Author Topic: The Odd behaviour of Mathew Hampton  (Read 218 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49241
The Odd behaviour of Mathew Hampton
« on: January 10, 2021, 09:36:AM »
...

« Last Edit: January 10, 2021, 09:47:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1589
Re: The Odd behaviour of Mathew Hampton
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2021, 09:59:AM »
I don't recall any mention of a Matthew Hampton before now.  Is this new?

Are we to assume from this that the Eatons were in the phone book?  Otherwise, I would wonder how this Hampton got hold of their number.

I realise the Eatons were managing the farm from an early stage, but if Hampton was known to Jeremy, wouldn't Jeremy have mentioned the fact to somebody, either as a result of seeing him on the estate or his work being mentioned by the Eatons?

Otherwise, what is the significance of this?  I am probably being quite dense here, but the implication being made in the memo is not clear to me.  Is it that the police suspected that Hampton was in league with Jeremy in some way and had volunteered to work on the estate in order to be able to assist him?  Or is it that the police thought that maybe Julie misheard and Jeremy referred to Matthew Hampton not Matthew MacDonald?  Or something else altogether?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2021, 10:02:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1589
Re: The Odd behaviour of Mathew Hampton
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2021, 10:10:AM »
None of the books - Powell, Wilkes, Lomax or Lee - have any mention of a 'Hampton' in their indexes.

I've also looked at my own research files and there is nothing on anybody called Hampton.

You've piqued my interest.  Is there more to tell?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2021, 10:11:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49241
Re: The Odd behaviour of Mathew Hampton
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2021, 11:21:AM »
I don't recall any mention of a Matthew Hampton before now.  Is this new?

Are we to assume from this that the Eatons were in the phone book?  Otherwise, I would wonder how this Hampton got hold of their number.

I realise the Eatons were managing the farm from an early stage, but if Hampton was known to Jeremy, wouldn't Jeremy have mentioned the fact to somebody, either as a result of seeing him on the estate or his work being mentioned by the Eatons?

Otherwise, what is the significance of this?  I am probably being quite dense here, but the implication being made in the memo is not clear to me.  Is it that the police suspected that Hampton was in league with Jeremy in some way and had volunteered to work on the estate in order to be able to assist him?  Or is it that the police thought that maybe Julie misheard and Jeremy referred to Matthew Hampton not Matthew MacDonald?  Or something else altogether?

I don't recall any mention of a Matthew Hampton before now.  Is this new?

Police did not receive this information from Ann Eaton, until or about 10th October 1985, by which time Police had it in their minds that Jeremy had carried out the murders. Added to that, was the information given to police by Julie Mugford who told them that Jeremy had said to her, that someone named 'Mathew' had carried out the murders. According to what Jeremy had confided in her, he said that 'Mathew' had persuaded Sheila to lay on the bed and to shoot herself. Unfortunately, Jeremy never confided in Julie Mugford 'Mathews' surname. This led to the police arresting a 'Mathew McDonald', and releasing him.

At the time of the shootings (August 1985), 'Mathew Hampton' was living in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, 'a stones throw' away, from the scene of the tragedies. He also once worked as a barmen in a wine bar, which Jeremy Bamber, and 'Mathew McDonald' used.

I have a hunch that the police arrested the wrong 'Mathew' (McDonald) because Jeremy never identified the surname of the 'Mathew' (Hampton) he may have been referring to, when he spoke to Julie regarding the circumstances of how Sheila received a solitary shot when her body was resting on top of the bed - by October 1985, police had already made their minds up, that Jeremy was solely responsible for all the killings.

