Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[curiousessex]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?

Jon

It is a possibility.

Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.

It would be a rather ridiculous thing for JB to do... if he was guilty and had removed these items so they would not be found....then he would have sensibly disposed of them elsewhere so they would not be found and certainly not took them back and place them where they would be found.

In my view , considering how the police did act...it seems more likely that some dodgy police officers are responsible for tampering with evidence in order to frame JB . If not them ...then the dodgy relatives were involved in messing around with the evidence in this regard.

Smiffy

What we do knoew is Jermey admits to gaingin undetected entry and exit from WHite House Farm after the killings.

Was it rediculous behaviour for Jeremy to get into White House Farm after the killings undetected in order to get some travel documents?

Is this not unusual behaviour?

Is this something you would have done?

Do you think this will have been a deliberate action or could it have been stress that made him do it because he was not thinking straight?

[paulg]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.[/b]

With all the information possible, i could certainly create a market. It would have to be 2 markets really, one treating JB as innocent, and the other as guilty. There would be no accuracy in the odds v actual events, but none the less, a decent spead of odds for all punters to have a wager on.

[smiffy]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?

Jon

It is a possibility.

Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.

It would be a rather ridiculous thing for JB to do... if he was guilty and had removed these items so they would not be found....then he would have sensibly disposed of them elsewhere so they would not be found and certainly not took them back and place them where they would be found.

In my view , considering how the police did act...it seems more likely that some dodgy police officers are responsible for tampering with evidence in order to frame JB . If not them ...then the dodgy relatives were involved in messing around with the evidence in this regard.

Smiffy

What we do knoew is Jermey admits to gaingin undetected entry and exit from WHite House Farm after the killings.

Was it rediculous behaviour for Jeremy to get into White House Farm after the killings undetected in order to get some travel documents?

Is this not unusual behaviour?

Is this something you would have done?

Do you think this will have been a deliberate action or could it have been stress that made him do it because he was not thinking straight?

I see nothing wierd about JB getting his travel documents in the way he admitted to.

as for putting evidence back for no good reason....thats a truly crackpot idea that makes no sense....not credible!

[curiousessex]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.[/b]

With all the information possible, i could certainly create a market. It would have to be 2 markets really, one treating JB as innocent, and the other as guilty. There would be no accuracy in the odds v actual events, but none the less, a decent spead of odds for all punters to have a wager on.

So what are the odds?

In your opinion, was the summary logic in establishing background a fair assessment in order to provide a response?

[paulg]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.[/b]

With all the information possible, i could certainly create a market. It would have to be 2 markets really, one treating JB as innocent, and the other as guilty. There would be no accuracy in the odds v actual events, but none the less, a decent spead of odds for all punters to have a wager on.

So what are the odds?

In your opinion, was the summary logic in establishing background a fair assessment in order to provide a response?

Odds on this CE can not be accurate, so very little point creating a market, it would just be a fun market.

But, your logic is spot on.

What would need to be established, is whether the items would raise suspicion if not found in the cupboard, from possibly other family members/friends.

If there is a positive answer to this, then it would effect any fun market i'd attempt to create.

[curiousessex]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?

Jon

It is a possibility.

Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.

It would be a rather ridiculous thing for JB to do... if he was guilty and had removed these items so they would not be found....then he would have sensibly disposed of them elsewhere so they would not be found and certainly not took them back and place them where they would be found.

In my view , considering how the police did act...it seems more likely that some dodgy police officers are responsible for tampering with evidence in order to frame JB . If not them ...then the dodgy relatives were involved in messing around with the evidence in this regard.

Smiffy

What we do knoew is Jermey admits to gaingin undetected entry and exit from WHite House Farm after the killings.

Was it rediculous behaviour for Jeremy to get into White House Farm after the killings undetected in order to get some travel documents?

Is this not unusual behaviour?

Is this something you would have done?

Do you think this will have been a deliberate action or could it have been stress that made him do it because he was not thinking straight?

I see nothing wierd about JB getting his travel documents in the way he admitted to.

as for putting evidence back for no good reason....thats a truly crackpot idea that makes no sense....not credible!

