Podcast by Bamber's support group containing information about 03/21 submission

[lookout]

You're getting ahead of yourself Lookout!  It's only at submission stage and dependent on the commission to refer to Court of Appeal for an appeal!  I think Yvonne is completely misguided and there will not be an appeal.  I suspect Bamber knows this deep down. 

Anyway re Julie Mugford and the 25k even if it can be shown there was some financial incentive which may make her testimony unreliable I think the commission/Court of Appeal will fall back on the silencer and other prosecution points.

What we must remember about Yvonne is that she's being guided by lawyers etc. working in the background, hence her " misguidance " as you call it. This mention of an appeal won't have been at her suggestion, personally. At least there are some who have faith in JB's word.

[Roch]

I found this podcast on youtube ie one in title.  I didn't realise the support group has made a whole series of them on the 'official' site.  Anyway I listened to the podcast again and I think Yvonne is utterly deluded if she really believes the police know Bamber is innocent. 

In some respects she talks about the case as though it is recent instead of some 36 years ago.  The pension age for police officers is 60.  Therefore the vast majority, if not all serving officers, who had anything to do with the case pre trial are long retired and many are deceased. 

If there is clear evidence one of the victims called the police why would Essex police in 2021 cover up knowing it could unravel and backfire?  Why would current serving officers risk their livlihoods and liberty to cover up for retired/deceased officers who in all probability have never had any contact with officers who worked the case in 86/86.   

Is your sole purpose on this forum, to repeatedly imply that you are allied with the official version of events, regarding the prosecution etc. etc.?

If so, we are already able to grasp that.  If it is not so, now is the time for you to educate us all, regarding where you do differ from the official case.

[killingeve]

What we must remember about Yvonne is that she's being guided by lawyers etc. working in the background, hence her " misguidance " as you call it. This mention of an appeal won't have been at her suggestion, personally. At least there are some who have faith in JB's word.

As I've said previously Yvonne made it clear that historicially lawyers will not agree to work with support grouops (she refers to campaign team but same thing) but with this firm of lawyers it is different.  Unless the 'official' website is being deliberately misleading then I can tell from this alone the submission is on a hiding to nothing. 

[killingeve]

Is your sole purpose on this forum, to repeatedly imply that you are allied with the official version of events, regarding the prosecution etc. etc.?

If so, we are already able to grasp that.  If it is not so, now is the time for you to educate us all, regarding where you do differ from the official case.

I'm not aware of an 'official version of events' exists?  There are effectively 2 cases: defence and prosecution.  There's no point wishing the prosecution would just simply disappear.  It needs understanding. 

When you ask how I differ from the 'official case' I've no idea which 'official case' you are referring to?

[Roch]

I'm not aware of an 'official version of events' exists?  There are effectively 2 cases: defence and prosecution.  There's no point wishing the prosecution would just simply disappear.  It needs understanding. 

When you ask how I differ from the 'official case' I've no idea which 'official case' you are referring to?

Semantics, you know what I mean. You are purporting to ally yourself with any version that opposes any of the defence versions. That is self evident in your posting. This little game you're playing.. how long are you going to string it out? I think I would prefer if we all went back to playing knock door ginger instead.

[Steve_uk]

Semantics, you know what I mean. You are purporting to ally yourself with any version that opposes any of the defence versions. That is self evident in your posting. This little game you're playing.. how long are you going to string it out? I think I would prefer if we all went back to playing knock door ginger instead.

Roch stop badgering him. Cambridge is a breath of fresh air. If I had to put my Jeremy-is-innocent hat on for a moment your strongest card is Sheila's mental health, which is why her brother declared this to be the "perfect crime." Nobody can really diagnose schizophrenia accurately, despite Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson's testimony.

[killingeve]

Semantics, you know what I mean. You are purporting to ally yourself with any version that opposes any of the defence versions. That is self evident in your posting. This little game you're playing.. how long are you going to string it out? I think I would prefer if we all went back to playing knock door ginger instead.

It's not semantics.  I refer once again to the 2002 appeal document that sets out the defence and prosecution cases

151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:

i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;

ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;

iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;

iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;

v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:

a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;

b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;

c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;

d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;

e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and

f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.

vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:

a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and

b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.

vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:

a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;

b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;

c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;

d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and

e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.

viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.

