Author Topic: mathew hamlen  (Read 1540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2019, 08:55:AM »
The burglary-to-fund-a-drug-habit-gone-wrong theory has a number of flaws. Firstly, there was cash in plain view on the counter - the assailant left it there. The victim was wearing expensive jewellery - the assailant didn't take it. There were numerous items of value in the cottage - the assailant apparently didn't even look for valuables - nothing else in the cottage was disturbed.

Then there's the claimed approach route - the prosecution contended that the assailant approached the cottage along the main driveway, walking right past the big house just 100 yards away. How did he know there wasn't someone in there who might see him, or come out and approach him? Why didn't he try to burgle the big house? One would think there would be richer pickings in a mansion than in what could have been an estate worker's cottage.

The PIN number theory is very odd. Apparently, the assailant "tortured" the victim by stabbing her with a knife to get her to give up her PIN number. But, according to the pathology report, because of the lack of blood from those wounds, they weren't inflicted whilst she was sitting upright and may, in fact, have been inflicted after death. If they were inflicted in life, the victim had to be on the floor (since she wasn't sitting or standing upright) - that then means after the blows to the head and face had been inflicted - she would have been in no state to divulge her PIN (or anything else) with fractures to her head and face. Also, food debris was found in her throat - how would she have been able to speak at all?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10838
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2019, 03:18:PM »
The burglary-to-fund-a-drug-habit-gone-wrong theory has a number of flaws. Firstly, there was cash in plain view on the counter - the assailant left it there. The victim was wearing expensive jewellery - the assailant didn't take it. There were numerous items of value in the cottage - the assailant apparently didn't even look for valuables - nothing else in the cottage was disturbed.

Then there's the claimed approach route - the prosecution contended that the assailant approached the cottage along the main driveway, walking right past the big house just 100 yards away. How did he know there wasn't someone in there who might see him, or come out and approach him? Why didn't he try to burgle the big house? One would think there would be richer pickings in a mansion than in what could have been an estate worker's cottage.

The PIN number theory is very odd. Apparently, the assailant "tortured" the victim by stabbing her with a knife to get her to give up her PIN number. But, according to the pathology report, because of the lack of blood from those wounds, they weren't inflicted whilst she was sitting upright and may, in fact, have been inflicted after death. If they were inflicted in life, the victim had to be on the floor (since she wasn't sitting or standing upright) - that then means after the blows to the head and face had been inflicted - she would have been in no state to divulge her PIN (or anything else) with fractures to her head and face. Also, food debris was found in her throat - how would she have been able to speak at all?
I've listened to the six podcasts again today. I know you are constrained through legal reasons in not disclosing a suspect but could you elucidate as to the "striking similarities" between this crime, Betty Yates and John Suddard? What is the significance of the cashpoint video if as you say money was not the motive for the crime? Are you also casting the net to include a family member of Georgina Edmonds and are you also relying on the technicality of contaminated DNA evidence to get Hamlen off rather than firmly believing on a personal level that this case remains a miscarriage of justice?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 03:19:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14285
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2019, 03:52:PM »
I just thinking if you had killed somone and then uou wanted to use there stoln cash card would a hi viz jacket be the best thing to wear if you dident want to be spotted.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 05:00:PM by nugnug »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10838
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2019, 04:01:PM »
I just thinking if you had killed somone and then uou wanted to use there stoln cah card would a hi viz jacket the best thing to wear if you dident want to be spotted.
No but the Prosecution case was that he was desperate to feed a drug habit.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14285
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2019, 06:33:PM »
the prscutions suggestions seems daft to me.

i mean why would a thief take cash card whn thy dont know the pin number and leae cash untouched.

that looks staed to me.

and then theres the killers taking the key how many burgerlers leave by the front door.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 06:35:PM by nugnug »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2019, 09:09:AM »
I've listened to the six podcasts again today. I know you are constrained through legal reasons in not disclosing a suspect but could you elucidate as to the "striking similarities" between this crime, Betty Yates and John Suddard?

In the case of Betty Yates, isolated cottage, apparent motive of burglary, elderly victim, beating the victim with a blunt instrument before inflicting knife wounds, victim lived alone. The difference with Mr Suddard is that he was not quite so elderly (59).

Quote
What is the significance of the cashpoint video if as you say money was not the motive for the crime?

ATM Man was either directly related to the attack on Mrs E, or he was a random who found a handbag with a cashcard in it and decided to try his luck. Either way, attempting to use it in such a visible way seems strange - in direct view of a CCTV camera, in clothing that was bound to stand out. One could conclude that the user, for reasons known only to himself, wanted the footage linked to the attempt to use the card at that particular place and time. Or, alternatively, he was extremely stupid.

