WPC Julia Jeapes

[sherlock]

I should add that I have  personally witnessed a Chelmsford Police Sergeant punch an entirely innocent  suspect in the stomach while the suspect was handcuffed with their hands behind their back - despite the suspect being peaceful at all times and co operative - the Police Sergeant went on to commit perjury in Chelmsford Crown Court regarding this arrest - what was the Police Sergeants motives for doing this ? He had been temporarily assigned to work alongside security guards for a private company that was well known for giving ex Police Officers who had been temporarily assigned to work alongside them lucrative contracts as soon as they retired from the Police force ….
Reality is often very different to what you read in the news papers …

[killingeve]

Which 'conspiracy theorist' altered the text and meanings of both Colin's and Peter Vanezis' statements?

In terms of Colin's statement it was nothing more than a typo.  I don't know anything about PV's stat? 

This is the thing with conspiracy theorists, they are unable/unwilling to accept that benign errors caused by humans will occur especially in a size of this case - a fact the CoA pointed out when they reviewed Colin's stat.  Bottom line is that this straightforward error, whether corrected or not, had no bearing on the outcome of the trial.

386. The original mistake was, as we have already made clear, no more than the sort of typing mistake that is inevitably to be found in a case where the documentation is on the sort of scale to be found in this case. It reveals something of the careful approach of Mr Caffell that he spotted the error and thought that a correction was required. When it was pointed out to him, DS Jones should have taken steps to see that the error was corrected. To suggest that he did not do so in order to secure a conviction at all cost does not stand up to even a moment's thought. The mistake was unlikely to mislead anyone since it was obvious from the context; the original was with the court's papers for examination; and no assessment of the position could possibly lead to a conclusion that even if not spotted this error would impact upon the outcome of the case.

[killingeve]

One thing to remember about British Policing in the 1980”s - if you were a Police Officer you had to follow the “official line” 100% at all times or you were out and your career was finished - that”s a 100% definite fact - same as you could not report a fellow Police Officer for any type of wrong doing or again you were out and your career was finished and very often worse than that - anyone who doesn’t know this as a fact either wasn’t alive in the 1980”s or was incredibly naive …. That”s not a conspiracy theory - it”s a historical fact ….


1980”s British Police routinely beat people up in the cells and fitted people up - they were incredibly racist - on the whole they hated LGBT people with a passion and they saw even extreme domestic violence as a husbands or boyfriends right to indulge in and therefore not a matter for the Police at all - today”s British Police are on the whole very good - but that really wasn’t the case in the 1980”s …

You might be right with some of the above but what has it got to do with WPC Jeapes/Bamber case?

By the time WPC Jeapes commented in the local rag she was no longer a police officer.  Bamber/supporters tracked her down to her new place of work, Essex council if I remember correctly.

[snow66!]

Julia Jeapers Peepers

[Roch]

By the time WPC Jeapes commented in the local rag she was no longer a police officer.  Bamber/supporters tracked her down to her new place of work, Essex council if I remember correctly.

Her lack of cooperation doesn't bode well for her reliability. Such people are more concerned with their police pensions, imo.

[Zoso]

Her lack of cooperation doesn't bode well for her reliability. Such people are more concerned with their police pensions, imo.

She will be well into her police pension now, they couldn't take it off her (I doubt they could back then). She has had plenty of time to put right a wrong, like being part of a conspiracy to send an innocent man to prison. Instead when chose to speak out, it was to admit she was wrong about the rifle in the window.

[Roch]

She will be well into her police pension now, they couldn't take it off her (I doubt they could back then). She has had plenty of time to put right a wrong, like being part of a conspiracy to send an innocent man to prison. Instead when chose to speak out, it was to admit she was wrong about the rifle in the window.

Where / when did she do that?  I must have missed that.

BTW, not every person is knowingly or willingly part of a conspiracy. Some may be passive or even unknowing.

For example, if a police officer raised something with their superior, like a serious concern for example, that raising of the issue internally might be enough to salve their own conscience. They did what was right. They raised their concern through the correct channel.

The fact that their concern didn't go anywhere, is not on their own conscience. It's now the fault of a higher up person who chose not to act on it. Not everyone is like a dog with a bone.

[Roch]

In terms of Colin's statement it was nothing more than a typo.  I don't know anything about PV's stat? 

This is the thing with conspiracy theorists, they are unable/unwilling to accept that benign errors caused by humans will occur especially in a size of this case - a fact the CoA pointed out when they reviewed Colin's stat.  Bottom line is that this straightforward error, whether corrected or not, had no bearing on the outcome of the trial.