It is rather interesting to note, that Ann Eaton received a call from 'Mathew' Hampton who she did not know, on the Monday after the murders, which makes that the 12th August 1985. He told her that he had heard of the murders, but that he did not know Jeremy, or any other member of the family but that his own mother knew the family. Out of respect he offered to work for nothing at the farm, and that led to him carrying out work on the white house farm Estate. It does not say when he actually started to work at the farm, only that after a month of working there, the Eaton family thought it was only right that he should be paid, and that in fact he received a months back pay. Nothing is known to me, exactly how long he worked at white house farm, but if I were to hazard a guess, I would say its highly probable, that he was working there from some unknown date, between the date of Jeremy's first Arrest on the 7th September 1985 and the date of his second arrest on the 29th September 1985. It seems a possibility that the relatives may have been receiving information from 'Mathew' Hampton, about how Jeremy could have been involved in carrying out the shootings. Information which the relatives led everyone to believe that they had discovered the evidence which eventually was used to prosecute and convict Jeremy, when all along they had got ideas from 'Mathew' Hampton, because he himself could have been the killer. He could have been the scruffy looking man who was seen walking away from the farmhouse an hour (3.48 am) or so, after the police had initially arrived there (sighting of scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from scene at about 4.48am). By that stage, of course Jeremy had been outside in the grounds of the farmhouse since 3.52am. upon arriving at the scene, the police and Jeremy went into the grounds of the farmhouse to carry out a recce of the farmhouse. This was at 4.02am, and they thought they saw someone moving about beyond the main bedroom window, which caused the police and Jeremy to flee back to the police car, at which stage the police sent a radio message back to the control room over radio, informing them of the situation, regarding the movement which had been noted at the main bedroom window, along with an urgent request to send the firearms unit to the scene immediately. They eventually arrived at 5.00 am, one hour and twelve minutes, after the police first arrived (3.48 am) on the scene. So the sighting of the scruffy looking hunched man who was seen to be walking away from the farmhouse by the police, had already occurred...

It seems reasonable to assume that the scruffy looking hunched man that the police saw walking away from the scene of these shootings, was the person the police and Jeremy had seen beyond the glass of the main bedroom window at around 4.02 am..

Does/did 'Mathew' Hampton walk with hunched shoulders, etc?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49241
Re: The Odd behaviour of Mathew Hampton
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2021, 09:19:PM »
I don't recall any mention of a Matthew Hampton before now.  Is this new?

It is rather interesting to note, that Ann Eaton received a call from 'Mathew' Hampton who she did not know, on the Monday after the murders, which makes that the 12th August 1985. He told her that he had heard of the murders, but that he did not know Jeremy, or any other member of the family but that his own mother knew the family. Out of respect he offered to work for nothing at the farm, and that led to him carrying out work on the white house farm Estate. It does not say when he actually started to work at the farm, only that after a month of working there, the Eaton family thought it was only right that he should be paid, and that in fact he received a months back pay. Nothing is known to me, exactly how long he worked at white house farm, but if I were to hazard a guess, I would say its highly probable, that he was working there from some unknown date, between the date of Jeremy's first Arrest on the 7th September 1985 and the date of his second arrest on the 29th September 1985. It seems a possibility that the relatives may have been receiving information from 'Mathew' Hampton, about how Jeremy could have been involved in carrying out the shootings. Information which the relatives led everyone to believe that they had discovered the evidence which eventually was used to prosecute and convict Jeremy, when all along they had got ideas from 'Mathew' Hampton, because he himself could have been the killer. He could have been the scruffy looking man who was seen walking away from the farmhouse an hour (3.48 am) or so, after the police had initially arrived there (sighting of scruffy looking hunched man seen walking away from scene at about 4.48am). By that stage, of course Jeremy had been outside in the grounds of the farmhouse since 3.52am. upon arriving at the scene, the police and Jeremy went into the grounds of the farmhouse to carry out a recce of the farmhouse. This was at 4.02am, and they thought they saw someone moving about beyond the main bedroom window, which caused the police and Jeremy to flee back to the police car, at which stage the police sent a radio message back to the control room over radio, informing them of the situation, regarding the movement which had been noted at the main bedroom window, along with an urgent request to send the firearms unit to the scene immediately. They eventually arrived at 5.00 am, one hour and twelve minutes, after the police first arrived (3.48 am) on the scene. So the sighting of the scruffy looking hunched man who was seen to be walking away from the farmhouse by the police, had already occurred...

It seems reasonable to assume that the scruffy looking hunched man that the police saw walking away from the scene of these shootings, was the person the police and Jeremy had seen beyond the glass of the main bedroom window at around 4.02 am..

