The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 1

[guest7363]

Due to my own background and the people I have mixed in, I tend to be adept at spotting liars.  I knew what type of person he is before even listening to it, and I realised I couldn't believe a word he says as soon as he opened his mouth and started talking.  If he told me the weather in New Zealand is hot and sunny, I'd pack extra warm clothing.  If he told me the time of day, I'd have to double-check with the people at Greenwich.

I'm guessing he isn't lying about his alibi in Greece, though, because somebody on the inside of the case could easily and quickly gainsay him.  Or could they?  Mike has never produced documents about this.  You'd think if Brett had a verified alibi, there'd be an Action Report on it somewhere.

Its in his statement QC, they checked his passport for trips to Amsterdam and Greece.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50193

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8969.msg425319.html#msg425319

[Adam]

I must admit you do have a point, it does come across as a ridiculous and I thought maybe it was the LSD cocktail kicking in after my latest smack session, but I've just re-listened and yes, as difficult as it is to believe, he actually really says this. 

Or maybe it's not difficult to believe he says it - remember, it is Brett talking.

'I thought maybe it was the LSD cocktail kicking in after my latest smack session,'

---------

So that explains your posts.

[guest29835]

Its in his statement QC, they checked his passport for trips to Amsterdam and Greece.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50193

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8969.msg425319.html#msg425319

I can't see any mention of the New York lawyer in there.  Why did Brett mention this in the podcast interview but not in his interview with the police 36 years ago when he needed the alibi?

Also, as I've mentioned before in regard to Brett, passports were very easy to fake in those days, especially among professional/organised criminals and people with close connections to such criminals. 

My first passport was a piece of cardboard folded into four with my photo glued on it and all my details completed in pen by somebody from the Post Office.

As an aside, the interview transcript begins with a summary, which says "Discussed Passport issue etc. re the 1975 issued passport and other remarks in 1985".

Does that mean there was an issue with his passport or does it refer purely to the issue of his passport?  Probably the latter, but the main point is I'm curious to know if there is a record somewhere of the police making inquiries of a New York lawyer.  This would probably be done via the NYPD, to ensure she was verified correctly, and she would have been interviewed by the NYPD.

[guest29835]

'I thought maybe it was the LSD cocktail kicking in after my latest smack session,'

---------

So that explains your posts.

Thanks Adam.  I need it after reading your posts.  Plus there's your refusal to recommend me for the CT, all the embarrassment with the jet skis - you put me right on that, but I can't show my face at the CCRC for a while now - and Myster still won't let me take part in his Cluedo tournaments, even after I was recommended by Steve.

[guest7363]

I can't see any mention of the New York lawyer in there.  Why did Brett mention this in the podcast interview but not in his interview with the police 36 years ago when he needed the alibi?

Also, as I've mentioned before in regard to Brett, passports were very easy to fake in those days, especially among professional/organised criminals and people with close connections to such criminals. 

My first passport was a piece of cardboard folded into four with my photo glued on it and all my details completed in pen by somebody from the Post Office.

As an aside, the interview transcript begins with a summary, which says "Discussed Passport issue etc. re the 1975 issued passport and other remarks in 1985".

Does that mean there was an issue with his passport or does it refer purely to the issue of his passport?  Probably the latter, but the main point is I'm curious to know if there is a record somewhere of the police making inquiries of a New York lawyer.  This would probably be done via the NYPD, to ensure she was verified correctly, and she would have been interviewed by the NYPD.

Oh sorry QC, I’ve not listened to the Podcast and the New York Lawyer, I thought you was referring to the police checking his Alibi.  I’m like you, I’m not convinced about the Passport Alibi, how easy was it to cheat the system back then, I’m not sure, especially pre digital/computer ect?

[guest29835]

Oh sorry QC, I’ve not listened to the Podcast and the New York Lawyer, I thought you was referring to the police checking his Alibi.  I’m like you, I’m not convinced about the Passport Alibi, how easy was it to cheat the system back then, I’m not sure, especially pre digital/computer ect?

