Author Topic: Did the police really change stance ?  (Read 10426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37653
Did the police really change stance ?
« on: December 28, 2016, 06:46:PM »
It's accepted by everyone that the police changed stance. All be it very quickly, after just one month.

Supporters jump on the relatives apparently expertly fabricating a silencer, virtually straight after the massacre. Or Julie telling multiple horrendous lies because, according to Bamber,  he jilted her.

Quite why the police were supposed to have changed stance and put themselves into a very hot frying pan remains unclear. Allegations that the relatives pressurised them  or that they  tried to cover up the fact they  shot Sheila are totally unconvincing.

But did the police change stance at all ?

The media were all over the massacre straight away,  for a couple of days. Stating Sheila had massacred her family and then killed herself. The police had to say something to the press and all they could do is go along with what Bamber told them. Or maybe the police said nothing at all.

The murder/suicide theory was then promoted by the media rather than by the police. 

Several policemen were suspicious of Bamber straight away. Stan Jones doing tests on the rifle & Bews saying Bamber was too willing to offer information insinuating Sheila. Supported by the equally suspicious relatives. Bamber didn't help himself by going on multiple jolly ups. The forensic crime scene and circumstantial evidence had yet to be collected, processed and digested. Which included the silencer.

Bamber was interviewed, charged and admitted to the caravan break in. Which would have just made him more of a suspect for the massacre. 

Julie also came forward after just one month, after confiding to 5 people beforehand.  Stan Jones saying he was going to approach her again anyway. Bamber was charged with the massacre when returning from another jolly up abroad.  The silencer evidence, together with a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence had now been processed.

The police charge was successful and Bamber was convicted and has failed with several appeals.

Seems to me that the police didn't really change stance at all. They simply spent a month processing evidence while the media incorrectly hyped up Sheila as a crazy, guilty woman.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 07:44:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37653
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2016, 10:16:PM »
As a guilter I am changing stance. Hopefully all other guilters will do the same.

The police did not change stance. Especially Bews, Miller et al who believed Bamber was guilty from the beginning.

The police simply spent a month processing the forensic and circumstantial evidence. Then charged Bamber.

The media, as usual inaccurately reported what they wanted.  Insinuating Sheila.

Supporters will still claim there was a massive 360 degree u turn. There wasn't.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 10:23:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37653
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2016, 11:01:PM »
Just because someone is not charged for a month, does not mean the police have changed stance. Some crimes may go unsolved for years before someone is charged.

It was a big crime with the offender attempting a frame. So not surprising it took a month.

Just because Bamber was free to walk around does not mean EP had settled on Sheila.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 11:01:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17935
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2016, 02:52:AM »
As a guilter I am changing stance. Hopefully all other guilters will do the same.

The police did not change stance. Especially Bews, Miller et al who believed Bamber was guilty from the beginning.

The police simply spent a month processing the forensic and circumstantial evidence. Then charged Bamber.

The media, as usual inaccurately reported what they wanted.  Insinuating Sheila.

Supporters will still claim there was a massive 360 degree u turn. There wasn't.
I think the pressure was put on Essex Police when Robert Boutflour wrote to the Chief Constable and had a meeting with Peter Simpson on Thursday 5 September. This in turn led to a reassessment of the evidence by Acting Chief Superintendant Mike Ainsley, who brought James Kenneally into the loop, who happened to be a friend of DCI Taff Jones. At that stage I don't think DS Jones had very much influence until Julie came forward on the Friday evening with her story.

At this early stage DCI Jones had first crack at interrogating Jeremy on Sunday 9th September, but made a complete mess, which only emboldened Jeremy in his belief that the murders would never be proved. He had only a few more months to live, dying 4 days after Jeremy's committal for trial on 11 May 1986.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 02:53:AM by Steve_uk »

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2016, 09:41:AM »
At this early stage DCI Jones... had only a few more months to live, dying 4 days after Jeremy's committal for trial on 11 May 1986.

As I understand it, DCI Jones' family remain supportive of the claim Jeremy Bamber was/is innocent of the killings.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2016, 10:55:AM »
As I understand it, DCI Jones' family remain supportive of the claim Jeremy Bamber was/is innocent of the killings.

But this isn't uncommon Roch. Nor does it make Jeremy innocent. SH's mother spoke to the media following SH's confession and said she would always believe him innocent (Not that I believe her).
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2016, 11:13:AM »
But this isn't uncommon Roch. Nor does it make Jeremy innocent. SH's mother spoke to the media following SH's confession and said she would always believe him innocent (Not that I believe her).

