Author Topic: Liz Rimmingtons Statements  (Read 4391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #60 on: August 06, 2017, 07:21:PM »
So it's your fault then!  >:(  ;D

Yep - all my fault!  ;) ;D ;D
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #61 on: August 06, 2017, 07:21:PM »
Saturday 10 August 1985

Jeremy, Julie, Liz and Charles Marsden meet in Colchester to go bowling. Julie tells Liz:

Jeremy is so cold, he just doesn't care about anything. Believe me, if the devil has a human form on this earth then his name is Jeremy. He's the devil incarnate.

Liz: "He may be in shock.."

Julie: "If only you knew.."

Thursday 15 August

Liz, Julie, Jeremy and Brett go shopping in Colchester for the funeral.

Brett to Jeremy in front of Liz: "Buy yourself something really slick. You're inheriting all this money. Play the part."

They later drive to the Farm, where Jeremy searches for money which might have been hidden away.

Later at Bourtree Cottage Jeremy "delights in the fact that his father has weakened with age in the months before his death." He "might have married Julie and stayed in Goldhanger forever, but "with all this happening" his life would be different."

Hearsay
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #62 on: August 06, 2017, 07:22:PM »
Saturday 31 August

Julie tells Liz she has parted with Jeremy.

Liz: "You're lucky that you're rid of him."

Julie: "You don't know the half of it."

Julie then tells Liz the whole story, and Liz urges her friend to go to the Police.

Friday 6th September

Liz persuades Julie to tell Malcolm Waters, who then urges Liz to telephone Police on Julie's behalf. At 4pm Liz puts a call through to Witham Police Station.

Hearsay
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #63 on: August 06, 2017, 07:24:PM »
I cannot wait to see Julie Mugford and Liz rimmingtons matching statements

They will be the same won't they
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #64 on: August 06, 2017, 07:24:PM »
She lied numerous time starting with the cheque fraud
Fact
A nasty scheming trainee teacher who lied
Great role model

She probably did lie about lots of things - so did Jeremy, but how does that make him innocent?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #65 on: August 06, 2017, 07:35:PM »
She probably did lie about lots of things - so did Jeremy, but how does that make him innocent?

Obviously because we only have her word what Jeremy said to her

Her criminal record, her jealousy, her twisted mind, not wanting anyone else to have Jeremy

She's got a lot to answer too
She gets dumped by Jeremy and goes berserk only later to find out he had slept with her best mate

That must have tipped her over the edge
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17996
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #66 on: August 07, 2017, 10:51:AM »
I'd be interested to know from ngb1066 and Petey exactly what hearsay can be allowed in court. For example James Richards was allowed to testify that Jeremy told him vehemently "I hate my f***ing parents" and I don't see why Liz Rimington's testimony is any different. In the David Bain case there was fierce legal argument over Dean Cottle's incest evidence(disallowed in the first trial) and it was this which swung it for Bain in the retrial 13 years later.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2017, 10:52:AM by Steve_uk »

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #67 on: August 07, 2017, 11:05:AM »
I'd be interested to know from ngb1066 and Petey exactly what hearsay can be allowed in court. For example James Richards was allowed to testify that Jeremy told him vehemently "I hate my f***ing parents" and I don't see why Liz Rimington's testimony is any different. In the David Bain case there was fierce legal argument over Dean Cottle's incest evidence(disallowed in the first trial) and it was this which swung it for Bain in the retrial 13 years later.

Evidence of what a defendant has said is in law not hearsay, and therefore in principle is admissible in evidence.  Evidence of what a third party other than the defendant has said is hearsay and normally inadmissible.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #68 on: August 07, 2017, 12:20:PM »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #69 on: August 07, 2017, 12:21:PM »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #70 on: August 31, 2017, 09:47:AM »