The defence case at trial 152. The defence answered the prosecution case in the following way:

i) The witnesses who spoke of the appellant's hatred and dislike of his family were either lying or had misinterpreted what he had said;

ii) Julie Mugford, the jilted girlfriend, had also lied to prevent anybody else being with the man she had loved;

iii) Nobody had seen the appellant cycling to and from the farm in the early hours of 7 August;

iv) Because the appellant had on a number of occasions before and after the killings entered the house by various ground floor windows there was no probative value in the finding of the hacksaw blade etc;

v) Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then taken her own life for the following reasons:

a) She had a very serious mental illness and it was known that even those with no previous history of violence had killed. She had expressed the morbid thought of an ability to kill her own children;

b) Those who carried out "altruistic" killings had been known to indulge in ritualistic behaviour before committing suicide. Sheila Caffell may have replaced the moderator, changed her clothes and washed herself before killing herself, thus explaining the absence of blood staining, the minimum traces of lead on her hands and absence of sugar on her feet;

c) Having lived on a farm and been present at shoots, the appellant's sister would have understood how to load and operate the rifle;

d) The gun, the magazine and the rounds of ammunition had been left close at hand by the appellant in the room where he had heard an argument about placing the children in foster care;

e) The defendant bore no obvious signs of injury;

f) No bloodstained clothing of his had been recovered by the police; and

g) Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and the first senior investigating officer had all proceeded on the basis that Sheila Caffell was responsible for the killings.

vi) There was a possibility that the blood in the moderator was not from Sheila Caffell, but represented a mixture of Nevill and June Bamber's blood;

vii) In respect of the telephone call from his father, the appellant had not initially appreciated the seriousness of the situation and then had become frightened to go to the farm alone.

[Steve_uk]

It's not semantics.  I refer once again to the 2002 appeal document that sets out the defence and prosecution cases

151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:

i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;

ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;

iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;

iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;

v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:

a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;

b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;

c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;

d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;

e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and

f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.

vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:

a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and

b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.

vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:

a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;

b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;

c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;

d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and

e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.

viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.

The defence case at trial 152. The defence answered the prosecution case in the following way:

i) The witnesses who spoke of the appellant's hatred and dislike of his family were either lying or had misinterpreted what he had said;

ii) Julie Mugford, the jilted girlfriend, had also lied to prevent anybody else being with the man she had loved;

iii) Nobody had seen the appellant cycling to and from the farm in the early hours of 7 August;

iv) Because the appellant had on a number of occasions before and after the killings entered the house by various ground floor windows there was no probative value in the finding of the hacksaw blade etc;

v) Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then taken her own life for the following reasons:

a) She had a very serious mental illness and it was known that even those with no previous history of violence had killed. She had expressed the morbid thought of an ability to kill her own children;

b) Those who carried out "altruistic" killings had been known to indulge in ritualistic behaviour before committing suicide. Sheila Caffell may have replaced the moderator, changed her clothes and washed herself before killing herself, thus explaining the absence of blood staining, the minimum traces of lead on her hands and absence of sugar on her feet;

c) Having lived on a farm and been present at shoots, the appellant's sister would have understood how to load and operate the rifle;

d) The gun, the magazine and the rounds of ammunition had been left close at hand by the appellant in the room where he had heard an argument about placing the children in foster care;

e) The defendant bore no obvious signs of injury;

f) No bloodstained clothing of his had been recovered by the police; and

g) Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and the first senior investigating officer had all proceeded on the basis that Sheila Caffell was responsible for the killings.

vi) There was a possibility that the blood in the moderator was not from Sheila Caffell, but represented a mixture of Nevill and June Bamber's blood;

vii) In respect of the telephone call from his father, the appellant had not initially appreciated the seriousness of the situation and then had become frightened to go to the farm alone.

One can see from this summary that the Prosecution case is far stronger than the Defence's.

[Roch]

It's not semantics.  I refer once again to the 2002 appeal document that sets out the defence and prosecution cases

151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:

i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;

ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;

iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;

iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;

v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:

a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;

b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;

c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;

d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;

e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and

f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.

vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:

a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and

b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.

vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:

a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;

b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;

c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;

d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and

e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.

viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.

