Author Topic: Louis Theroux  (Read 40268 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #135 on: September 30, 2021, 02:57:PM »
Assume this is the place to post about the Sky doc?

Thought PC West came over well and seems to have put paid to the absurd claim that Mr Bamber Snr called the police.  Although I bet there are some that will persist with this nonsense.


Absurd ?  Your an expert on the case then?  Very much in the public eye at the moment, thank goodness
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #136 on: September 30, 2021, 03:10:PM »



We'll wait and see shall we ?

We could speculate until the cows come home.  Do you think this so-called phone call from Mr Bamber senior meets the criteria referred to by barrister Patrick O'Connor?

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #137 on: September 30, 2021, 03:14:PM »
We could speculate until the cows come home.  Do you think this so-called phone call from Mr Bamber senior meets the criteria referred to by barrister Patrick O'Connor?


Of course none of us are privy to confidential information but the solicitors and barristers look like they will leave no stone unturned with this unsafe conviction
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #138 on: September 30, 2021, 03:15:PM »
I am 60/40 against it haven taken place. Nevertheless, I find it curious how quickly officers were stood down from other duties for TFG duties. There is also no situation report available from Bews et al, to explore the justification for request for armed officers to attend. I also do not know if the new legal team have discovered anything else that they have kept restricted.

Surely Bamber's claims of a 'mad woman' with an arsenal of weapons and ammunition at her disposal were enough? 

Lights on, dogs barking, no movement, Bamber's phone call to the police regarding his father saying the daughter was going crazy with a gun, etc, etc. 

What would you do?  Play knock, knock, ginger?

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #139 on: September 30, 2021, 03:17:PM »

Of course none of us are privy to confidential information but the solicitors and barristers look like they will leave no stone unturned with this unsafe conviction

I rather think if it was a slam dunk or blockbuster piece of evidence we would have heard about it by now.  No reason not to. 


Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #140 on: September 30, 2021, 03:21:PM »
Quote " The log relating to Nevill's call states " message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead ". This line allowed the prosecution to argue that this log was started because a call from Jeremy was passed from one office to another. In other words they argued that this log relates only to Jeremy's call.
In reality, the line " message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber " was added to the log later on after Jeremy had contacted PC West some 10 minutes after the initial call from Nevill. Therefore the statement " message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber " has nothing to do with the original telephone conversation between PC West and Nevill but refers to new information being passed to Bonnett after the second telephone call, this one made by Jeremy.

Audio's of both calls have failed to materialise " End Quote. 

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #141 on: September 30, 2021, 03:23:PM »
The above is part of the submission to the CCRC.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #142 on: September 30, 2021, 03:24:PM »
Surely Bamber's claims of a 'mad woman' with an arsenal of weapons and ammunition at her disposal were enough? 

Lights on, dogs barking, no movement, Bamber's phone call to the police regarding his father saying the daughter was going crazy with a gun, etc, etc. 

What would you do?  Play knock, knock, ginger?

Possibly. But my understanding of that era is, a gun issue at a farmhouse in rural Essex would not normally result in TFG being requested. To stand officers down from elsewhere in preparation for firearms to be withdrawn was a very serious matter. Permission wouldn't be given lightly.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #143 on: September 30, 2021, 03:29:PM »
" The emergence of the second log in March 2004 ( the one referring to Jeremy's call, written by PC West ) confirms that two separate calls were made to the police along with a table that clearly outlines the differences between the two ".

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #144 on: September 30, 2021, 03:31:PM »
Nobody knew who a handful of firearm officers were and no notes/ statements were ever taken.

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #145 on: September 30, 2021, 03:34:PM »
I rather think if it was a slam dunk or blockbuster piece of evidence we would have heard about it by now.  No reason not to.


You must be concerned to come on this forum.
You seem sure Jeremy is guilty? Why waste your time here. It’s a lovely day here in Maldon. I have just had a lovely walk with my dog
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #146 on: September 30, 2021, 03:55:PM »
There'll be a few who'll be getting the wind up at the thought of a possible appeal---over 300,000 pages of it including those which EP were holding back and which no longer applied after 30 years. There are apparently multiple grounds for appeal. How disgusting is this after 36 years ?
A jury who were repeatedly misled and the non-provision of evidence at the trial.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #147 on: September 30, 2021, 04:11:PM »
I rather think if it was a slam dunk or blockbuster piece of evidence we would have heard about it by now.  No reason not to.

Possibly, however.. the legal team may wish to take more of an in-house due-process approach. Criticism was received from the CCRC regarding the USA and UK ballistics and burns evidence being vaunted in the media.

BTW, the above mentioned findings still stand and have never been countered by any other medical / forensic scientists. But the state can rely on Carol Ann Lee and co, rather than science.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2021, 04:11:PM by Roch »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #148 on: September 30, 2021, 06:33:PM »

You must be concerned to come on this forum.
You seem sure Jeremy is guilty? Why waste your time here. It’s a lovely day here in Maldon. I have just had a lovely walk with my dog
We've had a grey day in Manchester with light drizzle. Maybe Cambridgecutie has been out walking with his or her cat in Ely. In any case he's entitled to his view.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Louis Theroux
« Reply #149 on: September 30, 2021, 06:40:PM »
Surely Bamber's claims of a 'mad woman' with an arsenal of weapons and ammunition at her disposal were enough? 

Lights on, dogs barking, no movement, Bamber's phone call to the police regarding his father saying the daughter was going crazy with a gun, etc, etc. 

What would you do?  Play knock, knock, ginger?

Hey, I like knock-knock ginger.  My big mistake was trying it at Adam's door at 3 a.m. one morning.