WPC Julia Jeapes

[Roch]

Perhaps, but those are you three options, it's him we need to hear from.

Tbf though .. We already know about the change to Colin's statement that he rightly kicked off about - but which wasn't corrected. Therefore it's a fair question to ask whether you are taking a 'see no evil' approach to the Vanezis statement? I mean how likely is it that similar occurrences of altered wording and meanings in several statements are benign?

[Bubo bubo]

Agree. It just be very difficult to retain neutrality. Would a truly neutral judge ensure that they keep a space in their consideration, for the possibility of corrupt policing practices? If not, then why not?

I certainly think Rivlin had no space. He was overwhelmingly a prosecuting lawyer. He would have worked closely with the police to put the bad guys away and since the majority are good and decent humans it would not cross his mind. He probably was too trusting to think otherwise. I am sure I have posted this view before.

The TRUST of the innocent is the liars  most useful TOOL.

[Roch]

I certainly think Rivlin had no space. He was overwhelmingly a prosecuting lawyer. He would have worked closely with the police to put the bad guys away and since the majority are good and decent humans it would not cross his mind. He probably was too trusting to think otherwise. I am sure I have posted this view before.

The TRUST of the innocent is the liars  most useful TOOL.

He was deferential. Tentative. Overly cautious.

[snow66!]

I still read this forum but have not posted for a long time.
What has led me to post again is recent mention of WPC Jeapes.
Her statement is on this forum for all to see.
She was the trained firearms instructor who claims to have seen a rifle leaning against a window.
For me this is the biggest proof of Jeremy's innocence.
At minimum it creates a realistic doubt that everybody in the farmhouse was dead when Jeremy was outside the farm with the Police.Rifles don't move on their own.
Is it really likely that she was mistaken ? Unlikely in actual fact very unlikely.
If this statement was not disclosed before trial then it should be new grounds for an appeal.
It would (or should) have created a real doubt in the jury's mind.
Recently Rob posted on here that 2 officers claimed to have seen this rifle leaning against the window.
So my question is who is the other officer (PC Brown ?) is there a statement from him anywhere ?
And Adam (or any other guilt believer) I guess your take on this is that the trained firearms officer was simply mistaken when she thought she saw a rifle ? Or do you discount this for any other reason ?

What is your opinion after reading Browns statement Sherlock?

As you can see containment of the house was discussed with everyone before entry,and a team was chosen to go in.Brown was covering Red side,ie the front with the pillars at the door.Jeapes was covering White/Red, ie the kitchen side where entry was made and the front.So Jeapes was nearer to the point of entry than Brown was.

Yet,apparently after entry Brown and mildenhill who were together were requested to move to white side.Mildenhill was then told to enter the house and Browm was apparently told to watch the up stairs windows on white.But why was he told to watch these up stair windows when Jeapes was already doing this? 

Jeapes states that she maintained her position until all bodies were found and the white shed in the garden was searched before making her way back to pages Lane.Therefore Brown was apparently moved to White to monitor the same windows that Jeapes was already watching. 

Why wasn't he left at Red side to watch the up stair rooms there instead of being moved to watch the same area as Jeapes?

And if Jeapes was on the corner of White/Red,  Brown must have passed by her to get to Montgomery on the white side mustn't he? Why didn't Jeapes discuss seeing the rifle with him at that time?

Anyway,if the idea was containment of the house ,why leave half of Red side unwatched,especially when that was the side with the front door to escape the house from? No one could escape from the kitchen side where entry was made,so why move Brown to that side to watch the same area as Jeapes and leave half of the front unguarded?

What do you think Sherlock?

[Zoso]

I still read this forum but have not posted for a long time.
What has led me to post again is recent mention of WPC Jeapes.
Her statement is on this forum for all to see.
She was the trained firearms instructor who claims to have seen a rifle leaning against a window.
For me this is the biggest proof of Jeremy's innocence.
At minimum it creates a realistic doubt that everybody in the farmhouse was dead when Jeremy was outside the farm with the Police.Rifles don't move on their own.
Is it really likely that she was mistaken ? Unlikely in actual fact very unlikely.
If this statement was not disclosed before trial then it should be new grounds for an appeal.
It would (or should) have created a real doubt in the jury's mind.
Recently Rob posted on here that 2 officers claimed to have seen this rifle leaning against the window.
So my question is who is the other officer (PC Brown ?) is there a statement from him anywhere ?
And Adam (or any other guilt believer) I guess your take on this is that the trained firearms officer was simply mistaken when she thought she saw a rifle ? Or do you discount this for any other reason ?