Does/did 'Mathew' Hampton walk with hunched shoulders, etc?

In all my dealings with Jeremy, he has never once mentioned 'Mathew' Hampton, but I have always been aware of a possible connection between Jeremy and him. I think that Jeremy had an affair with 'Mathew' Hamptons girl friend (wife, or lover) and that in retaliation, Hampton slaughtered four members of the Bamber family, as a form of revenge...
« Last Edit: January 10, 2021, 09:21:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13056
Re: The Odd behaviour of Mathew Hampton
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2021, 10:03:PM »
In all my dealings with Jeremy, he has never once mentioned 'Mathew' Hampton, but I have always been aware of a possible connection between Jeremy and him. I think that Jeremy had an affair with 'Mathew' Hamptons girl friend (wife, or lover) and that in retaliation, Hampton slaughtered four members of the Bamber family, as a form of revenge...
But that leaves you having to explain the contents of Nevill's telephone call to his son in the early hours of Wednesday 7th August, 1985.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49241
Re: The Odd behaviour of Mathew Hampton
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2021, 09:41:AM »
But that leaves you having to explain the contents of Nevill's telephone call to his son in the early hours of Wednesday 7th August, 1985.

Hi Steve_uk,

My response to your point is that (a) Sheila was almost certainly involved in the shooting of one or more of the other four victims in this tragedy, (b) that Sheila had an accomplice, and that accomplice may have been 'Mathew' Hampton, (c) that Sheila was in possession of one of the two .22 rifles that were normally and legally kept at the farmhouse, and that prior to Neville Bambers phone call to Jeremy, and his 3.26am call to the police, where he informed them that 'MY DAUGHTER HAS GOT HOLD OF ONE OF MY GUNS', and is going 'BERSERK/CRAZY...'

Neville did make contact with the police at 3.26am on the morning in question, and this almost certainly took place after Neville Bamber had telephoned his son, Jeremy (a minute or so beforehand) to tell him to 'Come Quickly to the house, 'Sheila has got the gun, and she is going crazy' (or words to that effect), Not to be overlooked, is that according to Jeremys account regarding that phone call that he received from whf, was that the speech used by Neville in that call to Jeremy, consisted of around 10 or so words, and ended when Jeremy says the connection between him and his father was broken ('the line went dead'). Not only does Jeremy say, that the connection with his father at whf was suddenly and without any warning cut off. Jeremy says that he attempted to call his father back at the farmhouse but each time he tried, he kept getting an 'engaged tone', which led Jeremy to suspect that his father was talking to someone else on the phone. So the phone that was being used at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger was at one time or another, in three different states, throughout the entire period of Neville Bambers call to Jeremy (from Jeremy's perspective) and, or alternatively, the phone at whf was in a similar set or state throughout this/that overall period (From Neville Bamber's perspective). Understanding these separate perspectives regarding the state each phone had been in, lets say between 3.25am -8.09am, it has a bearing on the point you raise regarding why would Neville have told Jeremy (lets say at about 3.25am, and then for Neville to tell the police (at 3.26am) that in the first instance when Neville spoke to Jeremy in that very brief call, (approx' 3.25am) that 'SHEILA HAS GOT THE GUN' and that 'SHE IS GOING CRAZY/BERSERK', and then, why does Neville contact the police (at 3.26am) to inform them that 'MY DAUGHTER HAS GOT HOLD OF ONE OF MY GUNS', etc, etc, etc?

It should become apparent to anyone seeking the truth of this matter, that in order for Neville Bamber to have made 'that call' (approx' 3.25am) to Jeremy, as Jeremy maintains he did, and then for Neville to have made the 3.26am call to the police, that the state (functionality) of the phone/line at whf which Neville was using had to become changed, in the following sequence, between 3.25am, and whenever Neville Bambers 3.26am call to the police, terminated:-

STATE OF PHONE/line at WHF being USED by Neville Bamber as follows..