Smiffy

If I am not mistaken Jeremy admits to gaining entry and exit via windows at night.

Would it not be more reasonable just to ask to get the documents from the office during the day when people are at the farm working or just ask the police etc. It is not as if the trip abroad was unplanned.


Have you ever gone or are you in the habit of getting into a relative's home at night via windows undetected?

[curiousessex]

Curious you have got me really confused now can you explain exactly what you mean and explain as if you think JB is guilty

All I can say is so much doesn't make sense if a hit man was used JB would have had an alibi.  The scene was left as a suicide if JB had been in London with Julie it would have stayed a suicide.  If JB was responsible he would have used a solicitor he would have acted differently in the witness box.

You would have to show me something definate proving JB s guilt re the telephone calls rather than him just forgetting or just muddling up times because I forget times even important times so maybe I am the wrong person to put the argument to but please explain it to me in detail.

Jackie

I will try to explain, as per your request, from a perspective of Jeremy being guilty.

Jeremy states he was woken from his sleep by a telephone call from his father at between 03.15 and 03.30 a.m. You can hear this in Jeremy's own words if you follow the link below

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/

Jeremy confirms his father tells him Sheila has got hold of the gun.

Jeremy admits calling Julie.

Jeremy admits to telling Julie about trouble at the farm.

Three flatmates testified in a court of law they heard the telephone in the flat ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”. - NGB has confirmed on this forum that testimony in court is what counts above any witness statements that may have been taken. - Two of these witnesses fall outside your voiced concern about them being involved in a cheque fraud which would contribute to them being a potentially unreliable witnesses.

It is impossible for Jeremy to have rung Julie's flat in London to advise of trouble at the farm at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”, if by his own admission, he is still asleep before 03.15 and 03.30 am.

Jeremy would also, by his own admission, be telling of trouble at the farm before he is alerted to the fact that there is any trouble at the farm by a telephone call from Nevill.

Jeremy could only possibly know of there being trouble at the farm by other means i.e. he was there

As such Jeremy's defence falls apart by his own admission when compared against two other credible witnesses.

Does this make sense with regard to your specific request?

Jackie

In case you have not seen, given the high volume of posts regarding inter member dispute, I have responded to your request for an explanation - see above.

Does the explanation make sense?

Jackie

I see you are on line...........

Did my explanation to your specific request make sense?

[Roch]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

    

Curious, if you had a percentage re guilt / innocence for JB, would I be right in thinking you are approx 80/20 in favour of guilt?

Rochford

To be honest I would not like to call and certainly would not like to have sat on the jury.

I have always stated the telephone calls on the morning of 7th August bother me and they do not add up. I believe the answer lies within the telphone calls and sequence thereof. I know some do not like this debate but given the 03.26 call log is public knowledge re press articles etc. and is being cited within the CCRC submissions it is, for me, legitimate debate on the forum.

The silencer / moderator, I believe should never have been allowed as evidence........ not a clean evidence trail and with being dismantled and 'off site' for a period of time before being handed over to police etc. and all this regardless of any question of exhibit labels.

There is no doubt the investigation was poor with evidence being burnt at the Farm. If reports are to be believed this is something Jeremy encouraged the police to do.

Also for me I find difficulty with Mike not posting Jeremy's witness statements because I think these will hold important information either way. I guess therefore I need to be persuaded.

Thanks for that C.E.  On my scale of innocence / guilt (imagine a horizontal bar running from 0% - 100%) I'm going to place you at 65%

[grahameb]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?

Jon

It is a possibility.

Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.

It would be a rather ridiculous thing for JB to do... if he was guilty and had removed these items so they would not be found....then he would have sensibly disposed of them elsewhere so they would not be found and certainly not took them back and place them where they would be found.

In my view , considering how the police did act...it seems more likely that some dodgy police officers are responsible for tampering with evidence in order to frame JB . If not them ...then the dodgy relatives were involved in messing around with the evidence in this regard.

Smiffy

What we do knoew is Jermey admits to gaingin undetected entry and exit from WHite House Farm after the killings.

Was it rediculous behaviour for Jeremy to get into White House Farm after the killings undetected in order to get some travel documents?

