Build up to 'That is what you have got to try and establish'.

[lookout]

Paul Osborne, who ran a Colchester snooker club called Qs, said in a written statement that he knew Jeremy as a pleasant, polite and straightforward person. Osborne added that he seemed to work hard, and enjoyed a good relationship with his family. Charles Lapridge, who sold the Bambers some machinery for the farm, described Jeremy as easy to deal with, and that Jeremy had got on well with his father. He’d never caught whiff of any troubles between Jeremy and the family when he visited the farm. The housekeeper at White House Farm, Jean Bouttell, had worked for the Bambers for twenty years and had never heard Jeremy say anything nasty about his family. A Colchester chartered surveyor, Richard Buck, said Jeremy was a straightforward sort of person. ‘Out of his family, I found it most easy to deal with him.’ The landlord of the Chequers in Goldhanger, described Jeremy as a model customer.

Did any of these people give evidence?

Sadly, testimonies such as these didn't reach the defence and wouldn't have got a mention anyway.
Many written testimonies didn't even get an airing in court. An utter disgrace.

[Adam]

Also Robert Boutflour.  Don't forget him!  And I'm sure we've missed somebody.  Maybe Barbara Wilson. 

I don't take the evidence from Mary Mugford or James Richards seriously. It's joke evidence.

Barbara Wilson's evidence was useful for the last phone call at 9.30 p.m. approximately, but not for much else.  Let us put in a word for fickle Barbara, though, as Orwell did for the Vicar of Bray: remember that Barbara was also willing to shop Peter Eaton for suspected fraud.

Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour's evidence is only good for what they say about the search of the farmhouse.  There may be one or two other things that have slipped my mind, but you can't seriously expect me to rely on them for Jeremy's feelings about his parents?  You'll be trying to sell me cat basket insurance next.

Julie Mugford is where the action is at, and curiously it all rests on her word.

Did Colin Caffell mention anything about Jeremy saying he hates his parents or similar?  The nearest I recall is that, apparently, according to Colin, a week or so before the killings, Jeremy tried to suggest that his parents were using Colin in some way, or so Colin claims.  Not sure if that was entered in evidence, but Colin mentions it in his book.

While we're on that topic, why do you think Jeremy killed two six year-old-boys?  Just for the money, was it?  Would you accept that to kill them for the money, there would have to have been a strong underlying feeling of hatred towards them?  The rationalisation Jeremy allegedly gave Julie that the twins were already mentally-damaged is surely not convincing, even if he really said it.

So all the witnesses who testified that Bamber hated his parents were lying.

Bamber rarely saw the twins. He would have no feelings for them. As Julie said, he thought he was doing Colin a favour.

[lookout]

That's right Adam, make sure you by-pass Rob's post with your own like you ALWAYS do !

[guest29835]

So all the witnesses who testified that Bamber hated his parents were lying.

Bamber rarely saw the twins. He would have no feelings for them. As Julie said, he thought he was doing Colin a favour.

I didn't say that.  I am saying that we can't rely on what they say for the purpose of concluding that Jeremy hated his parents.  It's unreasonable to do so because people say all sorts of random things that they don't mean but that could, in retrospect, be formed into an incriminating pattern.

As an aside, I have no idea if Jeremy's evidence was that witnesses such as James Richards were lying.  Jeremy didn't need to refute him, and couldn't anyway as it was a report of an uncorroborated conversation.  It's basically useless evidence. 

Same for what Robert Boutflour said on the topic.  Does Robert Boutflour claim in his evidence or diary that Jeremy had said such things about his parents for years and years?  That it was a pattern?  No.  Instead, he mentions an isolated incident, just as James Richards does.  James Richards doesn't claim that he met Jeremy on several occasions and Jeremy was always expressing hatred for his parents and was jokily boasting about a murder plot. 

It's ridiculous to rely on such evidence.  It certainly insults my intelligence and I would hope others on here would say the same for themselves.

[Adam]

That's right Adam, make sure you by-pass Rob's post with your own like you ALWAYS do !

I answered Rob's post. He can do something constructive for a change.

How many sources have you ever supplied? None.

[Adam]

Mary Mugford's testimony was very damning -

Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -

Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.

She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.

'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.

'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.

'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.

'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.

'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.

'He often spoke of this'

[lookout]

I answered Rob's post. He can do something constructive for a change.

How many sources have you ever supplied? None.

Anything that goes in Jeremy's favour you don't want to know !

Sources ? Just see my many posts, doesn't that tell you something ? You're just quoting from books !

[Rob_]

I always get confused about this murder plot notion they sometimes come out with.  Apparently, according to Colin, Barbara, David, Jimmy Savile, or Maggie Thatcher - I'm not sure who claims it, I always get mixed up - the Evil One, Jeremy, was plotting to murder Nevill.  I'm not quite sure how the inheritance motive fits in with this, but for sure, according to the claim, Nevill was putting together a dossier on Jeremy for the police.

Of course, naturally in these circumstances, Nevill would let Jeremy walk round with a loaded gun and keep him working on the farm.  That harvest needs bringing in!

If Nevil really suspected JB QC I don't think he would be worried about a few rabbits running round the yard! The guilter's in this case expect us cranks to believe the impossible again and again.

[Rob_]

I answered Rob's post. He can do something constructive for a change.

How many sources have you ever supplied? None.

Don't worry Adam I do know the answer, but I was interested in why the photo was not shown to the jury. I  think they would have been very interested in seeing it don't you? So to me it's very relevant.

[guest29835]

If Nevil really suspected JB QC I don't think he would be worried about a few rabbits running round the yard! The guilter's in this case expect us cranks to believe the impossible again and again.

If the idea of killing his entire family to inherit occurred to Jeremy, wouldn't it also have occurred to Nevill that Jeremy could do this?  Yet Nevill has allowed the entire family to stay at the farmhouse.  Why would Nevill think that Jeremy only wanted to kill him?  What would be the point of that?

[Adam]

Don't worry Adam I do know the answer, but I was interested in why the photo was not shown to the jury. I  think they would have been very interested in seeing it don't you? So to me it's very relevant.

Why do you believe the defence apparantly did not show it to the jury?

[lookout]

There are lots of " small but relevant " points like that QC but they don't seem to come to light very often, and never did during trial. It was all biased and one-sided which was so wrong.

[Roch]

There are lots of " small but relevant " points like that QC but they don't seem to come to light very often, and never did during trial. It was all biased and one-sided which was so wrong.

QC should have appeared on the 'docu'. And David, regarding Mugford. In fact' I think if David had have been let loose regarding Mugford's testimony, a lot of people would have come away with real doubt about the conviction.

[Rob_]

If the idea of killing his entire family to inherit occurred to Jeremy, wouldn't it also have occurred to Nevill that Jeremy could do this?  Yet Nevill has allowed the entire family to stay at the farmhouse.  Why would Nevill think that Jeremy only wanted to kill him?  What would be the point of that?

Looking at the wills and the way Nevil behaved, I don't think the thought of JB doing harm to anyone ever crossed his mind, he obviously trusted him and looking at the references above they got on well.

[Rob_]

Why do you believe the defence apparantly did not show it to the jury?

Defence Adam? what defence, Micky Mouse could have got JB a not guilty verdict.