Mindset of Jeremy Bamber, at time he was informed, that all his family was dead

[chochokeira]

Whoah, Chochy, I actually think that we give Mike a fair trot, considering the huge pants that he sometimes delivers. He has this ultimate mind-set thing that JB is innocent, when there are folk like me who are convinced that a truly terrible crime has been commited, and poor, frail, tiny Sheila had nothing to do with it. You have to give my theory as much credence........

I respect you and your views, shonapugs - yum, yum kippers and a few other uncalled for remarks aside - but I remain uncovinced by your arguments.

There are just too many holes and inconsistencies in your case - and I know that you feel that precisely the same is true of the JB is, or may be innocent school of thought.
Yet doesn't the extent of the conflict between our two camps of itself suggest that this is a highly controversial and complex case - one worthy of a proper Appeal?

One thing I have not a shadow of doubt about is that a huge body of evidence was - and much of this still is - unreasonably and unjustly withheld from the defence and the court and for no good reason.

This withheld evidence alone provides unshakable proof that Jeremy Bamber did not have what every accused British citizen has a right to, what you and I would expect were we accused of a crime: a fair trial.

[chochokeira]

Keira, he only gets pressed to post stuff when he states or presents something as fact but does not back up with evidence. As for the criticism, Most posters on here get more than their fair share back in return from him and others.

I agree about the perfection part of your post, yes, none of us are.  As for the unrealistic demands to his unsupported claims..... well, just don't make the unsupported claims and he won't get the unrealistic demands!

I do agree that Mike does a good job though.

Thank you 

[Roch]

Some posters take the opinion that Mike T cherry picks 'evidence' for the purpose of supporting Jeremy's innocence.  The same posters are dubious when Mike cannot post documentation for everything he is alluding to or referencing.  I suppose the reverse argument is that some of these same posters seem quite happy for the prosecution to have also cherry picked evidence (bare in mind some of EP had access to the ENTIRE body of evidence to do this).  Imagine that?  Having access to the entire body of evidence in this case?  It would be enough to make some posters on here take a year's un-paid leave from work just to sift through it 

Some posters are convinced that Sheila could not have committed the crime regardless of her state of mind, due to her petite physic.   Maybe we should could consider that petite does not necessarily = physically weak.  If Sheila was literally raging with anger, during a severe, psychotic episode then that may have also aided in stength.  Perhaps not to be discounted is that any psychosis Sheila may have been experiencing in the form of paranoia, could have induced her to plan forward, possibly giving her some kind of advantage in the ensuing events of the night.

However getting back to the original purpose of the thread...

'It was them that killed them' .... who? ....'those men with the guns'  But they're policemen

Later breakfasts aside, I can only reiterate that it appears to me, one of the two participants in the conversation is in shock / suspicion of the police.   He does not appear at this stage of initial reaction, to link the deaths to Sheila.  Which is odd.  Given his supposed plan.  And the likelihood that tonnes of coppers have just bought the 'sheila gone berserk' scenario hook, line and sinker.

[Kaldin]

If the prosecution cherry picked evidence for the trial, the defence should have insisted on that evidence being produced.

It's not the fault of members of this forum if that happened - maybe some members are more insistent than the defence ever were that the proper evidence be produced to back up claims of his innocence.

[Kaldin]

Jeremy's reaction and demeanour following the news that his family was dead was very important to the defence. It's not hard evidence of course but it might have helped the jury a bit. Plenty was said by the prosecution about his demeanour but it seems that the defence did not try to counter what they said and it seems that they didn't try to introduce their own take on it. That is either the fault of the defence, or if Jeremy didn't tell them about this conversation he had with PC Myall, it's his fault.

Jeremy apparently had a whole conversation with Dr Craig as well. Why did the defence not ask Dr Craig about that? Perhaps they did, but if so, I've seen nothing to indicate that they did.

[Roch]

If the prosecution cherry picked evidence for the trial, the defence should have insisted on that evidence being produced.

It's not the fault of members of this forum if that happened - maybe some members are more insistent than the defence ever were that the proper evidence be produced to back up claims of his innocence.