(1) - Neville picked up the telephone handset, and got 'a dialling tone'..
(2) - Neville dialled Jeremys number at 9 Head Street...
(3) - Neville heard the phone ringing at Jeremy's end of the process
(4) - As soon as the call was received/accepted at Jeremy's cottage (3.25am, or thereabouts), Neville ignored the normal pleasantries/greetings, but instead, he very quickly spurted out his message to Jeremy, in the hope that he could get Jeremy to come immediately to the farm, before Neville got attacked himself which for whatever reason, he believed that shots which had been fired earlier, had been by Sheila and that at any moment or point, she might come down to the kitchen and shoot at him, or whatever. so Neville spoke his message to Jeremy and then he depressed the cradle of the phone which effectively cut off contact between himself at whf and Jeremy at 9 Head Street. At this juncture, it should be remembered that because Neville Bamber had instigated the call from whf (at about 3.25am) to Jeremy at his cottage (9 Head Street, Goldhanger), that no sooner did Neville tap the phones cradle with one or more of his fingers and then released it, that he at whf would automatically get a dialing tone at his end, whilst at Jeremy's end (9 Head Street) at the time Neville depressed his phones cradle, it would appear to Jeremy back at his cottage, that the connection had become broke, cut off...

Once Neville got a dialing tone, on the phone he was using at the farmhouse, and he started to dial out (to the police at 3.26am), Jeremy would get an engaged tone, no matter how many times Jeremy depressed the cradle on his own house phone, he would get and got an engaged tone, which is what Jeremy described happened. After a few times of trying to reestablish contact with his father (Neville) at whf, Jeremy believed that his father may have been talking to police (hence the sudden switch in the state of the phone line at his end, from cut off, to a constant engaged tone). What also becomes relevant, was that because the connection between his father and himself had been instigated by his father from whf to 9 Head Street, that each time that Jeremy tried to reestablish contact with his father back at the farmhouse (after tapping the receiver of his cottage telephone), that Jeremy would have got a dialling tone, which enabled him to dial out the number to the farmhouse. The tone which Jeremy was receiving at each attempt he made to reestablish a connection with his father (a dialing tone) would suddenly/automatically revert/change into an engaged tone to Jeremy at his end, whilst back at whf the telephones state which Neville Bamber was/had been using, could have either (a) be being used because Neville had contacted someone else, such as the police (at/from 3.26am, onwards), or alternatively, (b) the handset of the telephone which Neville Bamber had used to contact Jeremy (3.25am, or thereabouts) was left off the hook on the kitchen worktop, after his 3.26am call to the police, or indeed, to anyone else, and, or (c) the very last person Neville Bamber had called using the phone at whf which had its handset off the hook would create the state of an open line connection...

Now, this is very important knowledge, because if we accept that Jeremy did receive an SOS call from his father at about 3.25am, and the hand set of the phone at the scene (whf) had been left off the hook, without Neville having called anyone else (the police or anyone else, for that matter) it would have had specific consequences. Those consequences would mean, or include, for the impossibility of Jeremy to have got an engaged tone on his own phone when he says he tried to reestablish contact with his father! It woluld also have prevented Jeremy from contacting the police himself, either as of the first occasion (prior to his 3.30am call to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford), or secondly when he contacted the Chelmsford police at 3.36am - In simple terms, whoever was using the telephone at whf (the very last call to anyone) and if Neville Bamber hadn't been 'ABLE TO CALL ANYONE ELSE' because of imminent danger of being attacked at the scene (after he made the 3.25am aborted call to Jeremy, in keeping with Jeremy's account, but that rather he had simply dropped or placed the telephones handset on the kitchen worktop, preventing the receiver of that last call from being able to contact anyone on their own phone because there existed in those circumstances, a lock out, preventing them from doing so, in keeping with the known facts  I Have provided...

Please note:-

The only 'STATE OF THE TELEPHONE AT WHF' which has been shown to be constantly, in a state known as, or referred to as, it being in an 'OPEN LINE' condition, was/is to Essex police via the unsubstantiated assistance by a female operator who was too afraid to attend 'TRIAL TO TESTIFY AND MAKE HERSELF AVAILABLE TO BE CROSS EXAMIND BY DEFENCE COUNSEL'!

Let us get the facts in this matter, right, correct and accurate!