Extremely easy.  Child's play.  He could have easily either got that passport stamped to order or used a fake passport and had his genuine passport stamped properly on entry and exit.

Just as an aside, Greece entered the EEC in 1981.  I don't know what the situation was in southern Europe at that time, but what I can say is that even pre-Schengen, you could cross borders in western Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark) without any checks at all.  In the rare event there were checks, it was usually as difficult as buying a Mars bar.  In that regard, simply having gone to the trouble of having the bona fide passport stamped potentially could additionally be viewed as suspicious.  Why bother having it stamped?  Though it does depend on what the practice was at the Greek border.  To be fair, UK entrants at that time normally did have passports stamped at, say, Dover.

Is this just another example of a guilter celebrity who should have kept his mouth firmly shut but couldn't resist blabbing?  If I was pro-guilt, I wouldn't even be posting on this Forum.  I wouldn't risk it.  I'd be keeping my mouth firmly closed about the whole sordid matter because every time you blab, you're giving sceptics like me, and also those who are supporters of Jeremy, further reason for doubt. 

Questions, questions, questions.  Who was this New York lawyer? Was she a registered attorney in New York?  Did she live in New York city itself or somewhere upstate?  Did Essex Police make an Interpol inquiry request to the NYPD or other authorities in New York?  Was an Interpol inquiry raised with the Greek authorities, to ascertain title in this 'private property' and then interview the landlord, seize [that's seize, Steve, not heart seizure] the guest list/bookings list?

Did they really just rely on his passport?  For crying out loud!  Because if so, I am personally going to put Stan Jones and Bob Miller forward for Donkeys of the Year 1984.  I'll even have a T-shirt specially printed.

[JackieD]

Extremely easy.  Child's play.  He could have easily either got that passport stamped to order or used a fake passport and had his genuine passport stamped properly on entry and exit.

Just as an aside, Greece entered the EEC in 1981.  I don't know what the situation was in southern Europe at that time, but what I can say is that even pre-Schengen, you could cross borders in western Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark) without any checks at all.  In the rare event there were checks, it was usually as difficult as buying a Mars bar.  In that regard, simply having gone to the trouble of having the bona fide passport stamped potentially could additionally be viewed as suspicious.  Why bother having it stamped?  Though it does depend on what the practice was at the Greek border.  To be fair, UK entrants at that time normally did have passports stamped at, say, Dover.

Is this just another example of a guilter celebrity who should have kept his mouth firmly shut but couldn't resist blabbing?  If I was pro-guilt, I wouldn't even be posting on this Forum.  I wouldn't risk it.  I'd be keeping my mouth firmly closed about the whole sordid matter because every time you blab, you're giving sceptics like me, and also those who are supporters of Jeremy, further reason for doubt. 

Questions, questions, questions.  Who was this New York lawyer? Was she a registered attorney in New York?  Did she live in New York city itself or somewhere upstate?  Did Essex Police make an Interpol inquiry request to the NYPD or other authorities in New York?  Was an Interpol inquiry raised with the Greek authorities, to ascertain title in this 'private property' and then interview the landlord, seize [that's seize, Steve, not heart seizure] the guest list/bookings list?

Did they really just rely on his passport?  For crying out loud!  Because if so, I am personally going to put Stan Jones and Bob Miller forward for Donkeys of the Year 1984.  I'll even have a T-shirt specially printed.

Why on earth did Jeremy mix with these people Brett??   Julie (Clearly not normal and would someone like her with her background ever have had a career in teaching)
More reasons I question Jeremys intelligence.
Where did Neville and June go so wrong
They must have been beside themselves when Sheila hooked up with Colin
Colin and Julie absolute nightmares

[guest29835]

Why on earth did Jeremy mix with these people Brett??   Julie (Clearly not normal and would someone like her with her background ever have had a career in teaching)
More reasons I question Jeremys intelligence.
Where did Neville and June go so wrong
They must have been beside themselves when Sheila hooked up with Colin
Colin and Julie absolute nightmares

Brett was definitely a bad influence on Jeremy.  Even if you think Jeremy is completely innocent, you'd have to acknowledge that he was corrupted by Brett.  But Brett is claiming in the podcast that Jeremy arrived with diamonds stolen from his grandmother (I assume this was Mabel Speakman), which implies earlier influences on Jeremy or maybe that Jeremy is just 'bad to the bone'.  I don't know if Brett is being truthful about that anecdote or it's just Brett's way of distancing himself from trouble he got Jeremy into while they were both in New Zealand.  Why do the diamonds have to be explained?  Just one more of a number of questions for Brett Collins.

