Here you invent a myth about a conspiracy. The actual claim is that the conspiracy arose when Operation Raleigh began, or maybe in the run up to it, not at the point that Jeremy was on the phone.
To what extent such a conspiracy may have involved Myall, Saxby and Bews, is unclear to me. They were merely the response officers in CA07. I comprehend the point that the Campaign Team are making, that CA07 was a response to Nevill's call, not Jeremy's, but it does not follow from this that the CA07 officers were in on it as they would have just taken the situation as they found it and the source of the call would not have mattered to them, whether HQ or Witham or wherever.
Again, you misrepresent things. The allegation needs to be understood in context. You speak of Jeremy forgetting about it, but the initial investigation concluded uncontroversially that Sheila was the culprit, as this matched the evidence found, so there was no reason for Jeremy to raise the issue. It was only when Jeremy became a suspect that it became relevant.
Against this background, your suspicions make no sense. If Jeremy was lying about what occurred, then he would have claimed to have seen the figure himself and Bews and Myall would have denied the whole thing ever occurred. Instead, Bews admits it occurred, and at one point even states he was the one who saw movement in the window! It's on YouTube for everybody to see. Some conspiracy that turned out to be.
Well, they did conspire to withhold the log from the defence! That is fact. Furthermore, the log quite plainly and in black-and-white states that the firearms team are in conversation with somebody from inside the farm. It uses those very words. They perhaps should have disclosed it and added a note that this was officers attempting to hail a suspect believed to be in the farmhouse, not in conversation with a suspect, and these efforts were to no avail.
Also, if they were hailing to no avail and if there was no sign of life in the farmhouse, then why did they wait so long to attempt entry? Did they lack the equipment and training to effect low light entry? I appreciate that safety concerns are legitimate considerations, and anyone with a gun has to be considered dangerous, but ultimately, they were dealing with a young woman, not hardened terrorists. One argument that occurs to me is that they may have been concerned about setting Sheila off and her then shooting everybody, especially as there were young children in the house. OK, but they waited three hours. Three hours. Why?
Two calls can't be made from one phone at one time, so your claim does not make sense. Are you saying that as the open line was transferred:
(i). Sheila terminates the open line and makes a call?
(ii). Sheila speaks into the open line (perhaps after hearing voices emanating from the handset)?
(iii). Something else?
Who makes this claim?
It is a fact that an authorised firearms officer, PC Collins, looked through the back kitchen window and when he reported what he saw back to CA07, he stated one dead female. They then enter the farmhouse and find one dead male. CA07 then radioed this back to Igor Norman at Chelmsford as one dead male and one dead female found on entry to the farmhouse, and PC West also recorded it this way in the Wireless Log.
What is clear is that PC Collins' second report back to CA07 could not have included the conjunctive word as there was only one body in the kitchen. Furthermore, if PC Collins had seen a different body through the window to that found in the kitchen, he would have reported this.
It follows from this that PC Collins' original observation could not have been mistaken in its essential fact - he definitely saw a body, whether male or female. This in turn leaves open two possibilities:
(i). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in the same position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window;
or,
(ii). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in a different position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window.
If (i) applies, then PC Collins' evidence in this respect is true and he just mistook Nevill's body for female.
If (ii) applies, PC Collins' evidence is false, and either Nevill was still alive at this point or Sheila was in the kitchen just before the raid group entered the farmhouse.
PC Collins was not commenting on whether the bodies he saw were alive or dead. If he says 'dead bodies', that is because they appear to be dead. Even a doctor would not be able to tell from behind a window six feet away.
Again, I think you misrepresent the alleged conspiracy. What is being posited here is that the officers decided to cover up the second shot only. There is no suggestion that the officers on the scene sought to frame Jeremy. In fact, it's the very opposite of what you say. The efforts were intended to make it look like a two-shot suicide. A variation on the theory is that Taff Jones became aware of what had gone on and this explains his apparent obstinance.
Personally, I do not believe there is anything to support this theory but I retain an open mind. Stranger things have happened.