Here, are the known facts..

3.42am, 7th August 1985

Operator confirms the handset of telephone at whf has been 'left off the hook' without stipulating whether or not someone at the scene was/had been engaged in a conversation with another person or organisation!...

At around 6.09am (7th August 1985)


The phone at whf suddenly alters into an 'ENGAGED state of functionality', someone inside whf, resets the state of the farmhouse telephone settings, so that a living person inside the farmhouse can/does physically dial '999' to try and contact the emergency services!

6.09am (7th August 1985)

Female Operator, Claims that 'SHE PATCHED THROUGH' THE 'OPEN LINE STATE OF THE TELEPHONE LINE AT WHF' TO 'ESSEX POLICE', WITHOUT 'STIPULATING' OR 'MENTIONING WHICH EMERGENCY SERVICE DID 'THE CALLER REQUEST ASSISTENCE', FROM?

POLICE?
AMBULANCE?
FIRE BRIGADE?

7.00 AM (7TH AUGUST 1985)

'TWO AMBULANCES and their Crews, TURN UP MYSTERIOUSLY, AT THE SCENE, ESCORTED BY THE POLICE, WITH THE CAPICITY TO CARRY AWAY A MAXIMUM TOTAL OF FOUR INJURED, DYING, OR DEAD VICTIMS!

who contacted them, with regards to them attending the incident/scene with the capacity of the ambulance service to only recover a maximum of four bodies, if there were at or by that stage already five injured, dying or deceased victims?

Was the 999 call made at 6.09am, made by someone still alive inside the farmhouse?

It is likely, that at about that/this time, that the reason why the telephone/line at whf, changed from being an open line (3.42am) into an active state, at around 6.09am, the very same operator confirmed that the phone at whf had become 'engaged', which was as a result of someone who was still alive inside whf who was requesting that ambulances should be brought to the farmhouse, as quickly as possible to attend to the injured and the dying?

Nothing could be any clearer, or as certain, as certainty could/can be!

Jeremy Bamber could not have shot and killed the five members of his family!!!!

« Last Edit: January 11, 2021, 04:53:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1589
Re: The Odd behaviour of Mathew Hampton
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2021, 05:52:PM »
I don't recall any mention of a Matthew Hampton before now.  Is this new?

Police did not receive this information from Ann Eaton, until or about 10th October 1985, by which time Police had it in their minds that Jeremy had carried out the murders. Added to that, was the information given to police by Julie Mugford who told them that Jeremy had said to her, that someone named 'Mathew' had carried out the murders. According to what Jeremy had confided in her, he said that 'Mathew' had persuaded Sheila to lay on the bed and to shoot herself. Unfortunately, Jeremy never confided in Julie Mugford 'Mathews' surname. This led to the police arresting a 'Mathew McDonald', and releasing him.

At the time of the shootings (August 1985), 'Mathew Hampton' was living in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, 'a stones throw' away, from the scene of the tragedies. He also once worked as a barmen in a wine bar, which Jeremy Bamber, and 'Mathew McDonald' used.

I have a hunch that the police arrested the wrong 'Mathew' (McDonald) because Jeremy never identified the surname of the 'Mathew' (Hampton) he may have been referring to, when he spoke to Julie regarding the circumstances of how Sheila received a solitary shot when her body was resting on top of the bed - by October 1985, police had already made their minds up, that Jeremy was solely responsible for all the killings.

How do you know Jeremy never gave Julie a surname?  Or do you mean Julie never gave the police a surname and that part of her evidence was down to her own suggestibility? 

Is there any evidence that either Jeremy or Sheila knew Matthew Hampton?

If Sheila knew Hampton, then why did she never mention him to family, friends or relatives?  She was no longer married to Colin.

If Jeremy knew Hampton, then a similar question arises: why has Jeremy never mentioned him?  Why isn't he mentioned in the books on the case, at least one of which was thoroughly researched?


Does/did 'Mathew' Hampton walk with hunched shoulders, etc?

Is he still alive?  I would guess he is roughly the same age as Jeremy, so late 50s/early 60s, is that right?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2021, 05:53:PM by QCChevalier »