So were these officers https://thegrio.com/2014/10/10/8-harmless-objects-mistaken-for-gun/

[Rob_]

So were these officers https://thegrio.com/2014/10/10/8-harmless-objects-mistaken-for-gun/

It is not what the officers thought they saw that is the problem, it is the crime scene photos of the boxroom not being released that would clear up this issue that is the problem.

I guess you will say we are not entitled to see them oh well.

[Adam]

It is not what the officers thought they saw that is the problem, it is the crime scene photos of the boxroom not being released that would clear up this issue that is the problem.

I guess you will say we are not entitled to see them oh well.

They would have been released in 1985.

They are just not on this forum.

[Bubo bubo]

They would have been released in 1985.

They are just not on this forum.

There will be no photos of the rifle in the box room. As part of the re-staging of the crime scene it is unlikely they would  take such a picture if it did not work for the EP Narrative that was structured around the crime scene. If there is such a photo it has likely been withheld. Since the Narrative does not consider the box room at all, we will never know unless such a photo is released at some point..

[sherlock]

What is your opinion after reading Browns statement Sherlock?

As you can see containment of the house was discussed with everyone before entry,and a team was chosen to go in.Brown was covering Red side,ie the front with the pillars at the door.Jeapes was covering White/Red, ie the kitchen side where entry was made and the front.So Jeapes was nearer to the point of entry than Brown was.

Yet,apparently after entry Brown and mildenhill who were together were requested to move to white side.Mildenhill was then told to enter the house and Browm was apparently told to watch the up stairs windows on white.But why was he told to watch these up stair windows when Jeapes was already doing this? 

Jeapes states that she maintained her position until all bodies were found and the white shed in the garden was searched before making her way back to pages Lane.Therefore Brown was apparently moved to White to monitor the same windows that Jeapes was already watching. 

Why wasn't he left at Red side to watch the up stair rooms there instead of being moved to watch the same area as Jeapes?

And if Jeapes was on the corner of White/Red,  Brown must have passed by her to get to Montgomery on the white side mustn't he? Why didn't Jeapes discuss seeing the rifle with him at that time?

Anyway,if the idea was containment of the house ,why leave half of Red side unwatched,especially when that was the side with the front door to escape the house from? No one could escape from the kitchen side where entry was made,so why move Brown to that side to watch the same area as Jeapes and leave half of the front unguarded?

What do you think Sherlock?

I have read P.C Brown's statement.
It is clear that 2 different very experienced firearm officers both thought that they saw a rifle in the window.
WPC Jeeves saw "what appeared to be a rifle"
P.C Brown saw "what he thought to be a gun"
This is on the face of it very strong evidence that there was a gun in that window.
Both are clear that they definitely thought it was a rifle / gun.
Both statements are very clear on this.
However P.C Brown says " ... later transpired to be a vacuum cleaner ..."
BUT it is clear from his statement that at no point did he enter the farmhouse.
So this information MUST have been told to him by another Police officer.
The question then is who told him this and when ?
His statement was made many weeks after the massacre at the time Police were attempting to make the case against Jeremy and of course if he was right that it was a gun then the case against Jeremy would have collapsed.
Is it the case that by the time the Police checked that room that the only thing that looked anything like a gun was a vacuum cleaner so it was assumed wrongly that this is what the 2 officers saw ?
I simply do not believe that either officer let alone both of them mistook a vacuum cleaner for a rifle.
This is very unlikely indeed.
I therefore believe that someone was alive in the farmhouse when Jeremy was outside with the Police and that this person must have moved the gun.
This aspect of the case should be investigated in great detail.
Photos of that room could be crucial.
Both Officers should be traced and re interviewed by Jeremy's lawyers.
If either or both of these Officers statements were not disclosed to Jeremy's lawyers pre trial then they would be very strong new evidence for an appeal.
It is vey hard to believe that these statements would not have been a major feature of the original trial had they been disclosed.
I am almost certain therefore that they were not disclosed.
A good starting point would be for someone to ask Jeremy when did he first become aware of these statements ? pre trial ? Or post trial ?

[snow66!]