I think the interviewer was right not to give Brett a hard time and just let him talk.  He gives a lot away, both with that he says - some of which is clearly untrue - and also with what he misses out and doesn't say.

It's also apparent that the interview is heavily edited and I'm given to understand that the interviewer pulled down an earlier version and substituted it with a shorter version that edits out something quite interesting.  It's obvious, surely, that Brett has told her what she can put in the public domain.  He's the type who blabs and lets his mouth run away with him, and he's a classic liar and confabulator.

[JackieD]

Brett was definitely a bad influence on Jeremy.  Even if you think Jeremy is completely innocent, you'd have to acknowledge that he was corrupted by Brett.  But Brett is claiming in the podcast that Jeremy arrived with diamonds stolen from his grandmother (I assume this was Mabel Speakman), which implies earlier influences on Jeremy or maybe that Jeremy is just 'bad to the bone'.  I don't know if Brett is being truthful about that anecdote or it's just Brett's way of distancing himself from trouble he got Jeremy into while they were both in New Zealand.  Why do the diamonds have to be explained?  Just one more of a number of questions for Brett Collins.

I think the interviewer was right not to give Brett a hard time and just let him talk.  He gives a lot away, both with that he says - some of which is clearly untrue - and also with what he misses out and doesn't say.

It's also apparent that the interview is heavily edited and I'm given to understand that the interviewer pulled down an earlier version and substituted it with a shorter version that edits out something quite interesting.  It's obvious, surely, that Brett has told her what she can put in the public domain.  He's the type who blabs and lets his mouth run away with him, and he's a classic liar and confabulator.

Most of us would have seen right through Brett not the idiot Jeremy Bamber. I bet Brett thought he had hit the jackpot meeting Jeremy

The women making the podcasts has said she interviews Terry Mullins the lie detector guy who lives not far from me so we will see if she comes up with everything that he told me

[guest29835]

Most of us would have seen right through Brett not the idiot Jeremy Bamber. I bet Brett thought he had hit the jackpot meeting Jeremy

The women making the podcasts has said she interviews Terry Mullins the lie detector guy who lives not far from me so we will see if she comes up with everything that he told me

If Jeremy is innocent, then it could be that Brett is just a bit of a rat and an attention-seeker who likes making things up.  It could also be that he's made up the diamonds story as a way of appearing to absolve himself by making it look like Jeremy was already of a criminal frame of mind prior to meeting him, rather than him being the criminal influence on Jeremy - if you see what I mean.

On the other hand, if Jeremy is guilty, then the question that arises in my mind is how much Julie and Brett were involved.  Both avenues are very interesting.  If Brett was involved, then he has just opened up a potential line of inquiry by mentioning the New York lawyer.  Is that a lie?  Looking at it logically/analytically, it seems very unlikely that somebody would lie to that extent, due to the risk, but people don't always behave rationally.  People of the 'Brett type' do sometimes tell unnecessary lies, even though it's very risky for them.

In the case of Julie, it's always assumed - even by a lot of pro-Jeremy/innocent camp types, that Jeremy corrupted her.  Nobody ever, or rarely ever, considers the possibility that it was more of a two-way relationship, or even that Julie was the one who corrupted Jeremy, not the other way round.

[Steve_uk]

If Jeremy is innocent, then it could be that Brett is just a bit of a rat and an attention-seeker who likes making things up.  It could also be that he's made up the diamonds story as a way of appearing to absolve himself by making it look like Jeremy was already of a criminal frame of mind prior to meeting him, rather than him being the criminal influence on Jeremy - if you see what I mean.