Quote
Are you also casting the net to include a family member of Georgina Edmonds

I'm not casting anything, net or otherwise. I told a story - others can make of it what they will.

Quote
and are you also relying on the technicality of contaminated DNA evidence to get Hamlen off rather than firmly believing on a personal level that this case remains a miscarriage of justice?

Goodness, a number of assumptions here. Firstly, is it a "technicality" if an innocent person is convicted on the basis of contaminated evidence? Is overturning the conviction of an innocent person "getting him off"? Put that way, the inference is that he's guilty and "getting off with it," rather than he's innocent and should never have been convicted in the first place.

Secondly"firmly believing on a personal level" is dangerous ground - I prefer to stick with facts and evidence to support my decisions about whether a case is a miscarriage of justice or not. The facts, in this case, are that there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim that Matthew Hamlen hurt Mrs E in any way whatsoever, nor that he was anywhere near Fig Tree Cottage that day. The foundation of our justice system is that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Matthew has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - nowhere near it. When people are convicted of horrific crimes, it's important to all of us that the evidence solidly proves that they were responsible, otherwise we risk leaving dangerous attackers at liberty while innocent individuals serve time that is not theirs to serve.

The murders of Samantha and Jasmine Bissett make this point more clearly than I ever could.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10838
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2019, 03:41:PM »
In the case of Betty Yates, isolated cottage, apparent motive of burglary, elderly victim, beating the victim with a blunt instrument before inflicting knife wounds, victim lived alone. The difference with Mr Suddard is that he was not quite so elderly (59).

ATM Man was either directly related to the attack on Mrs E, or he was a random who found a handbag with a cashcard in it and decided to try his luck. Either way, attempting to use it in such a visible way seems strange - in direct view of a CCTV camera, in clothing that was bound to stand out. One could conclude that the user, for reasons known only to himself, wanted the footage linked to the attempt to use the card at that particular place and time. Or, alternatively, he was extremely stupid.

I'm not casting anything, net or otherwise. I told a story - others can make of it what they will.

Goodness, a number of assumptions here. Firstly, is it a "technicality" if an innocent person is convicted on the basis of contaminated evidence? Is overturning the conviction of an innocent person "getting him off"? Put that way, the inference is that he's guilty and "getting off with it," rather than he's innocent and should never have been convicted in the first place.

Secondly"firmly believing on a personal level" is dangerous ground - I prefer to stick with facts and evidence to support my decisions about whether a case is a miscarriage of justice or not. The facts, in this case, are that there is not a scrap of evidence to support the claim that Matthew Hamlen hurt Mrs E in any way whatsoever, nor that he was anywhere near Fig Tree Cottage that day. The foundation of our justice system is that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Matthew has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - nowhere near it. When people are convicted of horrific crimes, it's important to all of us that the evidence solidly proves that they were responsible, otherwise we risk leaving dangerous attackers at liberty while innocent individuals serve time that is not theirs to serve.

The murders of Samantha and Jasmine Bissett make this point more clearly than I ever could.
Sandra I respect your painstaking research as I have said on a previous occasion but there's a lot wrong with this. Firstly they have apprehended the culprit for the Betty Yates and John Suddard crimes so I really don't know what the point you were making in relation to Matthew Hamlen was. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20171967

Next we get onto Harry Edmonds and the estate manager. It's quite plain from your podcasts that you are casting aspersions on one or both of these characters from the actions and behaviour of the son of the victim at the scene of the crime. To deny this is disingenuous. The fact that someone tried to withdraw money from a cashpoint with her card would I have thought have ruled out Harry Edmonds altogether. Had he wished his mother dead I've no doubt he had the means to pay a hitman. Why would a random burglar attempt to use the victim's card anyway had he not been sure of the number, and why conceal his face with the coat if this were a legitimate withdrawal?

As for the alleged contaminated evidence, of course it's getting off on a technicality if the rolling pin DNA is disallowed. It was the whole basis on which the retrial proceeded. You shrug off far too lightly the line of questioning regarding sexual contact with the victim, which I reproduce here in case members have forgotten. He is covering himself in case Police can place him by some means at the scene of the crime. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14264443.murder-accused-not-sure-if-he-had-sexual-involvement-with-battered-pensioner/

As for your writing style I would be the last person to condemn anyone for a personal or emotional slant as members know many of my posts are liable to wander in that direction. But again I think you are deceiving yourself if you can't see that interviewing the mother of the victim and commenting on the prison procedure of informing Hamlen of his mother's death is not tugging at the heart strings, when many of us will believe that after the nature of the crime he was convicted of committing and which you have not proved he did not commit he warrants no sympathy whatsoever in this regard.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2019, 03:49:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14285
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2019, 03:58:PM »
sandra you might know this who was the first prson to notice that mrs edmonds cash card ws missing and was it them that noticed the phone was missing as well i think i can probely guess but my guess might be wrong..