I can go with that.  Perhaps he was defended poorly. Perhaps he made the wrong choices himself in challenging his own defence counsel.  But in a scenario were Bamber is innocent... neither he nor his defence team know what actually happened on the morning of 7th Aug.  If you buy the scenario of a ruthlessly focussed EP, in full possession of the evidence, setting out to railroad everyone down a certain path and haven taken extreme measures to do so,  I think this would have severely hampered Bamber's defence team's focus, efforts, direction and counter arguments.  They would have been led a merry dance.  I accept though that not everyone buys that version.  But the peole who dont buy that version need to explain PII as far as I'm concerned.

[ngb1066]

Mindset of Jeremy Bamber, at time he was informed, that all his family was dead

When news was broken to Jeremy, that everyone inside whf had been found dead, he accused the police of shooting them...

Although Jeremy made this complaint to a police officer, it was never officially, investigated...

What is interesting about this complaint, is that a huge question mark hangs over the death of Sheila Caffell in the main bedroom, (a suicide), upstairs at whf, (after 8:30am), after she had earlier been reported dead, (a suicide), downstairs, in the region of the kitchen (before 7:45am)...

Three senior police officers, DCI "George" Harris, DCI "Terry" Gibbons, and PI "Ivor" Montgomery, were all trapped for 15 minutes, inside the kitchen at whf, as a result of Sheila's body, being displaced from the region of the kitchen downstairs, to the bedroom upstairs...

The topic of conversation, between DCI Harris (at the scene using the kitchen phone) and ACC Peter Simpson (head of investigations at police headquarters) which took place between 8:15am and 8:30am, that morning, revolved around the disappearance of Sheila's body from the region of the kitchen, and its reappearance upstairs in the bedroom, aforementioned...

Jeremy's mindset

At no stage did Jeremy ever say that anyone had been shot, or that he heard a shot when Ralph called him from whf, or that anyone had by that stage been wounded or killed, he never said any such things, and no-one claims he said such things, when he spoke to the police, or to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, that morning...

He had spoken to his father from the scene at 3:25am, and he knew that by that stage, Ralph Bamber was still very much alive, inside whf...

Later, when Jeremy tried to re-establish contact with his father, and he kept getting the engaged tone, Jeremy believed that this was because Ralph, was talking to someone else, and therefore, still alive...

Upon arrival at the scene (3:52am) Jeremy was present along with two police officers inside the grounds of whf, when they all observed a silhouetted figure walking around in the  bedroom, and in particular, they had seen a person walk across the open window from right to left, which caused Jeremy and the police to race from the grounds of whf, go back to the patrol car (CA07) which was parked up along Pages Lane, from where a request was made for the firearms team to be brought to the scene, because the situation might turn into a siege...

Jeremy was present at the scene, when armed police officers attempted to engage the occupants of whf in conversation...

Jeremy was aware, whilst at the scene, that up to about 7:30am, something, or somebody inside the farmhouse, was keeping the police, from going up and knocking on the door, or as the case may be, from going into the farmhouse, any sooner than they did (7:30am)...

Jeremy had witnessed two ambulances and their crews arrive at the scene, at around 7 O'clock, one which was sent directly to the farmhouse, and the other held up in Pages Lane...

All these circumstances led Jeremy to believe, and assume, that members of his family, were all still alive inside whf, until the armed police officers forced their way into whf, at about 7:30am...

One hour later, (by 8:30am), all his family was pronounced or reported to be dead...

It was these factors, which led Jeremy to accuse the police of shooting dead his family when they went into the farmhouse carrying guns, when news was first broken to him that he had no family left...

Jeremy had every reason to believe that everyone inside whf was still alive, by the time armed police set off to enter whf...

Is it any wonder that Jeremy accused the armed police of shooting dead everyone?

But, why wasn't this complaint, ever investigated?

Four Murders and a suicide

Police response, to Jeremy's complaint, was to treat the five deaths, as "four murders and a suicide", (SC/688/85),with little or no room for any consideration that armed police had played any direct or indirect role in any of the deaths, in particular, the death in the bedroom, of Sheila Caffell...

By the time case changed, into five murders

By the time the nature of the case changed, (SC/786/85), and all five deaths were being treated as suspicious, (including the death of Sheila Caffell), Essex police still refused to investigate the very serious complaint which Jeremy had made, on the morning of the incident, about armed police officers, having shot members of his family and killed them...