386. The original mistake was, as we have already made clear, no more than the sort of typing mistake that is inevitably to be found in a case where the documentation is on the sort of scale to be found in this case. It reveals something of the careful approach of Mr Caffell that he spotted the error and thought that a correction was required. When it was pointed out to him, DS Jones should have taken steps to see that the error was corrected. To suggest that he did not do so in order to secure a conviction at all cost does not stand up to even a moment's thought. The mistake was unlikely to mislead anyone since it was obvious from the context; the original was with the court's papers for examination; and no assessment of the position could possibly lead to a conclusion that even if not spotted this error would impact upon the outcome of the case.

Nothing more than a typo? And that's the be all and end all of it? Righto. 

You keep using the term conspiracy theorist in a perjorative manner. Tbh, I feel that you are engaged in a form of gaslighting for your own amusement.  If conspiracies didn't exist then the word would never have entered the English language. 'Conspiracy Theorists' is a trope. And when people use the term in the manner it is used on here, I feel that they effectively reveal a weakness in their own argument. 

[Jane]

Where / when did she do that?  I must have missed that.

BTW, not every person is knowingly or willingly part of a conspiracy. Some may be passive or even unknowing.

For example, if a police officer raised something with their superior, like a serious concern for example, that raising of the issue internally might be enough to salve their own conscience. They did what was right. They raised their concern through the correct channel.

The fact that their concern didn't go anywhere, is not on their own conscience. It's now the fault of a higher up person who chose not to act on it. Not everyone is like a dog with a bone.

Perhaps spare a thought for those, who, from the outset, believed JB guilty, and, as you suggest, rightly went through the "correct channel" taking their "serious concern" to their superior, who, in this case was Taff Jones. It took a long time, and a change in leadership, for their "concern" to be heard.

[Roch]

Perhaps spare a thought for those, who, from the outset, believed JB guilty, and, as you suggest, rightly went through the "correct channel" taking their "serious concern" to their superior, who, in this case was Taff Jones. It took a long time, and a change in leadership, for their "concern" to be heard.

I wonder whether it's easier for police officers to protest strongly when they believe a guilty person is getting away, than when an innocent person is in police sights. I get the feeling that in the latter situation, it's more a case of a sympathetic shrug of the shoulders.

[Bubo bubo]

Perhaps spare a thought for those, who, from the outset, believed JB guilty, and, as you suggest, rightly went through the "correct channel" taking their "serious concern" to their superior, who, in this case was Taff Jones. It took a long time, and a change in leadership, for their "concern" to be heard.

To my knowledge and the information I have seen there was only one policeman, SBJ who voiced his concerns. The rest is newspaper reports and other statements about 'rumblings in the ranks'. please provide a list and evidence of other officers who had misgivings.

[Jane]

I wonder whether it's easier for police officers to protest strongly when they believe a guilty person is getting away, than when an innocent person is in police sights. I get the feeling that in the latter situation, it's more a case of a sympathetic shrug of the shoulders.

I wouldn't disagree with that assessment. Part of protecting the public from wrong doers?

[Steve_uk]

To my knowledge and the information I have seen there was only one policeman, SBJ who voiced his concerns. The rest is newspaper reports and other statements about 'rumblings in the ranks'. please provide a list and evidence of other officers who had misgivings.

They're not going to make a witness statement on some gut feeling or unfounded notion are they? PC Lay however recalled a conversation that Jeremy was going to buy a Porsche, so along with the chuckle behind closed doors at Bourtree Cottage some hours later we know how his mind was working.

[snow66!]

They're not going to make a witness statement on some gut feeling or unfounded notion are they? PC Lay however recalled a conversation that Jeremy was going to buy a Porsche, so along with the chuckle behind closed doors at Bourtree Cottage some hours later we know how his mind was working.

I believe the medical term is shock Steve.It makes you blether about things like cars without thinking,and it makes you half chuckle or cry often at inappropriate times.

As a caring human being,I am sure you are very well aware of this.

His mind WASN'T working .

[Bubo bubo]

They're not going to make a witness statement on some gut feeling or unfounded notion are they? PC Lay however recalled a conversation that Jeremy was going to buy a Porsche, so along with the chuckle behind closed doors at Bourtree Cottage some hours later we know how his mind was working.

The fact is there is no evidence that anyone other than SBJ suggested it was Bamber and to use language suggesting that larger numbers felt the same is misleading male cow excrement. Then you throw in a few old guilter chestnuts the 'toy' Porche and the giggle at Bourtree. It is all partisan bollocks. You know he was framed but regurgitate these issues like they come from some sacred text.