I don't know if there was a suicide note, but it was Stan Jones who mentioned a suicide note in his COLP interview. It's not as if Jeremy was stood there with him saying, 'Go on Stan, mention the suicide note.
Go on. I'll give you all my dinner money if you do...' Jeremy seems to be blamed for drawing natural inferences from things people have done or said of their own free will, which seems rather unfair to me.
Personally, I suspect it was just clumsy expression on Stan Jones' part that Jeremy has now seized on, but if Jeremy Bamber is innocent, can you blame him for making hay of it? Shouldn't the COLP officers have sought clarification from DS Jones on the point? Why blame Jeremy when it's the police who are not being rigorous and checking things?
Well you're wrong here too. Even the prosecution counsel, Anthony Arlidge, Q.C. disagrees with you. He conceded the point in his closing speech on 27th. October 1985, when he told the jury:
"Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their head off. It's just something you have to face up to."
You say the phone call was at 3 a.m. Julie said it was at 3.15 a.m. Susan Battersby said it was at 3.12 a.m., based on her alarm clock, which she asks us to assume was deadly accurate.
Julie told the police in her first statement that Douglas Dale had answered the phone, then corrected this later and admitted she answered.
Putting aside the truth or otherwise of all this, I'm not clear why you think this is a wild supposition or 'conspiracy theory'. You do realise that people tell lies in court, including women and policemen? You do understand that people are sometimes framed for crimes they did not commit? I will grant you that normally this is because the person framed is believed to be guilty or is looked upon as suspicious, but the point is that you seem to be dismissing as wild supposition things that actually have occurred in real life in other cases.
Again, putting aside the truth or otherwise of this, I'm unclear why you put these allegations in the 'conspiracy theory' category, as if they can be dismissed out-of-hand as beneath your notice. People do plot together to tell lies, and - brace yourself for this because it will shock you - they sometimes do it because they're greedy or nasty. You do realise this?
Are you serious when you suggest there was no motive for them to lie? I'm not saying they were lying, but you can't seriously be telling us there was no motive.
I don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth or pen of a reporter from the Sun, or any journalist, from any newspaper, or any media person or anybody who works in broadcasting. If a journalist or media person gave me the time of day, I'd ring up the Greenwich Observatory to double-check. Not one of them is trustworthy in the sense that you can rely on their word without carrying out your own checks. They tell lies.
That having been said, I think you have to make a choice. If Michael Fielder's story was true, then we have another reason in support of Sheila as the killer, don't we, and if Jeremy is lying about selling photographs, that is no proof that he is a murderer. If, on the other hand, Michael Fielder's story is false, it does not follow that Jeremy is innocent, it merely serves to establish what we already know, that journalists are scumbags; and, it may be that Fielder lied because Brett and Jeremy themselves were a couple of scumbags.
Certainly, what we can say is that Jeremy's moral orientation took a turn for the worse under the influence of young Brett.
Where is it said by anybody supporting Jeremy that everybody has lied? Anyway, why shouldn't it be the case that large numbers of people told lies in different ways? Why can't experienced professionals make mistakes? How did the Post Office Horizon scandal happen? By accident?
Again, I'm not clear why you think this is far-fetched. The TV drama was based partly on Colin Caffell's book. You do realise that Colin Caffell would crawl bollock-naked over broken glass to stop Jeremy being freed? And do you think Carol Ann Lee just woke up in a manger? She writes for money. She doesn't just do it for the good of her health. She appeared on that podcast and said what they want her to say because they paid her. This is not a silly person. She's a shrewd lady.
I'm starting to view you as a bit of a naif. I'm starting to think you might be a promising mark for a confidence man. You seem to be under the belief that what you see on TV and read in newspapers is true and doesn't represent some sort of agenda.
No such thing occurred. Jeremy fully admits that he had Crispy put down. The controversy is over why. You fail to ask why Carol Ann Lee would impute the worst possible motives in Jeremy for the most mundane incident while absolving everybody else.