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2019, 09:35:AM »
Sandra I respect your painstaking research as I have said on a previous occasion but there's a lot wrong with this. Firstly they have apprehended the culprit for the Betty Yates and John Suddard crimes so I really don't know what the point you were making in relation to Matthew Hamlen was. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20171967

Stephen Farrow was at liberty in January 2008 when Mrs E was murdered.

Quote
Next we get onto Harry Edmonds and the estate manager. It's quite plain from your podcasts that you are casting aspersions on one or both of these characters from the actions and behaviour of the son of the victim at the scene of the crime. To deny this is disingenuous.

I asked the obvious questions which, in my opinion, the police investigation should have asked at the time. I reported the concerns of others (the paramedic, Peter Martin, etc) as they stated them. It is your interpretation that sees that as “casting aspersions” – is it wrong to ask why someone did some very strange things at a murder scene, such as considering taking photographs of his murdered mother’s body? Or going to the most remote part of the house to climb through a window when someone was travelling just 100 yards at that very moment with a key? Don’t you think that merited a further question or two?

Quote
The fact that someone tried to withdraw money from a cashpoint with her card would I have thought have ruled out Harry Edmonds altogether.

Why so? Where was Harry, what was he doing, and who was he with when ATM man tried to use the card?

Quote
Had he wished his mother dead I've no doubt he had the means to pay a hitman.

That's on the basis that there's a suggestion that he might have wished his mother dead. I made no such suggestion. On what do you base the further suggestion that "he had the means to pay a hitman" - or, indeed, that, had he wished his mother dead, that would have been his preferred course of action?

Quote
Why would a random burglar attempt to use the victim's card anyway had he not been sure of the number, and why conceal his face with the coat if this were a legitimate withdrawal?

As I said previously, I have no idea!

Quote
As for the alleged contaminated evidence, of course it's getting off on a technicality if the rolling pin DNA is disallowed. It was the whole basis on which the retrial proceeded.

No, it wasn't. The re-trial was based on the DNA on the blouse -the "new and compelling evidence" - the DNA on the rolling pin had nothing to do with it. The rolling pin DNA was never confirmed as a full match for anyone and it was rejected by the first jury. There is very strong evidence to suggest that it is far likelier that the DNA on the blouse got there through contamination than through any other means.

Quote
You shrug off far too lightly the line of questioning regarding sexual contact with the victim, which I reproduce here in case members have forgotten. He is covering himself in case Police can place him by some means at the scene of the crime. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14264443.murder-accused-not-sure-if-he-had-sexual-involvement-with-battered-pensioner/

What you reproduce here is a media representation - context is everything. After making it absolutely clear they would not accept 100% certainty of anything Matthew said, it was they who introduced percentages of a way of “ascertaining” how certain he was. What was he supposed to say? They wouldn’t accept his original answers of never and absolutely not, but they’re not included in the “evidence” because of the police decision that, if he didn’t know where he was on a particular day more than 2 years earlier, he couldn’t be sure of anything. Technically correct, but hardly fair. Also, there was no evidence, whatsoever, of sexual contact with the victim, with anyone. That line of questioning was bogus and introduced only to make him look bad.

Quote
As for your writing style I would be the last person to condemn anyone for a personal or emotional slant as members know many of my posts are liable to wander in that direction.

They are two very different things. You asked me about a personal belief in Matthew’s innocence, not my writing style. An emotional slant may be dictated by the context and content of the story being told – that is not necessarily a personal slant.

Quote
But again I think you are deceiving yourself if you can't see that interviewing the mother of the victim

I didn’t. Both Mrs Edmonds’ mother and Matthew’s mother were deceased when I did the interviews.

Quote
and commenting on the prison procedure of informing Hamlen of his mother's death is not tugging at the heart strings, when many of us will believe that after the nature of the crime he was convicted of committing and which you have not proved he did not commit he warrants no sympathy whatsoever in this regard.

I reported on the nature of the prison procedure of informing Matthew of his mother’s death so that people could decide for themselves whether or not they believed that was acceptable, not to “tug on their heartstrings”. I believe that all prisoners, whether innocent or guilty, have the right to basic human dignity. That is a personal belief, based on how we define ourselves as a civilised society. The punishment for serious crimes is imprisonment, deprivation of liberty and a number of other everyday rights and privileges and the purported point of imprisonment is rehabilitation, so that prisoners can eventually return to society as productive, safe, reformed members of that society.
Physically or emotionally torturing prisoners is unacceptable in any circumstances – again a personal belief based on my own principles and values.
Even if you personally believe that Matthew “deserves no sympathy,” do you think his family members, who have done nothing wrong, also deserve to be punished in that way? And, would your opinion change about Matthew when it is proven he had nothing to do with Mrs Edmonds’ murder? If so, how would you propose undoing the damage done?

