The fact that the discovery of a second phone logs content  (3.26am), was not mentioned during the October, 1986, trial, simply because to have done so, or do so,  would undermine the claim that there was only a mix up, regarding the time of one phone log and its contents, when if the truth had been made known to the court, there actually existed another entirely separate phone log contents, bearing the time 3.26am. The prosecuting authorities, deliberately deceived the court by not disclosing the contents of the log timed at 3.26am, simply because to have done so, would have exposed their claim, that there had simply been a mix up involving the timing of the 3.36am phone log contents...

This deception was tied in to, the deliberate withholding and non disclosure of Julie Mugfords witness statement contents, dated 8th August, 1985, in which she stated that Jeremy's call to her on the morning of 7th August 1985, occurred at 3.30am, and not at either 3.00am, 3.10am, 3.12am, and 3.15am, as mentioned in her disclosed, 8th September, 1985, witness statement.

If the second (Essex police) phone log contents bearing the time 3.26am, and the contents of Julie Mugfords, witness statement, dated, 8th August 1985, had not been deliberately withheld and not disclosed, would have opened up a can of worms, and the defence would have been in a much stronger position, to establish and prove, that in fact, 'Mr Bamber, Snr', had telephoned the police at 3.26am, and that Jeremy had made a completely separate call, to the police, himself, in accordance with the contents of the 3.36am police phone log...

Had this evidence not been deliberately withheld, and not disclosed, here was evidence in abundance, that 'Mr Bamber, Snr', was still alive at the time he made that 3.26am emergency call to the police. Other evidence, which was also deliberately withheld, and not disclosed, was a crime scene photograph showing a view of the kitchen worktop upon which was the telephone cradle, and its handset, detached, along with a large number of live .22 ammunition which had been strewn all over. Another deliberately withheld, and non disclosed crime scene photograph, captured blood spotting upon the floor beneath where the telephone handset was situated, and another non disclosed crime scene photograph which showed bloodied fingermarks on the edge of that kitchen worktop - crucial evidence capable of establishing that somebody who had been using the telephone, was injured and bleeding at the time he, (or she) spoke to someone over the telephone. All of this deliberately withheld, and non disclosed material, was kept back, because to have disclosed it, was counter productive to the case the CPS, Essex Police, and all their witnesses intended to testify about. Bamber was stitched up by a corrupted Essex police force, a dodgy CPS,  several very manipulative witnesses, and relatives, keen to steal Jeremy Bambers freedom, and his parents inheritance which was rightly his...

If the dodgy times of Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford, as stated in the contents of her disclosed witness statement, dated, 8th September, 1985, and testified by her during the trial had been true (3.00am, 3.10am, 3.12am, and 3.15am), how was it possible for any evidence to exist which served to establish that ’Mr Bamber, Snr', had still been alive, after Jeremy had called her beforehand?

Think about the words, which Julie Mugfords states were spoken by Jeremy, whenever he made that call to her, on the 7th August 1985?



« Last Edit: November 26, 2020, 01:40:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13051
Because I am unveiling the true facts upon which Jeremy's application to that dodgy organisation called the CCRC will be learning about in due course. Mugford made a false witness statement giving a falsified 'time' when Jeremy had called her in the early hours of the morning  at 3.15am, on 7th August 1985, rather than at around 3.30am. The purpose of introducing this deception was to try and undermine Jeremy Bambers credibility as a witness/ defendant of truth...

She 'infact', contradicted herself by 'making two different witness statements regarding the time of Jeremy's early morning call', at around, '3.30am', and followed this by 'changing her mind', to the call having occurred at 3.15am, and even more bizarrely to 3.12am..
Given that she may have consumed cannabis some hours before the call it's not surprising that she asked for confirmation of the time from her flatmates. I can't see how this could form any basis of an appeal, the salient point to my mind being that there was a telephone call in the early hours at all.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49227
Given that she may have consumed cannabis some hours before the call it's not surprising that she asked for confirmation of the time from her flatmates. I can't see how this could form any basis of an appeal, the salient point to my mind being that there was a telephone call in the early hours at all.

