Why Nevill didn't call the Police

[curiousessex]

and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.

The defence have constantly been trying to discredit Julie Mugford.

Hence the importance of the testimony of 3 independent witnesses.

Smiffy

Do you accept what Jeremy said in his 2002 Appeal ............

 The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.

[Hartley]

Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.

I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five people including children have been murdered in cold blood.

That's one of the very reasons that there should have been a full and fair examination of all key evidence. Yet there has never been such an examination, not by the police, not by the defence and not at the trial.

Whatever reasons you give for accepting this gross injustice as fair, Harters, I am certain that this is not the sort of Kangaroo Court 'justice' you would want for yourself or for family were you ever wrongly accused of a crime.

Well I'm not convinced the "withheld under PII" argument should be as prevalent as what is being made out, particularly when certain documents are being referred to as recently released yet they are referred to in the original trial and/or the 2002 Appeal.

In addition to which, there have been various appeals and internal and external investigations, which have all found the conviction to be sound, in fact the 1991 COLP investigation specifically highlighted Essex Police Force's mistakes and took them into consideration when stating that despite the errors they would have come to the same verdict,

I very much doubt that their investigation was hampered by documents withheld under PII legislation.

You have no grounds to make such a claim since none of us know the details of what exactly is being withheld. We can only know in general terms what this might state or show and that some of this withheld evidence is of the essence of this case. That is why the defence must see it. No conviction can ever be safe while key evidence is/ was withheld from the defence and jury and that is what has happened in this case. I would never accept that appalling situation for myself or my family and I am certain, neither would you, Harters.

I can very easily make that claim on the grounds that the City of London Police are not affected by PII Legislation and therefore would not be required to apply to see withheld documents.

[smiffy]

and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.

The defence have constantly been trying to discredit Julie Mugford.

Hence the importance of the testimony of 3 independent witnesses.

Smiffy

Do you accept what Jeremy said in his 2002 Appeal ............

 The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.

ah the "bullshit" that appears in appeal court documents... it is summaries and various other bits and pieces and should not be taken at face value as it may mislead.

for example  ...in the Luke Mitchell case..in the appeal notes it states the search party left from the victims home...  which is completely contrary to what the 3 involved claimed to have done.
such a statement as that (in fact it may be true) completely undermines at least 4 key witnesses and likely many more to an extent in which those 4 have committed blatant perjury.
so going by the appeal version of events...the prosecution case is in tatters.....but is ignored ...wtf

it may have had something to do with the search partys stories being clearly false (impossible)as given in court...hence the prosecution abandoned it at the appeal...  and big reason to quash the conviction in itself.

courts of justice....or courts of injustice !!!!

[curiousessex]

and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.

The defence have constantly been trying to discredit Julie Mugford.

Hence the importance of the testimony of 3 independent witnesses.

Smiffy

Do you accept what Jeremy said in his 2002 Appeal ............

 The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.

ah the "bullshit" that appears in appeal court documents... it is summaries and various other bits and pieces and should not be taken at face value as it may mislead.

for example  ...in the Luke Mitchell case..in the appeal notes it states the search party left from the victims home...  which is completely contrary to what the 3 involved claimed to have done.
such a statement as that (in fact it may be true) completely undermines at least 4 key witnesses and likely many more to an extent in which those 4 have committed blatant perjury.
so going by the appeal version of events...the prosecution case is in tatters.....but is ignored ...wtf

it may have had something to do with the search partys stories being clearly false (impossible)as given in court...hence the prosecution abandoned it at the appeal...  and big reason to quash the conviction in itself.

courts of justice....or courts of injustice !!!!

OK in your opinion when did Jeremy ring Julie?

[vidvic]

and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.

The defence have constantly been trying to discredit Julie Mugford.

Hence the importance of the testimony of 3 independent witnesses.

Smiffy

Do you accept what Jeremy said in his 2002 Appeal ............

 The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.

ah the "bullshit" that appears in appeal court documents... it is summaries and various other bits and pieces and should not be taken at face value as it may mislead.

for example  ...in the Luke Mitchell case..in the appeal notes it states the search party left from the victims home...  which is completely contrary to what the 3 involved claimed to have done.
such a statement as that (in fact it may be true) completely undermines at least 4 key witnesses and likely many more to an extent in which those 4 have committed blatant perjury.
so going by the appeal version of events...the prosecution case is in tatters.....but is ignored ...wtf

it may have had something to do with the search partys stories being clearly false (impossible)as given in court...hence the prosecution abandoned it at the appeal...  and big reason to quash the conviction in itself.

courts of justice....or courts of injustice !!!!

In his statements, at original trail, he has constantly said the call to JM was AFTER his call to Police. At 2002 appeal the defence tried to pin this at 3.30. Sometimes you just have to admit you're wrong.

[mike tesko]

It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.

The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.

The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)

By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.

He wasn't dressed when he took the call.

Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....

Impossible I'm afraid.

If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.

Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?

The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.

Really smiffy? You might want to tell the defence team at trial and at appeal, as they have worked very hard to show the phone call was AFTER he called the police.

... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventuality is to be measured?