Supporting evidence to 'confirm there was an attack alarm' which was activated from within the farmhouse by 3.29am, is contained in 'a police telex message' log. All types of alarm such as 'intruder alarms' and 'attack alarms' which were fed directly through to the police are 'automatically recorded' there as one of many telex messages 'when' activated! The times that police units got deployed to respond to such occurences are 'also' recorded! There is little doubt from what I have seen that 'PC Myall' left to go to the farmhouse 'long before the occupants of CA07' containing 'PS Bews' and 'PS Saxby' did! The telex message log I have seen has 'the occupants of CA07' being deployed to the incident at '3.45am', not 3.35am! Bonnetts 'handwritten note' that the occupants of 'CA07' were deployed to the incident at '3.35am', and that they 'arrived' there at '3.48am', is false! From his console (6) in the incident room 'he typed' in the fact that 'CA07 were deployed at 3.45am', hence why in the police 'telex message' log it 'flagged up' correctly as 3.45am! The handwritten version of 'Malcolm Bonnetts' 3.26am log, therefore has 'misleading information' recorded upon it and in it. He 'typed' in at his keyboard that 'CA07 had been deployed to the incident at 3.45am', which was 'after Jeremy called Chelmsford police station' at 3.36am, why would he record the time 'inaccurately' as though they had been deployed '10 minutes' earlier? The answer seems clear to me, the handwritten phone log made by 'Malcolm Bonnett', was 'not' written up contemporaneously, it was made up and 'written out much later' on another occasion! Probably after the 'nature of the police investigation altered' from 'four murders and a suicide', into 'five murders', by which time the 'audio recordings' of Neville Bambers 3.26am call to Witham police station which 'got diverted' to Chelmsford incident room by the 'automated service' deployed back at Witham because there was 'no-one' available to take Nevilles call at that time, and 'Jeremys' call to Chelmsford police station at '3.36am', had both been (arguably) 'destroyed' or 'disposed of' because they were over '28 days' old. Bews and Saxby did 'not arrive' at the scene until '3.58am', they 'weren't there' at '3.48am', but 'PC Myall' was 'already there', he was there in time to see 'the scruffy looking hunched man walking away from the farmhouse' at '3.45am', not at 'about' 3.45am, and certainly not 'about an hour before the firearm officers arrived at the scene' (5am) in keeping with 'Kim Sengupta's News article' on the matter! The reason why 'Bonnetts' 3.26am phone log records the time that CA07 was deployed to the incident and arrived there, is recorded as having taken place 10 minutes sooner than they had been, was because at the time Bonnet wrote out the handwritten version of his 3.26am log, 'Jeremy' had already been interviewed in early September about the sequence with which 'he had called the police and his girlfriend' Julie Mugford! He told the 'interviewing officers' that he had called Julie first then the police! They took Jeremy to task on that asssertion 'reminding him' that on the morning of the incident he had told officers at the scene that 'he had tried phoning Witham police station' but had got no reply, and then 'he had phoned Julie'! Jeremy 'appeared confused' when challenged about this, and 'eventually conceded' that 'what he had originally told the officers at the scene' that he had tried to phone Witham police station before he had phoned Julie, and not the other way round, 'must be the true sequence' of events! But, 'Jeremy' had tried to contact Witham police 'before he phoned his girlfriend' but got no answer, and he had phoned Chelmsford police 'after he had spoken' to Julie! What the police knew and have known all along, is that 'Neville Bambers' distress call was made at 3.26am, and that 'Jeremys' call to Chelmsford occurred at 3.36am, 10 minutes later! Somebody in authority who was possibly 'trying to keep the lid on' the true nature of the 'incident' at the farmhouse (the murders of Neville, June and their two grandchildren on the one hand, and the 'circumstances of the death of Sheila', who perhaps may have originally been 'earmarked as the patsy' to take the blame for the other deaths, if we lean toward Giovanni De Stefano's explanation for what might have occured involving a spy ring conspiracy) realised that by presenting the time of 'Jeremys' 3.36am call to Chelmsford, as having occurred 10 minutes sooner, it would 'serve to mask the fact that Neville Bamber had made his distress call' at around the time that 'Jeremy' had attempted to contact Witham police station himself unsuccessfully! Hence why during the trial 'an attempt was made' to try and get 'PC West' to agree that he could have 'made a mistake' when looking at the control room clock by as much as 10 minutes. In the end though PC West 'wasn't prepared to accept' that he had made such a glaring error! The 'fact is', he didn't...

The contents of both logs (Bonnetts 3.26am log, and Wests 3.36am log) were 'never disclosed together', alongside one another during the trial, or the 'subsequent' failed appeal and the 'contradictory nature' of both were 'never considered' or 'debated, and no court 'judgement' given which dispensed the issues arising therein, because the prosecution made Jeremys call (PC Wests 3.36am log) the subject of 'a mistaken time' having been recorded by PC West. There was 'nothing presented' to suggest or imply that the 'contents of each log' supported the fact that Neville and Jeremy had contacted the police about the same matter, albeit 'couched in terminology' representative of 'Neville telling police himself' what was happening, and 'Jeremy telling police what Neville had told him' was happening!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #71 on: September 02, 2017, 09:07:PM »
No attack alarm
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #72 on: September 04, 2017, 06:20:AM »
Supporting evidence to 'confirm there was an attack alarm' which was activated from within the farmhouse by 3.29am, is contained in 'a police telex message' log.
Why would a "telex message" say "by 3:29" instead of just giving the time? As you haven't posted the evidence, you presumably don't know for certain that it exists or ever existed.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 38245
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #73 on: September 04, 2017, 02:49:PM »
If there was an attack alarm, would it not be to thwart outside attackers ? Bamber being the only person who has publically said he knew how to get into & out of a locked WHF.

A panic alarm was certainly not for Sheila, who had been invited to WHF.

Anyway there is no evidence of an alarm going off. The first phone call that definately happened was Bamber to Chelmsford police/Julie.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 02:50:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32623
Re: Liz Rimmingtons Statements
« Reply #74 on: September 04, 2017, 03:14:PM »
If there was an attack alarm, would it not be to thwart outside attackers ? Bamber being the only person who has publically said he knew how to get into & out of a locked WHF.

A panic alarm was certainly not for Sheila, who had been invited to WHF.

Anyway there is no evidence of an alarm going off. The first phone call that definately happened was Bamber to Chelmsford police/Julie.

There was no panic alarm...................could be that's why there's no evidence of one.