I have read P.C Brown's statement.
It is clear that 2 different very experienced firearm officers both thought that they saw a rifle in the window.
WPC Jeeves saw "what appeared to be a rifle"
P.C Brown saw "what he thought to be a gun"
This is on the face of it very strong evidence that there was a gun in that window.
Both are clear that they definitely thought it was a rifle / gun.
Both statements are very clear on this.
However P.C Brown says " ... later transpired to be a vacuum cleaner ..."
BUT it is clear from his statement that at no point did he enter the farmhouse.
So this information MUST have been told to him by another Police officer.
The question then is who told him this and when ?
His statement was made many weeks after the massacre at the time Police were attempting to make the case against Jeremy and of course if he was right that it was a gun then the case against Jeremy would have collapsed.
Is it the case that by the time the Police checked that room that the only thing that looked anything like a gun was a vacuum cleaner so it was assumed wrongly that this is what the 2 officers saw ?
I simply do not believe that either officer let alone both of them mistook a vacuum cleaner for a rifle.
This is very unlikely indeed.
I therefore believe that someone was alive in the farmhouse when Jeremy was outside with the Police and that this person must have moved the gun.
This aspect of the case should be investigated in great detail.
Photos of that room could be crucial.
Both Officers should be traced and re interviewed by Jeremy's lawyers.
If either or both of these Officers statements were not disclosed to Jeremy's lawyers pre trial then they would be very strong new evidence for an appeal.
It is vey hard to believe that these statements would not have been a major feature of the original trial had they been disclosed.
I am almost certain therefore that they were not disclosed.
A good starting point would be for someone to ask Jeremy when did he first become aware of these statements ? pre trial ? Or post trial ?

Thank you Sherlock,thats very interesting.I do not know when Bamber was given access to their statements.The campaign team haven't mentioned anything in their website that I have seen about the rifle in the box room,but surely they will have looked into the issue.

We will have to wait and see.

[Zoso]

I have read P.C Brown's statement.
It is clear that 2 different very experienced firearm officers both thought that they saw a rifle in the window.
WPC Jeeves saw "what appeared to be a rifle"
P.C Brown saw "what he thought to be a gun"
This is on the face of it very strong evidence that there was a gun in that window.
Both are clear that they definitely thought it was a rifle / gun.
Both statements are very clear on this.
However P.C Brown says " ... later transpired to be a vacuum cleaner ..."
BUT it is clear from his statement that at no point did he enter the farmhouse.
So this information MUST have been told to him by another Police officer.
The question then is who told him this and when ?
His statement was made many weeks after the massacre at the time Police were attempting to make the case against Jeremy and of course if he was right that it was a gun then the case against Jeremy would have collapsed.
Is it the case that by the time the Police checked that room that the only thing that looked anything like a gun was a vacuum cleaner so it was assumed wrongly that this is what the 2 officers saw ?
I simply do not believe that either officer let alone both of them mistook a vacuum cleaner for a rifle.
This is very unlikely indeed.
I therefore believe that someone was alive in the farmhouse when Jeremy was outside with the Police and that this person must have moved the gun.
This aspect of the case should be investigated in great detail.
Photos of that room could be crucial.
Both Officers should be traced and re interviewed by Jeremy's lawyers.
If either or both of these Officers statements were not disclosed to Jeremy's lawyers pre trial then they would be very strong new evidence for an appeal.
It is vey hard to believe that these statements would not have been a major feature of the original trial had they been disclosed.
I am almost certain therefore that they were not disclosed.
A good starting point would be for someone to ask Jeremy when did he first become aware of these statements ? pre trial ? Or post trial ?

But it isn't 'clear' that they 'definitely' saw a firearm, it's clear that they saw something that they 'considered could' be a firearm. How many officers didn't think it was a firearm? They clearly were disclosed which is why we have copies here and they were obviously deemed to be of little significance given that all shells were fired from the same firearm and no such 'other rifle' was found in the box room. If these statements weren't disclosed, Mike wouldn't have a copy because Mike obtained these documents from those owned by Jeremy himself.

[Rob_]

But it isn't 'clear' that they 'definitely' saw a firearm, it's clear that they saw something that they 'considered could' be a firearm. How many officers didn't think it was a firearm? They clearly were disclosed which is why we have copies here and they were obviously deemed to be of little significance given that all shells were fired from the same firearm and no such 'other rifle' was found in the box room. If these statements weren't disclosed, Mike wouldn't have a copy because Mike obtained these documents from those owned by Jeremy himself.