[chochokeira]

Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.

I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five people including children have been murdered in cold blood.

That's one of the very reasons that there should have been a full and fair examination of all key evidence. Yet there has never been such an examination, not by the police, not by the defence and not at the trial.

Whatever reasons you give for accepting this gross injustice as fair, Harters, I am certain that this is not the sort of Kangaroo Court 'justice' you would want for yourself or for family were you ever wrongly accused of a crime.

Well I'm not convinced the "withheld under PII" argument should be as prevalent as what is being made out, particularly when certain documents are being referred to as recently released yet they are referred to in the original trial and/or the 2002 Appeal.

In addition to which, there have been various appeals and internal and external investigations, which have all found the conviction to be sound, in fact the 1991 COLP investigation specifically highlighted Essex Police Force's mistakes and took them into consideration when stating that despite the errors they would have come to the same verdict,

I very much doubt that their investigation was hampered by documents withheld under PII legislation.

You have no grounds to make such a claim since none of us know the details of what exactly is being withheld. We can only know in general terms what this might state or show and that some of this withheld evidence is of the essence of this case. That is why the defence must see it. No conviction can ever be safe while key evidence is/ was withheld from the defence and jury and that is what has happened in this case. I would never accept that appalling situation for myself or my family and I am certain, neither would you, Harters.

I can very easily make that claim on the grounds that the City of London Police are not affected by PII Legislation and therefore would not be required to apply to see withheld documents.

Hi Harters,

Those grounds are inadequate, I'm afraid, to meet the test of a fair trial:


In criminal proceedings the right to a fair trial includes the following fair trial rights:[18]

the right to be notified of charges in a timely manner

the right to adequate time and means for the preparation of a defense

the right of the accused to defend him or herself, or the right to a counsel chosen by the accused and the right to communicate privately with the counsel

the right not to incriminate oneself

the right to appeal at first instance to a higher court

the prohibition on double jeopardy.[19]

[chochokeira]

The test of a fair trial inmy last post comes from Wikipedia, by the way

[Hartley]

... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?

Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.

This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.

[Hartley]

Hi Harters,

Those grounds are inadequate, I'm afraid, to meet the test of a fair trial:


In criminal proceedings the right to a fair trial includes the following fair trial rights:[18]

the right to be notified of charges in a timely manner

the right to adequate time and means for the preparation of a defense

the right of the accused to defend him or herself, or the right to a counsel chosen by the accused and the right to communicate privately with the counsel

the right not to incriminate oneself

the right to appeal at first instance to a higher court

the prohibition on double jeopardy.[19]

Your post does not relate to my post which you quoted, however which part of that wikipedia paste do you think has been breached?

[Hartley]

... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?

Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.

This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.

Here you go:

Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.

[vidvic]

It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.

The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.

The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)

By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.

He wasn't dressed when he took the call.

Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....

Impossible I'm afraid.

If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.

Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?

The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.

Really smiffy? You might want to tell the defence team at trial and at appeal, as they have worked very hard to show the phone call was AFTER he called the police.

... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?

Dear Mike,

Let me get this straight. You think that two calls were received simultaniously by Police?
You discount then the 'evidence' of the Nevill call, that JB called after CA7 was despatched.
I take it then that we can discount all timings on the subject of female found in the kitchen on those logs too? Are you not suggesting that any of these logs timings are subject to significant error as they are, in the main, third party notes?
Why did the PC at the scene ask JB why his Father had called JB and not the Police?

[chochokeira]

I faileld to highlight these general fair trial rights:

the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal

the right to a public hearing

the right to be heard within a reasonable time

the right to counsel

the right to interpretation[16]


You seem to suggest, Harters, that the COLP investigation was somehow equivalent to an Appeal for Jeremy. Yet nothing could be further form the truth. No investigation by COLP could ever replace Jeremy Bamber's right to a fair trial and the complex rights that entails.

[curiousessex]

It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.

The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.

The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)

By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.

He wasn't dressed when he took the call.

Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....

Impossible I'm afraid.

If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.

Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?

The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.

Really smiffy? You might want to tell the defence team at trial and at appeal, as they have worked very hard to show the phone call was AFTER he called the police.

... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventuality is to be measured?

Mike

There were 3 flatmates who testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”.

Can you please reconcile the other flatmates testimony of times for the telephone ringing with the scenario you are asking people to consider.

Added........ It should be noted that there is clearly no universal clock associated with their testimony.

[Hartley]

I faileld to highlight these general fair trial rights:

the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal

the right to a public hearing

the right to be heard within a reasonable time

the right to counsel

the right to interpretation[16]


You seem to suggest, Harters, that the COLP investigation was somehow equivalent to an Appeal for Jeremy. Yet nothing could be further form the truth. No investigation by COLP could ever replace Jeremy Bamber's right to a fair trial and the complex rights that entails.

I'm not suggesting any such thing.

Have a read of the 2002 Appeal Judgement regarding the alleged conspiracy that the prosecution conspired to falsely convict JB.

Of particular note are the opening text concerning the defences grounds of appeal and ground 16, although grounds 1-13 also follow this theme.