Yes it is probably not uncommon Steph.  I wasn't inferring that it meant that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.  However, it is factually correct to state that if Jeremy Bamber didn't actually commit the killings, then the relatives of DCI Jones would be correct in having retained a supportive view.

It's also probably not uncommon for prosecution witnesses who have been involved in some kind of collusive practice, to remain silent on such matters.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2016, 11:13:AM »
But this isn't uncommon Roch. Nor does it make Jeremy innocent. SH's mother spoke to the media following SH's confession and said she would always believe him innocent (Not that I believe her).




" Taff " Jones was at the scene,your mother-in-law wasn't. Two entirely different scenario's.You can't ever compare one scenario with another it doesn't work like that----only in your mind.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32550
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2016, 11:49:AM »
As I understand it, DCI Jones' family remain supportive of the claim Jeremy Bamber was/is innocent of the killings.


My friend's late husband was one of those who interviewed Jeremy. He always believed him to be guilty. It MAY follow that his family remain supportive of his belief.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2016, 12:09:PM »



" Taff " Jones was at the scene,your mother-in-law wasn't. Two entirely different scenario's.You can't ever compare one scenario with another it doesn't work like that----only in your mind.

But this is exactly what you do Lookout!
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32550
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2016, 12:13:PM »




Why should it ? He never harps on about " Mr and Mrs So and So " who you know/lunch with,etc etc, who believe Jeremy to be guilty. Everyone you come into contact with in fact.
He said,she said doesn't work for me-------it's known as gossip and gossip is dangerous.

So you don't believe those people who were close friends with June and Nevill have a right to voice their opinions? Surely they have a greater right than do we?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2016, 01:05:PM »
News/media are the worst offenders for gossip. If you happen to read those which were printed about the murders in 1985,they're ALL different and depending on political preference,you'll believe that particular one. 

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37653
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2016, 02:30:AM »
I think the pressure was put on Essex Police when Robert Boutflour wrote to the Chief Constable and had a meeting with Peter Simpson on Thursday 5 September. This in turn led to a reassessment of the evidence by Acting Chief Superintendant Mike Ainsley, who brought James Kenneally into the loop, who happened to be a friend of DCI Taff Jones. At that stage I don't think DS Jones had very much influence until Julie came forward on the Friday evening with her story.

At this early stage DCI Jones had first crack at interrogating Jeremy on Sunday 9th September, but made a complete mess, which only emboldened Jeremy in his belief that the murders would never be proved. He had only a few more months to live, dying 4 days after Jeremy's committal for trial on 11 May 1986.

The relatives did go higher as Taff Jones had not changed stance.  He was slowly changing stance before his death, after being taken off heading the case. But he couldn't have prevented Bamber being charged if he had refused to budge,  as he no longer had control.

Simpson didn't have a stance change as he wasn't involved with the case at first. However he quickly set wheels in motion after hearing what the relatives had to say and looking into the case. 

Bews, Miller and Stan Jones were suspicious from the start. Other people present on the massacre night such as the raid team, pathologist and photographer would not have a stance. They would just do their job on the night.

So not sure where this big stance change was supposed to have happened. Which supporters claim was the police deciding to frame Bamber.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 03:03:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37653
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2016, 02:38:AM »
With DNA and other advancements it's possible for criminals to be successfully charged years after a crime. Or exonerated. This isn't the police changing opinion or proof they previously fabricated evidence. It's just that new technology has established an undisputed new fact which negates everything else. 

New technology can also justify criminal convictions, such as in the Hanratty case.

None of the above applies in the Bamber case. He was simply charged a month after the massacre after evidence had been processed, common sense had prevailed & witnesses had come forward. Advancements in technology have not resulted in anyone involved with the original case changing stance over the last 31 years.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 09:46:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17935
Re: Did the police really change stance ?
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2016, 03:21:AM »
The relatives did go higher as Taff Jones had not changed stance.  He was slowly changing stance before his death, after being taken off heading the case. But he couldn't have prevented Bamber being charged if he had refused to budge,  as he no longer had control.

Simpson didn't have a stance change as he wasn't involved with the case at first. However he quickly set wheels in motion after hearing what the relatives had to say and looking into the case. 

Bews, Miller and Stan Jones were suspicious from the start. Other people present on the massacre night such as the raid team, pathologist and photographer would not have a stance. They would just do their job on the night.

So not sure where this big stance change was supposed to have happened. Which supporters claim was the police deciding to frame Bamber.
I think you're forgetting that DCI Taff Jones was satisfied with Sheila being the culprit, which may have influenced his manner of questioning Jeremy in an emollient fashion, which the latter immediately saw through and outmanoeuvred. It would have been interesting to hear Taff testify at trial to discover his true feelings on the case.