Only one of the two witness statements made by Julie Mugford concerning the time she received the first early morning call on Wednesday 7th August 1985, where she placed (variously) the time of his call at 3.00am, 3.10am, 3.12am, and 3.15am in a witness statement taken from her by DS Jones, that was taken from her a month, after he had taken her original witness statement, dated, 8th August 1985, where she originally stated that Jeremy's call had been answered by her at 3.30am, on the 7th August 1985...

DS Jones,  was involved in taking a witness statement from Colin Caffell, in which similar problems arose, concerning the way with which DS Jones supposedly wrote out, the content of Colin Caffells statement. Colin Caffell even complained to the police, but DS Jones, did not correct the flaw, or concede that he (Jones) had done anything wrong! Of course, DS Jones adopted the same tactic by introducing the second witness statement of Mugford, which he took from her a month or so, after the relevant incident had taken place, and in which the timing of the original call (3.30am) that Jeremy made to her was deliberately manipulated to falsely suggest that she had received Jeremy's call much earlier, at around 3.00am, 3.10am, 3.12am, and 3.15am...

DS Jones, used  the contents of second witness statement of Julie Mugford to generate enough confusion, to suggest that he (Jeremy Bamber) had called her, before he had called, or tried to contact the police. What Jeremy and his defence team did not understand or realise, was that two telephone calls had been made to, and received by police, one timed at 3.26am, and a second one timed at 3.36am. At around and during the time of the trial (2nd October, 1986), there was introduced an element of confusion regarding the timing of Jeremy Bambers call to alert the police regarding an uncompleted and very distressing telephone call that he had received from his dad (Mr Neville Bamber). The first call to police, was timed at 3.26am, and this call was clearly made by 'Mr Bamber, Snr', as opposed and in contrast to the timing of the second call that was made to police, by Jeremy at 3.36am...

The contents of these two telephone call logs which have since emerged, point clearly towards the caller on both occasions, having been, two separate persons, these being, 'Mr Bamber, Snr' (3.26am) and 'Son' (3.36am)...
...
DS Jones took the opportunity to take an additional witness statement from Julie Mugford a month or so, afterwards, when she had stated  (earlier) that she had received (from Jeremy) his call at around 3.30am, after the timing of the first recorded time in which 'Mr Bamber, Snr' (3.26am), had contacted police, telling them  that 'my daughter, has got hold of one of my guns'. Originally, Mugford put the timing of Jeremy's call at 3.30am, which was after the timing (3.26am) of the first call to police, but the existence of her first witness statement, dated, 8th August 1985 and its contents regarding it having been a call she had received from Jeremy at 3.30am, placed Jeremy's call to her after the 3.26am call made to police, by 'Mr Bamber, Snr', which was not disclosed to Jeremy's defence team, or more importantly, made available to the jury for their deliberations and considerations, prior to them reaching 'a verdict' in the case...

'Confusion' relating to the timing of the call(s) to police, for example, at '3.26am', or '3.36am' was deliberately adopted during the trial, by what turned out to be 'a witch hunt' against Jeremy Bamber, by the police, and its civilian employees, designed to portray Jeremy as a devious liar, and a murderer...

Had the existence, of Julie Mugfords 'original witness statement', contents been properly disclosed, and its contents made available to the jury, the case against Jeremy would have collapsed, and he would have been acquitted on all counts...

(to be continued)..



« Last Edit: November 26, 2020, 09:16:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49227
Ever the optimist. The authorities have decided in advance that it will lead to nothing. There may be some stringing along in-between, with a few bits of false hope - but the end is not in doubt. They are now dismissing Ballistics expert reports without even countering them - such is their licence to 'uphold' processes as they see fit.

The 'CCRC' need to be 'disbanded', and they are not 'fit for purpose'! Rather than expose miscarriages of justice, in the vast majority of cases that fall to be considered by them, the 'CCRC', help to conceal injustices, and are part and parcel of the judicial system (problems), and all those who make a living from being part of it..
« Last Edit: November 26, 2020, 12:15:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...