Rather than Essex police conduct an investigation into themselves, as to whether any armed officer played some role in any of the five deaths inside whf, after they entered, instead, they chose to investigate the possibility that Jeremy hired a hit-man, Mathew MacDonald, and that he had paid him two thousand pounds to kill all the members of his family...

When that failed, they turned their attention to Jeremy...

Complaint, still not investigated

It will soon be twenty six years, since, Jeremy made the complaint at the scene, that armed police who went into whf, shot and killed members of his family...

There has never been an investigation into these complaints, and if Essex police, and the CPS, have anything at all to do with it, there will never be such an investigation, since, the true circustances surrounding how Sheila Caffell died in the bedroom at whf, after 8:15am, will be withheld under Pii rules, until long after Jeremy's death...

The state, and all its agencies, have conspired to keep an innocent man (Jeremy Bamber) in custody for the rest of his life, convicted of murders he did not commit, and could not have committed, whilst they retain possession and control of evidence (obtained under SC/688/85), which would establish his innocence...

Mike

Whose notes are these, i.e. which police officer had the conversation with Jeremy in the police car during which Jeremy stated that he thought the police were responsible for the deaths?  Do you have the following page of the notes, and if so is it possible for you to post it?

[Kaldin]

If the prosecution cherry picked evidence for the trial, the defence should have insisted on that evidence being produced.

It's not the fault of members of this forum if that happened - maybe some members are more insistent than the defence ever were that the proper evidence be produced to back up claims of his innocence.

I can go with that.  Perhaps he was defended poorly. Perhaps he made the wrong choices himself in challenging his own defence counsel.  But in a scenario were Bamber is innocent... neither he nor his defence team know what actually happened on the morning of 7th Aug.  If you buy the scenario of a ruthlessly focussed EP, in full possession of the evidence, setting out to railroad everyone down a certain path and haven taken extreme measures to do so,  I think this would have severely hampered Bamber's defence team's focus, efforts, direction and counter arguments.  They would have been led a merry dance.  I accept though that not everyone buys that version.  But the peole who dont buy that version need to explain PII as far as I'm concerned.

If Jeremy was innocent - and he's the only one who truly knows if he is or not - then he must have known that the prosecution case was nonsense. He must have known that Sheila's blood couldn't possibly be in the silencer. They all knew that the blood in the silencer evidence would come up, and yet they shilly shallied around with some theory about it being June and Nevill's blood and ignored the issue of the silencer being in the cupboard. If Jeremy did not put that silencer there, then he must surely have had some theories as to who did, or he must have thought that the silencer was planted there with blood in it.

He must have known that if Sheila's body was staged, then either a third party did it or the police did it. The defence did not go down that road at all at the trial, so either Jeremy did not ask them to, or they did not defend him very well.

Likewise, if Jeremy saw someone at a window that morning, he should have insisted that was brought up at court, and he didn't do so, and neither did his defence.

If he thought he would get off just because there was nothing to directly link him to the crime, well he's had a long time to regret that attitude.

It seems to me that both Jeremy and his defence team just went through the motions, crossed their fingers, and hoped that the jury would not reach a guilty verdict.

At the 2002 appeal, it looks like his defence team  tried to throw as many points at the appeal judges as possible and hoped that some of them would stick. It was akin to fiddling while Rome burns.

[mike tesko]

Not only did Jeremy and the two police officers see a person at the bedroom window, but the police passed a radio message from the scene to the incident room, about it - the contents of which EP and the DPP / CPS refuse to disclose its contents...

PC Myall, PS Bews, and PS Saxby all know what was said when that radio message was passed from the scene to the incident room, but none of them make any reference in statement form or their notebook entries about what was actually said, to make the firearms team come rushing to the scene?

Think about it...

What could the police at the scene have possibly said over the police radio, to make the firearms team come rushing to the scene?

Why won't the police say what was said over the police radio at that crucial time?

[Kaldin]

Not only did Jeremy and the two police officers see a person at the bedroom window, but the police passed a radio message from the scene to the incident room, about it - the contents of which EP and the DPP / CPS refuse to disclose its contents...

PC Myall, PS Bews, and PS Saxby all know what was said when that radio message was passed from the scene to the incident room, but none of them make any reference in statement form or their notebook entries about what was actually said, to make the firearms team come rushing to the scene?

Think about it...

What could the police at the scene have possibly said over the police radio, to make the firearms team come rushing to the scene?