Is this not unusual behaviour?

Is this something you would have done?

Do you think this will have been a deliberate action or could it have been stress that made him do it because he was not thinking straight?

I see nothing wierd about JB getting his travel documents in the way he admitted to.

as for putting evidence back for no good reason....thats a truly crackpot idea that makes no sense....not credible!

Smiffy

If I am not mistaken Jeremy admits to gaining entry and exit via windows at night.

Would it not be more reasonable just to ask to get the documents from the office during the day when people are at the farm working or just ask the police etc. It is not as if the trip abroad was unplanned.


Have you ever gone or are you in the habit of getting into a relative's home at night via windows undetected?

I am more curious as to why he had no key to his parents house? My son has a key to my house.

[paulg]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?

I have no idea.

Very true!

I second that!

You see Keira, this is goading, it took place before any so called lying comment by Gerald. What makes it worse, is you chose to "second the comment" rather than act.

Since then, you've read back through the thread, decided that Gerald is guilty, this forum can not be moderated.

It's ok Paulg, I'm sure anyone reading this thread can see what happened. NGB stamped his feet and demanded his ego be massaged by "other moderators" and up popped Cliff and Chochokeira, all too happy to sacrifice any facade of independant thought in order to keep their prize poster.

They're probably right to do so. From his posts NGB appears to be generally intelligent, eloquent and well read. No doubt he makes more of a contribution to this board than I ever would. But you will never persuade me that he is any kind of lawyer, let alone a barrister. If he was, do you really think he would throw his toys out of the pram over the opinion of an anonymous poster who registered just yesterday on an internet forum?

Another allegation that I am a liar.  If forum moderation has any meaning, action should follow.  However, this is not my responsibilty because I am not a moderator.  Mike Tesko in an effort to ensure fairness and balance picked a set of moderators from both sides of this debate.  Most have acted fairly and effectively.  Paulg has not.  No doubt he will support "Gerald" on this post as well.

Right, now i've taken my time to respond to you.

This debate was never about the guilty v's not guilty factions, IMO it was about law that affected every person that posts on this forum.

You've made statements of fact on this forum, regarding legal issues, that in the opinion of a new poster, where clearly not made by an English barrister/lawyer (i'll come back to the English bit). You've decided to hide behind the he's calling me a liar, or i think its John attacking me. Then you've hid behind Paulg is a biased mod, help me other mods, i want him removed.

What concerns me, is that you have not retracted these statements, yet they are false, i suggest that if you are in the legal profession, you do so when you are next online.

Now, back to the English bit. Maybe you googled your information, or maybe you're an attorney in the US, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're from the US, but do not post on English law unless you are qualified to do so.

This is a quote from a case on the internet, involving an English company.

"The impact of the First Amendment has resulted in a substantial divergence of approach between American and English defamation law. For example in innocent dissemination cases in English law the Defendant publisher has to establish his innocence whereas in American law the Plaintiff who has been libelled has to prove that the publisher was not innocent."

Now, i don't want an apology, but i certainly think you owe one to every person that posts on this forum.

Mike, as i said before, feel free to remove me as a moderator. But, i can assure you i am not biased, and in  this instance, i only had everyones interest on my mind, including yours.

[Jackiepreece]

Paul that post had better not be to ngb

[hartley]

Paul that post had better not be to ngb

I think it might be.

[Jackiepreece]

Well that just shows someone's intelligence and the very reason I have put a stop to Ngb ever posting on this forum again.  For your information Paul a number of members of this forum know who Ngb is and they know exactly his background and his experience but I am glad you have got your legal beagle mates to take Ngb s place on the forum

Maybe a lot of people are too stupid to realise but this is a nice set up with Paul Vidvic Hartley Gerry and Jerry to stop people saying anything against Mugford and the relatives

What a great forum this is but I can take away something good from Pauls profound conclusions Ngb has so much more time working on JB s case and just incase your interested Ngb is very connected to people who make the highest decisions

[paulg]

Paul that post had better not be to ngb

Jackie, i don't think you realise how serious this is, i'm sure NGB does.

[hartley]

Hey don't try and bring me into it. I'll leave you to it in this thread.