I won't have new members brainwashed by fools, amateur gun enthusiasts or pseudo-intellectuals. It's time to ruffle a few feathers:
CLAIM: There was no forensic evidence whatsoever implicating Jeremy Bamber.
FACT: White House Farm was Jeremy's second home. As such there would be traces of his presence in situ. Much of the crime scene evidence was compromised anyway due to the cutting of the carpets and the burning of material. By the time John Hayward came to examine his clothes hanging up in the wardrobe at Bourtree Cottage in Goldhanger tiny spots of blood were detected, though too few for meaningful forensic analysis.
The claim, I agree, is untrue, but not for the reasons you say. The claim should be correctly worded as follows: There is no direct evidence that Jeremy Bamber was the killer. The point is that the case against him is entirely circumstantial, but includes forensic evidence. (The point is slightly contentious because you could argue that Julie Mugford's evidence is direct evidence. I would disagree, but even if we concede the point, there is still no direct forensic evidence).
I also agree that the crime scene was compromised by the police, but that was not at Jeremy's instigation and so could be seen as a neutral point, since the police may well have destroyed evidence that could have exonerated him. It is also worth noting that the carpets were only cut up after blood samples were taken.
Unless the blood spots you mention came from several victims, I doubt it would be of much significance as it could easily be put down to contamination of Jeremy's clothes.
CLAIM: There was only one fingerprint of Jeremy's on the murder weapon.
FACT: True, along with one of Sheila's, but why if he had been shooting rabbits only hours previously were more of his fingerprints not visible on the gun? A woman in psychosis is not going to wipe down the murder weapon: a man who wiped the gun after the fight with Nevill after a glove came off is.
I agree that someone must have wiped the gun, but I disagree that it had to be Jeremy. I see no reason why Jeremy would, since as you say, his prints would be expected on the gun anyway. Equally, I see no reason why Sheila would not have wiped the gun if she had just used it to kill her own children and parents. If she also washed her hands, they would be clean and dry, meaning that she would leave no further prints when killing herself with that same gun. For these reasons, the fingerprint evidence actually fits Sheila as the killer better than Jeremy.
CLAIM: Sheila had a psychotic episode and Nevill telephoned the police.
FACT: Sheila had trace elements of Haloperidol in her system. She had been stabilized and her medication reduced because she had been over-medicated previously. There is no record of Nevill Bamber ever reaching a telephone, because Jeremy Bamber had removed that lifeline from the master bedroom. No blood on the kitchen telephone suggests Nevill never reached it. Had there been a record of Nevill's call PC West would have produced it for his boss, DCI Taff Jones, and the case would have been closed there and then.
You skip over two crucial facts:
1. Sheila had not been over-medicated, it was just that she reported that she did not like being on the drug and wanted her dosage reduced.
2. She was then accidentally under-medicated. It is established that doing so abruptly, as happened here, can have adverse and catastrophic consequences.
We don't know that Jeremy did remove the phone from the master bedroom. Again, that is not a true fact. This was started by a prominent miscarriage of justice campaigner, who used it as a reason to doubt Jeremy, but in a previous thread I outlined why I think the theory is flawed. Briefly, it's based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Jeremy had no reason to move the phone in the first place.
However, I agree with the other points you briefly make about the phone.
CLAIM: Julie Mugford was complicit in the crimes.
FACT: Julie was located at Caterham Road, London. Had she wanted to make the case water-tight she would have spent the evening of 6th August 1985 in Jeremy's bed and vouched for a telephone call from Nevill to back up his story. The fact that she had been smoking cannabis and told him to go back to bed suggests there had been no such pre-conceived mutual murder plan.
I have my views about this. Just because she wasn't there, that does not preclude her from being an accomplice. I don't accept that just because somebody is smoking cannabis, that this means she is not part of a mass murder plot. To be clear: I am not saying she was. But I will not say she wasn't, either.
CLAIM: The Matthew McDonald hitman story proves that Julie's statement to police was a pack of lies.
FACT: Julie was repeating Jeremy's pack of lies he had told her to police.
This may be true, but if Jeremy is the killer, then it wasn't a 'pack of lies', and why would Jeremy need to lie in such circumstances when he had supposedly already told her of his plans before-the-fact, and even confessed to her, in so many words, after-the-fact at Bourtree Cottage, with Stan Jones only yards away? Perhaps, as you will no doubt say, it was because Jeremy didn't want her to know that he had done it himself, but it seems to me there is little difference between one or the other.
CLAIM: Julie didn't go to police, which proves her story is worthless.
FACT: Liz Rimington telephoned police. The Bamberettes want it all ways: that Julie went gung-ho to police out of revenge, desperately wanting a conviction. When in fact Julie was reluctant to go to police this is because the grounds on which she might have gone to police were shaky.
Why would the grounds on which she might have gone to the police be shaky, if she was telling the truth? Surely a normal person, on receiving Jeremy's confession, would have alerted the police pretty much immediately? Same goes for Sue Battersby, who frolicked with Jeremy at a party immediately after hearing Julie tell her what Jeremy had supposedly done.
The official position is that Julie went to the police (Liz Rimmington rang the police, but she did so on Julie's behalf and in her presence). The Campaign Team are now saying that in fact Malcolm Waters went to the police independently of Julie and they claim to have a document proving this. I've no idea if this stands up or what its relevance is, even if true.
CLAIM: Julie wanted to live at Vaulty Manor, be Lady of the Manor etc.
FACT: Julie was trying to hold down a career all through the time she was associated with Jeremy Bamber. She was never a something-for-nothing person. As stated in the podcast she had been on a working holiday, one of several jobs she held down during that period. Had she wanted to get her claws into Jeremy Bamber she could have fallen pregnant at any time.
She could also have pretended to be pregnant, I suppose.
Pursuing a vocation and wanting to be Lady of the Manor (whatever that's supposed to mean) aren't necessarily mutually-exclusive aspirations. That said, I'm not quite sure what the relevance of such claims is.
Why did Jeremy disclose his plans to her?
