Louis Theroux

[Adam]

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12158.msg667215#msg667215

Here is some information on the caravan break in. Page 26.

Jeremy persuading Nevill to leave the cash at the caravan site. Then robbing it a few hours later? Talk about rubbing it into Nevill's face.

[JackieD]

Thought CC would have appeared. Maybe he thought the documentary sounded too trashy.

Didn't know DB was so close to Nevill & June.

Only seen AE in one documentary. Where she talks about how Sheila could not have overpowered Nevill. Sadly not on Youtube.

What were the criticisms of the judges summing up?

It's well known the NOTW approached Julie & a verbal agreement made. And no surprise.

The sleeping pills are in Julie's WS. Bamber confirms in his police interviews he was aware of them.

It's been said for years that Nevill knew it was Bamber who robbed the caravan site. Maybe Nevill was planning to amend his will. June certainly was.

The 'trick of the light' was so trivial it was not mentioned in the police interviews or at trial. Not surprised Bews can't remember who didn't see what 36 years on.

Did Bamber say anything new?

Did the documentary not mention the caravan break in?

Colin probably didn’t appear in the latest documentary because after the last documentary he was criticised for his behaviour towards Sheila which could have contributed to her mental health problems and he also stated in the Lorraine programme the Sheila would have had to be a marksman to shoot the family at point blank range

The documentary Ann appeared in made it clear that Ann had moved into White House farm not long afters the murders and her children had even helped her change the bedding. The documentary maker also seemed shocked there was also still blood on the lampshades when Ann showed her around
All very strange considering Ann was so close to the family

Adam please supply a source where it states Nevill planned to change his will

The documentary did not mention Julie Mugfords 13 multiple cheque frauds??

[JackieD]

I gave in and watched the series on the NowTV player after taking advantage of their free trial offer.

It's not a documentary series in the true sense.  It's more like a compilation of interviews and montages with voiceovers.  Some of the photographs and interviews are interesting because I haven't seen them before, but there's little substance to it in that it's fairly superficial and doesn't go into much detail, and I was pretty bored by the end of it.  I think it was all a bit confused and disjointed.  The four episodes overall lack a clear narrative or focus and there was no analytical element.

For me, the gold standard for this genre are the World in Action documentaries on the Birmingham Six: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyo50NHuRq4

Watch that example and be amazed, and then consider: Would such a documentary be made today?  They know what they want to say.  They say it.  They don't get bogged down in issues that aren't strictly relevant, such as the feelings of relatives, etc., or the opinions of frivolous book authors, or the impressions of peripheral figures (James Richards? Barbara Wilson?  Are they crucial witnesses?), or the life and times of TV reporters, or the fatuous tautologies of police officers ("I knew he was guilty.  I don't know what his supporters are playing at", etc., etc., etc.).

Points that stood out (in no particular order):

(i). David Boutflour is a very emotional man.  Nobody else in any documentary on this case I have seen was crying, just him.  I have not seen Colin Caffell cry like that.

(ii). Mr Boutflour claims that Nevill and June were like second parents to him and he used to stay at The White House often during his teens.

(iii). Mr Boutflour again tells us that the silencer was 'sticky' and he saw the grey hair on it.  It must be that Jeremy didn't notice this stickiness or the grey hair when he put that same silencer away in the gun cupboard.

(iv). Colin Caffell does not appear.  Nor does Ann Eaton.

(v). Anthony Arlidge, prosecution counsel at the trial, criticises the judge's summing-up, as does a barrister unconnected with the case who was asked to give his 'objective' view on the transcript.

(vi). In the third episode, a former News of the World reporter clearly admits that Julie Mugford was promised payment before the end of the trial.

(vii). An admission from Julie Mugford that I had forgotten came up again, which is that she claimed to Essex Police that she did supply sedatives or sleeping pills to Jeremy for the purpose of an abortive murder plot.

(viii). Unflattering speculation is advanced about Julie's motives for coming forward.

(ix). James Richards, responsible for perhaps the most ridiculously irrelevant evidence ever given in an English murder trial, is described as a 'friend' of Julie Mugford and defends her zealously. 

(x). Likewise Barbara Wilson, whose evidence at trial seemed pointless to me, makes another appearance.  She now claims that Nevill knew Jeremy had robbed the caravan site office.  Yet Nevill did not change his will.  Why?  I thought there was a murder plot and Nevill, June, Julie, Colin, Robert, David, Peter, Ann, Karen, Patricia, and every Phillip, Jack and Maureen between there and Chelmsford knew of it? 

(xi). No mention is made of DCI Taff Jones or DS Stan Jones.

(xii). Dr Vanezis does not appear.

(xiii). Mike Ainsley is not asked why he retained evidence in his own home, if he did so.  Isn't it a strange thing for a police officer to take evidence home with him, then destroy that evidence?