The defence case at trial 152. The defence answered the prosecution case in the following way:

i) The witnesses who spoke of the appellant's hatred and dislike of his family were either lying or had misinterpreted what he had said;

ii) Julie Mugford, the jilted girlfriend, had also lied to prevent anybody else being with the man she had loved;

iii) Nobody had seen the appellant cycling to and from the farm in the early hours of 7 August;

iv) Because the appellant had on a number of occasions before and after the killings entered the house by various ground floor windows there was no probative value in the finding of the hacksaw blade etc;

v) Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then taken her own life for the following reasons:

a) She had a very serious mental illness and it was known that even those with no previous history of violence had killed. She had expressed the morbid thought of an ability to kill her own children;

b) Those who carried out "altruistic" killings had been known to indulge in ritualistic behaviour before committing suicide. Sheila Caffell may have replaced the moderator, changed her clothes and washed herself before killing herself, thus explaining the absence of blood staining, the minimum traces of lead on her hands and absence of sugar on her feet;

c) Having lived on a farm and been present at shoots, the appellant's sister would have understood how to load and operate the rifle;

d) The gun, the magazine and the rounds of ammunition had been left close at hand by the appellant in the room where he had heard an argument about placing the children in foster care;

e) The defendant bore no obvious signs of injury;

f) No bloodstained clothing of his had been recovered by the police; and

g) Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and the first senior investigating officer had all proceeded on the basis that Sheila Caffell was responsible for the killings.

vi) There was a possibility that the blood in the moderator was not from Sheila Caffell, but represented a mixture of Nevill and June Bamber's blood;

vii) In respect of the telephone call from his father, the appellant had not initially appreciated the seriousness of the situation and then had become frightened to go to the farm alone.

Bringing the 2002 appeal to the forum as a chapter and verse overview of the case will not engage members in debate. It's been done to death. You need to bring more than this.  Are you going to tell us that Christopher Columbus discovered America; or that Guy Fawlkes was discovered by a pure stroke of luck when the cellars underneath the houses of parliament were checked.

[David1819]

What we must remember about Yvonne is that she's being guided by lawyers etc. working in the background, hence her " misguidance " as you call it. This mention of an appeal won't have been at her suggestion, personally. At least there are some who have faith in JB's word.

I think you will find its the other way round.

[Adam]

Bringing the 2002 appeal to the forum as a chapter and verse overview of the case will not engage members in debate. It's been done to death. You need to bring more than this.  Are you going to tell us that Christopher Columbus discovered America; or that Guy Fawlkes was discovered by a pure stroke of luck when the cellars underneath the houses of parliament were checked.

You need to bring more than this

----------

Feel free to bring more.

[David1819]

Are you going to tell us that Christopher Columbus discovered America;

Leif Erikson discovered America.

[Roch]

Leif Erikson discovered America.

In 2002, Justice Kay et al ruled it was Christopher Columbus, after an appeal based on the argument it was Leif Erikson was thrown out. In fact, the more the judge's looked at, the more it became apparent to them that it was Christopher Columbus. This has set a really high bar for any future referrals to the court of appeal, with the intention of overturning the original Christopher Columbus decision. 

[lookout]

Who was with JB in NZ when they both committed armed robbery ?
 Information courtesy of " LineFame ".

JB left NZ because his friend was into armed robbery, JB being into dealing heroin too.

" It was not until Jeremy Bamber's girlfriend Julie Mugford told the police that Jeremy confessed to the killing of the family after the breakup ".

" An indisputable fact that he killed his family was that a silencer was found downstairs while Sheila had been found upstairs ".


I suppose that's " Elementary my dear Watson ". 

[Steve_uk]

Bringing the 2002 appeal to the forum as a chapter and verse overview of the case will not engage members in debate. It's been done to death. You need to bring more than this. Are you going to tell us that Christopher Columbus discovered America; or that Guy Fawlkes was discovered by a pure stroke of luck when the cellars underneath the houses of parliament were checked.

No the Vikings did..https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vikings-discover-christopher-columbus-america-b1941786.html