Author Topic: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices  (Read 33774 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #45 on: February 01, 2020, 02:12:PM »






Of course, they weren't/aren't really his are they ?? Makes a difference where money/properties are concerned.



Plus most of us are not intertwined in business and land ownership . It makes things extremely complicated

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33775
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #46 on: February 01, 2020, 02:12:PM »






Of course, they weren't/aren't really his are they ?? Makes a difference where money/properties are concerned.

I unfortunately hear what you're saying, Lookout. I can only say that I understand where they may have been coming from, too. As a family business they were heavily enmeshed. They mast have lived in fear of the whole thing being broken up by someone who wasn't strictly 'one of them'.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #47 on: February 01, 2020, 02:15:PM »
Bit wounded my thread went off topic  :)) But while we're here, has anyone ever collated everything that's ever been said by or attributed to Jeremy, regarding Daniel and Nicholas?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33775
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #48 on: February 01, 2020, 02:36:PM »
Bit wounded my thread went off topic  :)) But while we're here, has anyone ever collated everything that's ever been said by or attributed to Jeremy, regarding Daniel and Nicholas?


I can't think that much is known, Roch. Was Jeremy even in the country when they were born? If anything can be deduced from the series, they seemed to be very taken with 'Uncle Jem', suggesting they saw quite a lot of him, but I think I recall him saying that he only saw Sheila every 4-6 weeks -which could mean more? Maybe he was one of those characters who were only good with children when it suited them to be?

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #49 on: February 01, 2020, 03:27:PM »

I can't think that much is known, Roch. Was Jeremy even in the country when they were born? If anything can be deduced from the series, they seemed to be very taken with 'Uncle Jem', suggesting they saw quite a lot of him, but I think I recall him saying that he only saw Sheila every 4-6 weeks -which could mean more? Maybe he was one of those characters who were only good with children when it suited them to be?

Thanks for response. I was just wondering whether the subject of Jeremy and the twins had come up several times in different formats, ie testimony, statements etc.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #50 on: February 01, 2020, 03:31:PM »
Bit wounded my thread went off topic  :)) But while we're here, has anyone ever collated everything that's ever been said by or attributed to Jeremy, regarding Daniel and Nicholas?
Yes he told Liz Rimington they were spoiled children. Other than that since he couldn't even remember the married name of his sister that morning I doubt there were many pronouncements on the subject, apart from telling Julie he would have to kill all five of them.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #51 on: February 01, 2020, 03:37:PM »
Yes he told Liz Rimington they were spoiled children. Other than that since he couldn't even remember the married name of his sister that morning I doubt there were many pronouncements on the subject, apart from telling Julie he would have to kill all five of them.

Thank you Steve. Spoiled in what sense? Financially or in some way behaviourally?  Waited upon?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2020, 04:14:PM »
Thank you Steve. Spoiled in what sense? Financially or in some way behaviourally?  Waited upon?
In the sense of being doted upon. I've looked but can't find the exact reference.

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #53 on: February 02, 2020, 08:18:AM »
It rests on the silencer.
According to Jeremy Bamber, Assistant Chief Constable Peter Simpson gave an interview to the Essex Chronicle, published on 17.09.1985, where he stated "(Mr Simpson) hit out at national newspaper reports and added that a silencer was found at the farm house on the day of the killings, but that this does not have to mean anything that is suspicious." Also, case documents state that a silencer was found at White House Farm on 7th August, 1985. This silencer was booked into the property store at Witham police station on 07.08.1985 as "A silencer for rifle SBJ/1."

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13781
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #54 on: February 02, 2020, 10:15:AM »
According to Jeremy Bamber, Assistant Chief Constable Peter Simpson gave an interview to the Essex Chronicle, published on 17.09.1985, where he stated "(Mr Simpson) hit out at national newspaper reports and added that a silencer was found at the farm house on the day of the killings, but that this does not have to mean anything that is suspicious." Also, case documents state that a silencer was found at White House Farm on 7th August, 1985. This silencer was booked into the property store at Witham police station on 07.08.1985 as "A silencer for rifle SBJ/1."

ACC Simpson never said this. The actual press interview transcript can be found on this forum. Its just a local newspaper misquoting him.

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #55 on: February 02, 2020, 04:08:PM »
I'll take your word for that, but what about the information regarding the property store at Witham police station?

Also, JB says that other newspapers published the date of 07.08.1985 as the date when EP said the silencer was found, their information coming from a separate press conference.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13781
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #56 on: February 02, 2020, 05:06:PM »
I'll take your word for that, but what about the information regarding the property store at Witham police station?

Also, JB says that other newspapers published the date of 07.08.1985 as the date when EP said the silencer was found, their information coming from a separate press conference.

When and Where does JB say all this?

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #57 on: February 02, 2020, 07:33:PM »
When and Where does JB say all this?

There are some letters from him on social media to one  or more newspapers  I think

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #58 on: February 02, 2020, 09:22:PM »
Try this link, which is the one I used. It's a news link, so it may not remain valid indefinitely. Some police officer names have been redacted.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #59 on: February 03, 2020, 09:42:AM »
Try this link, which is the one I used. It's a news link, so it may not remain valid indefinitely. Some police officer names have been redacted.

Thanks for providing that link.  The letter is an interesting read.