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

[Adam]

Adam as you know everything that happened that night could you explain please why Brews and Myall never mentioned in their statements about seeing the reflection in the window, running back to the car and calling for armed back up?

It is in Saxby's statement, also if they were satisfied that it was only a reflection why did Myall (I believe) request a fingerprint sweep of the room?

Why were the jury not informed that after seeing the reflection they ducked down then ran? If I had been on the jury I would have been very interested in why two cops were running from a reflection?

Why were the jury not informed that after seeing the reflection they ducked down then ran?

----------

Bamber could have asked his defence team to say this.

How do you know the jury were not told. Do you have the court transcript?

[JackieD]

QC has used both tactics with me -

If I ask him a difficult question, he will usually not answer. If he does answer, he will say he's already discussed it & I should search the forum. Rather than direct me to the thread. 

He will also accuse me of saying something. The simple thing to then do is quote my post. However he will not do this but just say 'I definately said it'.

Never ever seen that

[JackieD]

Cheque Fraud Solicitors in London
Updated on Tuesday 08th October 2019


Using a false cheque for buying all sorts of products is a type of crime used by numerous fraudsters.

This a serious financial crime, part of serious frauds, and if found guilty, impostors can go to jail.

Our cheque fraud solicitors in London can provide legal advice for persons accused of such crimes.

The experience of our criminal defence solicitors in London is needed for such cases, whether you are a victim of fraud or accused of cheque fraud.
 
What types of cheque fraud can be met?
 
Unfortunately, fraudsters have numerous ways to gain easy money, and cheque frauds are met on a daily basis, under different forms:
 
1. Forgery – stolen cheques signed and used by fraudsters.
2. Altered: valid cheques are issued by entitled account holders and then intercepted by fraudsters who change the beneficiary.
3. Counterfeit – using fake cheques which are not authorized by account holders.
4. Paperhanging – a false cheque signed under the name of a closed account.
 
The above-mentioned types of cheque frauds are mostly used by criminals looking to gain easy money, finances that are not theirs. Our cheque fraud solicitors in London have experience in this area and can help offenders by providing immediate legal advice and assistance in front of the authorities in UK. Let our criminal defence lawyers in London take care of your case if you are a victim of financial crimes

[JackieD]

In black and white Mugford was likely facing prison for multiple cheque frauds at different locations

This is what Mugford would have been told by the police

[lookout]

'Fingerprint sweep of the room' ? Maybe Sheila's prints would be there. Hold on, she was staying there.

The 'trick of the light' was just that. Not sure what else can be said.

"Trick of the light ?" What light ? There wasn't even a moon.

[Adam]

In black and white Mugford was likely facing prison for multiple cheque frauds at different locations

This is what Mugford would have been told by the police

The police didn't know about her joint minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby until both had completed their comprehensive WS's.

It was one cheque book fraud. For £700. The money was paid back. The bank chose not to prosecute.

[Adam]

JackieD is entitled to say Julie lied about Bamber. Because she committed one minor joint cheque book fraud. The defence at court used this tactic.

However JackieD claiming it was 'multiple' cheque book frauds & the police threatened her with prison, is an incorrect statement.

[lookout]

The police didn't know about her joint minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby until both had completed their comprehensive WS's.

It was one cheque book fraud. For £700. The money was paid back. The bank chose not to prosecute.

The money taken from Osea would also have been paid back too !

[Adam]

The money taken from Osea would also have been paid back too !

That money was spent by Bamber.

[lookout]

The money taken from Osea would also have been paid back too !

JM was involved with that as well but JB wasn't involved in her fraud.

[Adam]

JM was involved with that as well but JB wasn't involved in her fraud.

That is correct. Julie and Susan Battersby committed the cheque book fraud.

Bamber robbed from his family & got Julie to be his lookout.

[guest29835]

Up to your old tricks, I see. Say something, then forget or deny you said it.

----------

Just back from a deserved ban. Now resurfacing to be rude again. Feel free to provide the post. Rob didn't.

Why?  You know what you posted.  Rob knows what you posted. I know what you posted.  That's three of us.  Why go to the trouble of jumping through your hoops like an obedient dog?

It wasn't a deserved a ban, either.  You caused all the trouble but seem to have got away scot-free.  I asked elsewhere on here whether you or Steve have ever been banned and no answer came.  It's all very interesting.

QC has used both tactics with me -

If I ask him a difficult question, he will usually not answer.

I ALWAYS answer questions, if I see them.  Even my worst detractors, such as NGB1066 and Steve, will (or, if they're honest, should) concede that this is the case.

If he does answer, he will say he's already discussed it & I should search the forum. Rather than direct me to the thread.

This is untrue for the reason just stated above.

Sometimes when asked a question about something I have discussed previously, I will direct the member to other threads.  It's either because I've been over it before and can't be bothered, or (in your case) I'm not inclined to assist you due to your general attitude.  It's my prerogative, just as it is yours if I ask similar of you.  I don't see what the issue is.  The Forum has a search function.

He will also accuse me of saying something. The simple thing to then do is quote my post. However he will not do this but just say 'I definately said it'.

As usual, you are not telling the whole truth.  This has happened a number of times and what actually happens is this:

1. I say you have said something.
2. You deny ever saying it.
3. I maintain you did say it.
4. You deny ever saying it and ask for a source.
5. Normally this is difficult, because the relevant thread is long gone and the effort in finding it is too much.
6. Eventually, the thread is found or resurfaces.  You then maintain your denials or just insult me.

This happened with your assertion that Nevill was woken up when being shot by Jeremy (or words to that effect).  For a very long time, you denied ever having said such a thing, even though an entire discussion on a thread was based on it.  I did not bother finding the relevant thread, but eventually it resurfaced by random chance.  I then quoted it to you, and you insulted me.

[Adam]

Never ever seen that

He's just done it again. Reply 896.

[Adam]

Why?  You know what you posted.  Rob knows what you posted. I know what you posted.  That's three of us.  Why go to the trouble of jumping through your hoops like an obedient dog?

It wasn't a deserved a ban, either.  You caused all the trouble but seem to have got away scot-free.  I asked elsewhere on here whether you or Steve have ever been banned and no answer came.  It's all very interesting.

Just back from a deserved ban & already causing trouble.

To be fair it was up to Rob to quote my post. However you got involved.

[JackieD]

The police didn't know about her joint minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby until both had completed their comprehensive WS's.

It was one cheque book fraud. For £700. The money was paid back. The bank chose not to prosecute.

So you are stating as fact  it was one cheque given fraudulently for one transaction of £700

Provide your source