On the other hand, if Jeremy is guilty, then the question that arises in my mind is how much Julie and Brett were involved.  Both avenues are very interesting.  If Brett was involved, then he has just opened up a potential line of inquiry by mentioning the New York lawyer.  Is that a lie?  Looking at it logically/analytically, it seems very unlikely that somebody would lie to that extent, due to the risk, but people don't always behave rationally.  People of the 'Brett type' do sometimes tell unnecessary lies, even though it's very risky for them.

In the case of Julie, it's always assumed - even by a lot of pro-Jeremy/innocent camp types, that Jeremy corrupted her.  Nobody ever, or rarely ever, considers the possibility that it was more of a two-way relationship, or even that Julie was the one who corrupted Jeremy, not the other way round.

Then why didn't she stay at Bourtree Cottage on the night of 6th August 1985 and vouch for the authenticity of Nevill's call to Jeremy?

[guest29835]

Then why didn't she stay at Bourtree Cottage on the night of 6th August 1985 and vouch for the authenticity of Nevill's call to Jeremy?

Julie corrupting Jeremy need not have included a murder plot, though it could have done.  I only speculate.  If they were in it together, maybe the call wasn't part of their plan and Jeremy added that on his own initiative, due to Nevill ending up in the kitchen?

Conversely, your question could be put to Jeremy.  If he is guilty, how is it that he didn't think to persuade Julie (or Brett) to stay at his place so that there was somebody to vouch for him?  Brett makes a similar point in the podcast.  Jeremy, according to Brett, was a "very intelligent guy", which leaves Brett perplexed that Jeremy would plan something like this without constructing an alibi.

[Adam]

Julie corrupting Jeremy need not have included a murder plot, though it could have done.  I only speculate.  If they were in it together, maybe the call wasn't part of their plan and Jeremy added that on his own initiative, due to Nevill ending up in the kitchen?

Conversely, your question could be put to Jeremy.  If he is guilty, how is it that he didn't think to persuade Julie (or Brett) to stay at his place so that there was somebody to vouch for him?  Brett makes a similar point in the podcast.  Jeremy, according to Brett, was a "very intelligent guy", which leaves Brett perplexed that Jeremy would plan something like this without constructing an alibi.

Brett was abroad.

Julie was in London. Too risky trying to use her. She may break under police pressure. Bamber also wanted to use MM as a proxy.

[guest29835]

Brett was abroad.

I didn't know that.  This is worse than the jet skis mistake.  Oh well.  Back to the drawing board.  Anyway, thanks Adam.

Julie was in London. Too risky trying to use her. She may break under police pressure. Bamber also wanted to use MM as a proxy.

But he told her.  Why did he tell her if he feared she might break under police pressure?

[Adam]

Brett was definitely a bad influence on Jeremy.  Even if you think Jeremy is completely innocent, you'd have to acknowledge that he was corrupted by Brett.  But Brett is claiming in the podcast that Jeremy arrived with diamonds stolen from his grandmother (I assume this was Mabel Speakman), which implies earlier influences on Jeremy or maybe that Jeremy is just 'bad to the bone'.  I don't know if Brett is being truthful about that anecdote or it's just Brett's way of distancing himself from trouble he got Jeremy into while they were both in New Zealand.  Why do the diamonds have to be explained?  Just one more of a number of questions for Brett Collins.

I think the interviewer was right not to give Brett a hard time and just let him talk.  He gives a lot away, both with that he says - some of which is clearly untrue - and also with what he misses out and doesn't say.

It's also apparent that the interview is heavily edited and I'm given to understand that the interviewer pulled down an earlier version and substituted it with a shorter version that edits out something quite interesting.  It's obvious, surely, that Brett has told her what she can put in the public domain.  He's the type who blabs and lets his mouth run away with him, and he's a classic liar and confabulator.

How did Brett corrupt Bamber?