What a silly comment. If Essex Police have concealed evidence, then what else should we conclude than that they have....concealed evidence? That is literally what they have done. And if you were innocent of something and still in prison for it, what else would you do other than protest your innocence at every opportunity?
To my knowledge, nobody associated with Jeremy Bamber has ever made this accusation. There would be no need.
Here you rely on the 2002 appeal judges, but they actually got this wrong. There is a factor they failed to take account of. As to why Jeremy's defence did not raise the Bible during the trial, I have no idea and I doubt anybody else does, even Jeremy himself. I suspect the only person who knows is Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., and he's probably forgotten. It may be that Rivlin was worried that blood impressions inside the Bible may incriminate Jeremy. OK, so what? Doesn't mean Jeremy is guilty, as the cause of it can be more than one thing.
Which is true. It is admitted by the authorities that this occurred.
Well, which is it? I'm not clear how this is wild supposition. The concern seems well-founded.
Again, this actually happened. It is fact. Whether the documents were technically stolen by police officers is a matter of law, but no legitimate reason for them to have those documents springs to mind. "Any chance I can take this document home, guv, show it to the wife?" "Yeah, go on. Jeremy's legal team won't need it anymore", sounds to me like a conversation that should not take place between police officers. However, we are talking about the police force that destroyed crucial evidence in a murder case involving a disputed conviction, so perhaps that's how it panned out.
Why not? Why shouldn't this be a factor? I doubt anybody would claim it was the only reason, but why shouldn't it have come into play? The Birmingham Six would say they were stitched up because they were Irish (in fact, they were all Irish Republicans). Judith Ward was an IRA groupie. My point is that the personal habits, views, and lifestyle choices of an individual can firm them up as a suspect, especially if these personal attributes have some relevance to the case itself. It turned out that Judith Ward was innocent.
In the present case, and to give due credit to Stan Jones (who was an able detective), Jeremy's slightly decadent, 'alternative', metropolitan outlook and lifestyle formed a background against which a picture could be painted of him as someone materialistic rather than dutiful and, taken together with other things, allowed the prosecution to portray Jeremy as perhaps the type of person who would seek to escape a rural north Essex life and might - just might - resort to desperate measures to do it. If it turns out that Stan Jones was wrong, then this train of thought starts to look a bit prejudiced. Indeed, I'm told that early in his prison career, Jeremy Bamber was subscribing to Farmers Weekly. Was that just to give him another appeal point? And even his detractors base their detraction on Jeremy wanting to use the money he would inherit to buy a small farm in Devon. Why would they come up with something like that? Why would Jeremy want to sell up one farm-business conglomerate that is prosperous and doing well only to set up another in some random part of the country he has no connection to? Does that make any sense to you?
Why would PC West cover up a received telephone call from Nevill when it would confirm DCI Taff Jones' conviction that the whole incident was "a domestic"?
It was not uncontroversial at all. DS Stan Jones heard a cough or a chuckle behind closed doors at Bourtree Cottage. Other lower-ranked policemen had their doubts when witnessing at first hand how Bamber was reacting.
The loudhailer was met with no response. This is not a conversation.
They waited so long because they had been primed by Jeremy Bamber that a madwoman akin to Bertha Mason who had recently participated in target practice was running amok with a gun.
Nevill's head was situated in a coal scuttle with his long straggly grey hair peering out. Under these circumstances he was mistaken for a woman.
The so-called suicide note was part of Psalm 41 sticking out of the Bible and written in June's hand.
Somebody is lying, including all the relatives, Julie Mugford, James Richards and Michael Deckers.
Why telephone Julie at all in the middle of the night, unless it backs up the earlier call in which Julie claimed Bamber said
"tonight's the night..it's now or never."
What and where did Carol Ann Lee claim about the euthanization of Crispy?
If Michael Fielder's story is true then why does this make it more likely that Sheila is the killer?
So Jeremy wishes to purchase a smallholding in Devon. You've fallen for yet more of his lies, haven't you..