I need to double check but I believe Jeapes and Browns statements were not disclosed to the defence. They only came to light a long time latter.

[sherlock]

But it isn't 'clear' that they 'definitely' saw a firearm, it's clear that they saw something that they 'considered could' be a firearm. How many officers didn't think it was a firearm? They clearly were disclosed which is why we have copies here and they were obviously deemed to be of little significance given that all shells were fired from the same firearm and no such 'other rifle' was found in the box room. If these statements weren't disclosed, Mike wouldn't have a copy because Mike obtained these documents from those owned by Jeremy himself.

With the greatest of respect you appear to be "mis quoting" both of these Police Officers actual words.
They DO NOT say "considered could be a firearm"
WPC Jeapes saw "what appeared to be a rifle"
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1387.msg43051.html#msg43051
P.C Brown saw "what he at first thought was a gun"
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11565.0;attach=59289
Both statements are available on this forum to confirm these exact words.
Also when Mike Tesco posted Police Officer Julia Jeapes statement on this forum in 2011 he did so under the heading "Non disclosed statement of WPC Julia Jeapes"
Julia Jeapes should not be underestimated for the following reasons.

1) She was a trained firearms instructor
2) Although on this forum we refer to her as WPC Jeapes her statement shows she was a Police Sergeant at the time.
3) She was later promoted to Chief Superintendent - ie one down from assistant Chief Constable.
4) For many years she was Divisional Commander of the entire Chelmsford Division
5) She later became a Councillor and cabinet member for Chelmsford City Council
6) She recently was in the short list of 3 to replace Sir David Amess as MP for Southend West

Personally when somebody like that says " ... in which was what appeared to be a rifle leaning against the window" I tend to believe her especially when another Police Officer corroborates her statement by saying " ...I could see what I at first thought was a gun ...". ..

Including Police Officer Bews and Police Officer Myall who according to Bews both initially thought they saw movement in a window that's 4 Police Officers who initially saw signs of movement of a rifle and/or a person in the farmhouse while Jeremy was outside with the Police.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmlWcVBU4f8  - Police Officer Bews states in the first interview that Police Officer Myall initially thought that he saw saw movement and states in the second interview that he also initially thought that he saw movement)

Maybe one Police Officer could have been mistaken - maybe two could have been mistaken - but what are the odds of all 4 Police Officers being mistaken ?

Unless ALL 4 Police Officers were mistaken and actually initially saw something and / or somebody who was not actually there then Jeremy clearly is innocent of shooting his family.

This all comes directly from the mouths of Police Officers who were there at the scene on the night.

But it seems that the Jury were not told about any of these 4 Police Officers sightings during the trial.
2 of the Jury decided the right verdict was not guilty and if you think that other Jury members would not have been swayed by what the 4 Police Officers said that they thought that they initially saw then you do not understand human nature at all.

The only real evidence against Jeremy was Mugford and the silencer "found" by Boutflour and relatives.

If the Jury had been told that Mugford had signed a huge deal pre trial but would only get paid if Jeremy was convicted and that Boutflour and family would inherit a fortune but only if Jeremy had been convicted what do you think they would have thought ?

As for Sheila being clean well it's obvious that she showered and ritually cleaned herself. The passage the Bible was opened at was basically a suicide note including reference to ritually cleaning oneself in order to get closer to God again after committing murder.

There are many different translations of the Bible.
The New English Translation translates Psalm 51 as follows:

Psalm 51

For the music director; a psalm of David, written when Nathan the prophet confronted him after David’s affair with Bathsheba.

1Have mercy on me, O God, because of your loyal love!

Because of your great compassion, wipe away my rebellious acts!

2Wash away my wrongdoing!

Cleanse me of my sin!

3For I am aware of my rebellious acts;

I am forever conscious of my sin.

4Against you – you above all – I have sinned;

I have done what is evil in your sight.

So you are just when you confront me;

you are right when you condemn me.

5Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,

a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

6Look, you desire integrity in the inner man;

you want me to possess wisdom.

7Sprinkle me with water and I will be pure;

wash me and I will be whiter than snow.

8Grant me the ultimate joy of being forgiven!

May the bones you crushed rejoice!

9Hide your face from my sins!

Wipe away all my guilt!

10Create for me a pure heart, O God!