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2019, 09:41:AM »
sandra you might know this who was the first prson to notice that mrs edmonds cash card ws missing and was it them that noticed the phone was missing as well i think i can probely guess but my guess might be wrong..

Her son and daughter were asked to check the cottage to see if they could identify anything missing. The son pointed out the handbag was missing and the daughter told the police what the contents would have been - her purse with cash card and credit cards, cheque book, silver credit card holder and phone.

That was either the day or second day after the attempt to use the cash card at the ATM - it's not clear from the case papers whether it was the attempt to use the cash card that alerted them to the fact that it had been stolen or the information from the daughter that it would have been in her handbag.

It's also not clear whether the rest of the house was checked for any of those things or if it was just accepted from the point that the daughter told them what the contents of the handbag would have been, that they must all be missing because the handbag was missing

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14285
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #40 on: February 22, 2019, 12:02:PM »
Her son and daughter were asked to check the cottage to see if they could identify anything missing. The son pointed out the handbag was missing and the daughter told the police what the contents would have been - her purse with cash card and credit cards, cheque book, silver credit card holder and phone.

That was either the day or second day after the attempt to use the cash card at the ATM - it's not clear from the case papers whether it was the attempt to use the cash card that alerted them to the fact that it had been stolen or the information from the daughter that it would have been in her handbag.

It's also not clear whether the rest of the house was checked for any of those things or if it was just accepted from the point that the daughter told them what the contents of the handbag would have been, that they must all be missing because the handbag was missing


now its posble to use a stolen credit card but its imposable to use a stolen cash card unless you have the pin number but funnly enough no attempt is made to use the credit cards but an  attempt is made to use the cash card no attempt to use the check book ethere.the phone could be sold but instead of that its thron away that's very starnge burgler.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10838
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #41 on: February 22, 2019, 12:02:PM »
You answer well, but I still think your whole approach to this case is to fling mud at other protagonists hoping that some will stick and by default clear Matthew Hamlen. For example Stephen Farrow's modus operandi is completely different from the Georgina Edmonds crime: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226858/Stephen-Farrow-Drifter-threatened-kill-Christian-scum-guilty-murdering-vicar-retired-teacher.html

Are you seriously suggesting that Harry Edmonds was connected with the cashpoint withdrawal in any way? Don't you think that had he been involved he would have planned resources to pay off a hitman well in advance? Of course he had the means to do this as he inherited a business from his wealthy father.

The number of times I have heard the phrase "contaminated DNA evidence" to get the defendant off, when it's in the interests of the laboratory technicians to ensure this does not occur as they must know the consequences.


So it was the aunt not the mother whom you interviewed. The principle is still the same and how the general public is supposed to have sympathy for the relatives' anguish when Hamlen brought all this upon himself beats me.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 12:03:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14285
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #42 on: February 22, 2019, 01:44:PM »
You answer well, but I still think your whole approach to this case is to fling mud at other protagonists hoping that some will stick and by default clear Matthew Hamlen. For example Stephen Farrow's modus operandi is completely different from the Georgina Edmonds crime: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226858/Stephen-Farrow-Drifter-threatened-kill-Christian-scum-guilty-murdering-vicar-retired-teacher.html

Are you seriously suggesting that Harry Edmonds was connected with the cashpoint withdrawal in any way? Don't you think that had he been involved he would have planned resources to pay off a hitman well in advance? Of course he had the means to do this as he inherited a business from his wealthy father.

The number of times I have heard the phrase "contaminated DNA evidence" to get the defendant off, when it's in the interests of the laboratory technicians to ensure this does not occur as they must know the consequences.


So it was the aunt not the mother whom you interviewed. The principle is still the same and how the general public is supposed to have sympathy for the relatives' anguish when Hamlen brought all this upon himself beats me.


are a hitman now that is anintresting suggestion steve.

do you have an theory as to how harry edmonds knows hes mothers dead when nobody else does.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10838
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #43 on: February 22, 2019, 03:04:PM »

are a hitman now that is anintresting suggestion steve.

do you have an theory as to how harry edmonds knows hes mothers dead when nobody else does.

I wish the Bamberettes would show the same compassion for Harry Edmonds as they do for Jeremy himself.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14285
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: mathew hamlen
« Reply #44 on: February 22, 2019, 03:19:PM »
I wish the Bamberettes would show the same compassion for Harry Edmonds as they do for Jeremy himself.

Bamberette i dont who you have been talking t but i havent had a sex change.