(xiv). For the first time, Malcolm Fletcher and Michael West appear.  Their interviews are quite interesting, to be fair.

(xv). Geoffrey Rivlin does not appear, nor does Paul Terzeon.

(xvi). Mark Williams-Thomas is given a soap box and could have gone into some detail about the evidence he came up with, but in keeping with the documentary's lack of focus, he is fairly superficial but does come across well.

(xvii). Chris Bews now says he saw movement at the window, then realised it was moon light.  I think that must be the third or fourth version of that part of the incident that he has given.  At this rate, he'll be telling us in the next documentary that it was Saxby who saw something, as he's the only person present who it hasn't yet been blamed on.

(xviii). For the first time, we hear parts of Jeremy's prison interview with the journalist in 2010.

The whole thing came across to me as a damage limitation exercise, perhaps intended to blunt the impact of new revelations to come (which may be things that are not revelations to us on this Forum, but would be to the public). 

It may also be that the lack of narrative rigour is an effort at confusing ordinary viewers of average intelligence, who will come away without a clear sense of what are the issues in the case and will be inclined to just forget about it all.

I would say you have got it spot on about the documentary/series and we have said it for years. There has to be a lengthy series about these murders

A couple of things though maybe David Boutflour is worried about his part in the silencer fiasco.  Could he still face charges over this?

No wonder he want this all to go away

The other thing is Mark Williams Thomas does always come across well but I image his clip was a tiny part of what he really had to say

We have to remember Mark wanted to do a series on the case but decided against it after criticism from the campaign team

[David1819]

David, this isn't Billings, Montana. You can swap guess for suppose.

I am in Roswell New Mexico

[Adam]

No source needed. I said 'maybe' -

'It's been said for years that Nevill knew it was Bamber who robbed the caravan site. Maybe Nevill was planning to amend his will. June certainly was.'

----------

I have created threads on the wills. Bamber was in a 'now or never' situation.

The 'Countdown to Murder' documentary does say Bamber was going to be disinherited.

[Adam]

CC generally does not appear much.

He was interviewed on the News after the conviction. Wrote a book. Then appeared on daytime ITV when the recent WHF drama started. Which he was involved in.

He could easily appear on every Bamber documentary. But probably believes most are trashy.

[Adam]

I would say you have got it spot on about the documentary/series and we have said it for years. There has to be a lengthy series about these murders

A couple of things though maybe David Boutflour is worried about his part in the silencer fiasco.  Could he still face charges over this?

No wonder he want this all to go away

The other thing is Mark Williams Thomas does always come across well but I image his clip was a tiny part of what he really had to say

We have to remember Mark wanted to do a series on the case but decided against it after criticism from the campaign team

'Lenghty series'? There has just been a 4 part series. To go with the million documentaries.

Why did the CT not want MWT to make a documentary?

[Adam]

'The documentary did not mention Julie Mugfords 13 multiple cheque frauds??'

----------

One cheque book fraud, with Susan Battersby.

[Adam]

Seems the doc is a much longer winded version of 'Crimes which shook Britain'. In that it tries to be 50/50.

Theroux publicised it as such. That will attract more viewers.

Susan & Caroline took an interest in the case & became passionate supporters after CTSB. Then changing stance & becoming guilters after I joined. This documentary may get similar results.

[David1819]

Seems the doc is a much longer winded version of 'Crimes which shook Britain'. In that it tries to be 50/50.

Theroux publicised it as such. That will attract more viewers.

Susan & Caroline took an interest in the case & became passionate supporters after CTSB. Then changing stance & becoming guilters after I joined. This documentary may get similar results.

Susan no longer believes JB is guilty as far as I know.

[Adam]

Susan no longer believes JB is guilty as far as I know.

Caroline & JaneJ changed stance after I joined. Ditto Susan.

[David1819]

Caroline & JaneJ changed stance after I joined. Ditto Susan.

That's because you joined this forum shortly before Paul Harrison changed his agenda the following month. They all would have changed stance whether you joined or not.

[Rob_]

I liked your summing up QC, Ann Eaton does not appear I thought she would have?

Looking at her first statement about half of it is referring to Sheila's mental state she did not appear to suspect JB at this time?

But what I find astounding is no mention on the silencer?

[ngb1066]

It's well known the NOTW approached Julie & a verbal agreement made. And no surprise.



The 'trick of the light' was so trivial it was not mentioned in the police interviews or at trial. Not surprised Bews can't remember who didn't see what 36 years on.

I have corrected you several times in relation to the NOW deal.  The agreement was in writing.

The "trick of the light" was mentioned at trial.

[lookout]

What wasn't mentioned at the trial was that blood grouping on the silencer as well as Sheila's, also matched RWB's ! A separate case on its own I would have thought.
Why were the defence made to work with one arm behind their backs when any evidence was crucial for JB ?  So obvious isn't it ?