Why won't the police say what was said over the police radio at that crucial time?

I have thought about it, and what I can't understand is why Jeremy did not ask for it to be brought up at the trial. There was nothing whatsoever to stop his barrister asking Myall, Bews, and Saxby about it, and they failed to do so. A jury cannot reach a decision based on information they were not told about.

[simong]

Think about it...

What could the police at the scene have possibly said over the police radio, to make the firearms team come rushing to the scene?

Why won't the police say what was said over the police radio at that crucial time?

29. The appellant told the officers about the telephone call from his father, adding that it sounded as though someone had cut him off. When asked if it was possible that his sister was inside with a gun he said yes. He told the police that he did not get on with her. He was asked if it was likely that his sister had gone berserk with a gun and he replied, "I don't really know. She is a nutter. She's been having treatment." When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get "organisations" involved, preferring to keep things within the family. When asked why he had not dialled 999, the appellant said he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive.

30. Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby

[mike tesko]

I think that's rubbish. I think Jeremy said at the start that Sheila had done it.

---------------

No, he did not - this was one of JB's complaints to COLP as part of their investigation...

Why didn't he complain at the trial then? PC West's log was in court. So you claim that Jeremy didn't think Sheila had done it and yet he said nothing when the defence suggested she had?

Another red herring.

Not if his opinion had changed between the event and the trial

So are you claiming that everyone - the police and the relatives - thought Sheila had done it at first - everyone except Jeremy who thought the police did it?

-------------------------

Lets put things into perspective:-

(1) police thought Sheila had done it
(2) Jeremy accused police of doing it
(3) relatives did not think Sheila had done it, but that Jeremy could have done it...

[Kaldin]

I think that's rubbish. I think Jeremy said at the start that Sheila had done it.

---------------

No, he did not - this was one of JB's complaints to COLP as part of their investigation...

Why didn't he complain at the trial then? PC West's log was in court. So you claim that Jeremy didn't think Sheila had done it and yet he said nothing when the defence suggested she had?

Another red herring.

Not if his opinion had changed between the event and the trial

So are you claiming that everyone - the police and the relatives - thought Sheila had done it at first - everyone except Jeremy who thought the police did it?

-------------------------

Lets put things into perspective:-

(1) police thought Sheila had done it
(2) Jeremy accused police of doing it
(3) relatives did not think Sheila had done it, but that Jeremy could have done it...

1. The police thought Sheila had done it because Jeremy told them she had the gun.

2. Jeremy made a remark to PC Saxby that the men with guns shot them, but he knew they didn't go there randomly and shoot his family - he said Sheila was the one with a gun.

3. The relatives were told Sheila had done it, and it was only after they thought about it that they decided she couldn't have. At first they thought she had done it.

All this is a red herring. The only relevance it has is that Jeremy's remark to PC Saxby may have some bearing on what he knew. He either had no idea that Sheila had actually shot everyone, or he's a very good actor.

[Alias]

Think about it...

What could the police at the scene have possibly said over the police radio, to make the firearms team come rushing to the scene?

Why won't the police say what was said over the police radio at that crucial time?

29. The appellant told the officers about the telephone call from his father, adding that it sounded as though someone had cut him off. When asked if it was possible that his sister was inside with a gun he said yes. He told the police that he did not get on with her. He was asked if it was likely that his sister had gone berserk with a gun and he replied, "I don't really know. She is a nutter. She's been having treatment." When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get "organisations" involved, preferring to keep things within the family. When asked why he had not dialled 999, the appellant said he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive.

30. Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby

Where can you see that list?

[Kaldin]

Think about it...

What could the police at the scene have possibly said over the police radio, to make the firearms team come rushing to the scene?

Why won't the police say what was said over the police radio at that crucial time?

29. The appellant told the officers about the telephone call from his father, adding that it sounded as though someone had cut him off. When asked if it was possible that his sister was inside with a gun he said yes. He told the police that he did not get on with her. He was asked if it was likely that his sister had gone berserk with a gun and he replied, "I don't really know. She is a nutter. She's been having treatment." When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get "organisations" involved, preferring to keep things within the family. When asked why he had not dialled 999, the appellant said he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive.

30. Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby

Where can you see that list?

There's a list of guns on the drawing which Jeremy produced.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=217.0;attach=498;image