Transcript of telephone conversation Eric Allison and David Boutflour

[Roch]

Clearly out interpretations of that sentence differ. But it looks as if the Booby has another poster he can label as being a mindreader. How does Rich of the Runes grab you?

Presumably, DCI Jones explained something to the relatives, which resulted in two of them conceding it could have been Sheila. I cant imagine that they spontaneously just jumped ship for no reason.  Ann tells us they they conceded - but she doesn't provide the information that made them concede. I have reasoned this is one of two things:

1] it's inconvenient to record such info.

2] she wasn't interested and so only heard what she wanted to hear.

Not really difficult to work out Jane. She's not going to write in her notes detailing exculpatory Information with regards to Jeremy's involvement.

[Zoso]

This isn't true. After one of the meetings with DCI Jones , two relatives conceded that Sheila could have been responsible.

Also don't forget Ann's comment 'I can live with that'.

This was just a couple of days after the murders, their thoughts would have been all over the place. This also puts paid to the notion that the greedy relatives wanted to nail him from day 1 so they could get the inheritance. They became more certain over time.

She meant she could live with getting it wrong at the risk of 'not' getting it right

[Cambridgecutie]

Two relatives conceded to Taff.  Craftily, Ann misses out the info given by Taff, during the meeting, that resulted in the relatives reconsidering Sheila's culpability. I would argue this is because there is no information on earth that would deviate Ann from getting JB convicted. Hence her comment to police 'I can live with that'.

But all of this was weeks before the crux of the prosecution case came to the fore namely the silencer and Julie.

[Roch]

But all of this was weeks before the crux of the prosecution case came to the fore namely the silencer and Julie.

The sound moderator is fabricated evidence. Julie Mugford's testimony has been destroyed by David (and others).  Even the judge thought it was shite, and that's saying something for him!

[Cambridgecutie]

The sound moderator is fabricated evidence.Julie Mugford's testimony has been destroyed by David (and others).  Even the judge thought it was shite, and that's saying something for him!

Evidenced by? 

How individuals perceive David's post is one thing.  What really matters is how the CCRC and CoA might perceive David's posts should they ever get to read them which I very much doubt.  But on the assumption they do get to read them they might not necessarily share your perceptions.

Did the judge tell jurors Julie's testimony was shite?  Thought he directed the court at trial as follows:

[The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.

154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.

[Zoso]

The sound moderator is fabricated evidence. Julie Mugford's testimony has been destroyed by David (and others).  Even the judge thought it was shite, and that's saying something for him!

I think you're placing far too much importance to the theories on the forum.

[snow66!]

You have overlooked what kicked the whole thing off and police involvement:  Bamber's claim of a tel call from his father: 'Sheila' s gone crazy, she's got the gun'.  Followed by Bamber's call to the police. The relatives were then faced with a horrible truth: one of their adopted cousins was a murderer. And since they were unable or unwilling to accept Sheila was capable, by default it had to be Bamber.

Yes,fair enough I suppose Cutie.I'm just blethering a bit,but things were a bit odd weren't they?

[Jane]

Yes,fair enough I suppose Cutie.I'm just blethering a bit,but things were a bit odd weren't they?

It certainly wasn't an everyday occurrence, Snow.

[Roch]

I think you're placing far too much importance to the theories on the forum.

No, I'm placing importance on case evidence. I will reply to CC's post when I have a chance. It's not a short answer.

[Jane]

The sound moderator is fabricated evidence. Julie Mugford's testimony has been destroyed by David (and others).  Even the judge thought it was shite, and that's saying something for him!

Good God! I hadn't observed that such 'worthies' were in residence here!

[Roch]

Good God! I hadn't observed that such 'worthies' were in residence here!

Feel free to pull apart his posts on the subject.

[Hardy Boy]

I don't think anyone on here would have done much different to the Relatives, they didn't know the full facts at first.  Something wev'e never had to deal with and hopefully never will.  If one thing doesn't add up, it then becomes suspicious and it would be the same for them.  Just imagine being told your Niece or Cousin had killed everyone and fired off 25 shot's and battered Neville in the Process, yet she wasn't a prolific gun user, "oh and by the way she shot herself twice in the throat to do it"  Your not telling me whether you would have suspicions?

[ILB]

Interesting.

Did Bamber approach Eric Allison? I know he approached Hunter & Woffinden.

Eric Allison was a guardian journalist. Also a long term ex criminal and former prisoner. I am unsure who initiated contact.

[Hardy Boy]

It certainly wasn't an everyday occurrence, Snow.

I think Posters think the relatives shouldn't have poked their nose into it, they forget one thing, it was Pam's sister [June] and Mabel's daughter who had been shot and she and them needed answers, imagine your Sister or Brother being shot and you wasn't happy with the answers that was given.

[snow66!]

Undoubtedly, Snow. I reported, as being concerning, what I'd witnessed in the behaviour of a then 8 year old family member, to his grandmother. Surprisingly, she confirmed my concerns, adding some of her own going back to when the child was in reception class. Nothing was done. His behaviour escalated, ie, borrowing money and stealing to pay it back, moving on to excessive use of alcohol and drugs. To cut a long story short, he ended up in prison. Would this have happened had his parents been more proactive in dealing with his behaviour when he was a child, rather than saying he'd grow out of it? It's an entirely other question, but they couldn't say they weren't warned. Might similar have been true of the Bambers? Parents often bury their heads in sand.

Fair enough Jane,but I was talking more about the relatives behaviour really.