Renew a resolute spirit within me!

11Do not reject me!

Do not take your Holy Spirit away from me!

12Let me again experience the joy of your deliverance!

Sustain me by giving me the desire to obey!

13Then I will teach rebels your merciful ways,

and sinners will turn to you.

14Rescue me from the guilt of murder, O God, the God who delivers me!

Then my tongue will shout for joy because of your deliverance.

15O Lord, give me the words!

Then my mouth will praise you.

16Certainly you do not want a sacrifice, or else I would offer it;

you do not desire a burnt sacrifice.

17The sacrifices God desires are a humble spirit –

O God, a humble and repentant heart you will not reject.

18Because you favor Zion, do what is good for her!

Fortify the walls of Jerusalem!

19Then you will accept the proper sacrifices, burnt sacrifices and whole offerings;

then bulls will be sacrificed on your altar.

NET Bible copyright © 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com.


   If Jeremy's lawyers had employed a more knowledgeable expert witness on religion then the Jury would have been told that not all but many Christians interpret that exact Bible passage to mean exactly that.

In my opinion the right option is a re trial for the above reasons.

[snow66!]

With the greatest of respect you appear to be "mis quoting" both of these Police Officers actual words.
They DO NOT say "considered could be a firearm"
WPC Jeeves saw "what appeared to be a rifle"
P.C Brown saw "what he thought to be a gun"
Both statements are available on this forum to confirm these exact words.
Also when Mike Tesco posted Police Officer Julia Jeapes statement on this forum in 2011 he did so under the heading "Non disclosed statement of WPC Julia Jeapes"
Julia Jeapes should not be underestimated for the following reasons.

1) She was a trained firearms instructor
2) Although on this forum we refer to her as WPC Jeapes her statement shows she was a Police Sergeant at the time.
3) She was later promoted to Chief Superintendent - ie one down from assistant Chief Constable.
4) For many years she was Divisional Commander of the entire Chelmsford Division
5) She later became a councillor and cabinet member for Chelmsford City Council
6) She recently was in the short list of 3 to replace Sir David Amess as MP for Southend West

Personally when somebody like that says " ... in which was what appeared to be a rifle leaning against the window" I tend to believe her especially when another Officer corroborates her statement by saying " ...I could see what I at first thought was a gun ...". ..

Including another Officer who initially thought he saw movement in a window that's 3 Police Officers who initially saw signs of movement of a rifle and/or a person in the farmhouse while Jeremy was outside with the Police.

Maybe one Officer could have been mistaken - maybe two could have been mistaken - but what are the odds of all 3 Officers being mistaken ?

So what are you concluding Sherlock?

Do you think that both Jeapes and Brown did indeed see a rifle,but later on after handing in their statements were told it was actually part of a hoover they had seen?

Then Brown amended his statement believing what he had been told about the hoover,but Jeapes would not change hers because she firmly believed she had indeed seen a weapon?

Or something along that lines,hence Jeapes statement was simply withheld from the defence?

[sherlock]

So what are you concluding Sherlock?

Do you think that both Jeapes and Brown did indeed see a rifle,but later on after handing in their statements were told it was actually part of a hoover they had seen?

Then Brown amended his statement believing what he had been told about the hoover,but Jeapes would not change hers because she firmly believed she had indeed seen a weapon?

Or something along that lines,hence Jeapes statement was simply withheld from the defence?

Yes exactly - I believe that both Jeapes and Brown did indeed see a rifle.
I also believe that Bews and Myall saw movement in the window.
BUT when the case started to be built against Jeremy then Brown reluctantly accepted the possibility that it was a vacuum cleaner.
I believe Sheila moved that rifle and killed herself with it.
( She had already used that rifle to kill her family and had rested it against that window hoping Jeremy would turn up on his own so she could shoot him from that window with it)
When that room was searched the only thing in it remotely like a rifle was a vacuum cleaner.
This is where the possibility that it was a vacuum cleaner came from.
However as you say Jeapes would not accept that as even remotely possible and refused to change her statement in the way that Brown did.
In those days there was massive pressure on all Officers to "keep a united story"
Jeapes however had more integrity than that.
And yes that's why Jeapes statement was not disclosed.
Bews admits what he and Myalls thought they saw but also tries to make the account fit with the "official" Jeremy is guilty line a bit.

By the way I edited my post to add a bit.
Did you read it all ?