Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[Nuala]

At the end of chapter 20 of Wilkes' book it suggested that even 'Taff' Jones was disappointed that Jeremy was released on bail for the caravan park burglary, that isn't what I had been led to believe previously,I thought that 'Taff' took to his grave the belief that JB was innocent. I've also read Wilkes' account of Stan Jones' interviewing of JB and although I find the way it seems to be  set out so as to suggest that Jeremy was possibly guilty I also think that I would like to behave the same way under interrogation for crime I honestly didn't commit. I found it a very honest and frank response to the questions, he simply refused to be drawn in by Stan Jones but that seems to have irked him more. He seems to have been a rather nasty chap.

Excellent points, AJ, I agree with you.

[Bridget]

Flawed evidence Bridget, which makes the test pointless. Two different numbers and two different serial numbers...Are you saying the police resubmitted evidence that was rejected? Prove it...lol

Yes they did and I don't need to, that was done at the appeal.

[Bridget]

What was that Bridget?

Read the appeal Grahame - its too long winded to post here, especially from a phone

[lookout]

I one thing just occured, I'm sure Mike posted that there was an empty tampon applicator in the living room, Wlkes states that Ann Eaton saw a tampon applicator with either half a tampon or half a tampon protruding. Does anybody know the truth of the matter? The reason I ask is that Robert Boutflour seems convinced that the tampon was used to clean the silencer somehow (according to Wilkes)

Correct,,ajross,,,and also ( trying to be sensitive ) one was removed from Sheila.

[HMEssex]

Maggie, without a shadow of doubt.!!!!! When I first left school, like Jeremy, without a qualification, save elocution and voice production!!!, to my name, I did several dead end jobs. My life was made a living hell. I was bullied relentlessly. Despite being at the bottom of the pile, THEY said I thought I was better than them and accused me of "talking posh". I never knew that I spoke differently from anybody else. The difference lay in the fact that I was never rude, I never answered back and I was always polite.......and then THEY accused me of being insolent!!!!! I really couldn't win.

I can easily see how a hardnosed copper, who may have had to claw his way to his, now lofty position, who may have had to fight hard to achieve something better than he had started with (and well done him, for effort) would have been more than a little resentful of Jeremy.

I've often thought that inverted snobbery on the part of the police - Stan Jones, in particular - may have played a massive role in Jeremy's case.

[Patti]

Yes they did and I don't need to, that was done at the appeal.

So what you are saying then Bridget is that the police acted corruptly by resubmitting the swabs again and, that the lab was deceived into thinking the swabs had been retaken. For if the lab had known they were the same swabs, they would have rejected them again for they were meaningless as being treated as evidence....

[guest154]

Mat, you should not trust ANYTHING posted here or anywhere else from those for or against Bamber. You must only trust that which had documented proof. a forum is just that, a forum and nothing else. It is a place for airing views and nothing else. It is not for finding evidence for freeing Bamber. That is for the defence team and for them alone. I don't expect anything any of us say on this forum would do anything for Jeremy Bamber or will make him more guilty or less guilty. If you thought that the forum was the place where you could download documentary proof of Bamber's guilt or innocence then you have come to the wrong place. And I hate to say it. Butthis applies to any forum whether it be this or another.

I know you shouldn't trust on a forum but the problem is when posters know that statements don't back up their claims yet they still go on and on trying to convince people that their latest theory is the one to listen to.
That's true propaganda.

[ajross]

Correct,,ajross,,,and also ( trying to be sensitive ) one was removed from Sheila.

Sorry, so who was correct, the suggestion that it was empty or the suggestion that it was half-full or at least present? It seems important not because of her period but because it was an important part of Robert Boutflour's theory that this was just the right size to have been prodded down the silencer with the barrel of the toy plastic gun in the living rom. Now, if the tampon wasn't there when the police were there but was there laster when Ann Eaton claims to have seen it, that it rather important.

[Nuala]

This Jones charcater definitely had it in for him and you have to wonder why, the book makes it out to be more than just about a crime, it really does seem very personal.

These days, Stan Jones would not be allowed to interrogate anyone in the manner with he interrogated Jeremy in 1985.

Also, Stan Jones  seemed unable to string a question together with any clarity. Far too many of his question's were hopelessly confused, confusing and totally misleading. Time after time Jeremy understandably had no option but to request clarification of what exactly Jones was asking him and each time Jeremy made such a request Jones took it as Jeremy taking the mickey out of Jones - and as an indication of Jeremy's guilt! What a disgraceful interrogation it was.

[maggie]

Anti JB propaganda exercises like this one are all too transparent.

Mat, your arguments really are weak and your knowledge is surprisingly poor.

[Patti]

These days, Stan Jones would not be allowed to interrogate anyone in the manner with he interrogated Jeremy in 1985.

Also, Stan Jones  seemed unable to string a question together with any clarity. Far too many of his question's were hopelessly confused, confusing and totally misleading. Time after time Jeremy understandably had no option but to request clarification of what exactly Jones was asking him and each time Jeremy made such a request Jones took it as Jeremy taking the mickey out of Jones - and as an indication of Jeremy's guilt! What a disgraceful interrogation it was.

Hi Keira

You only have to read JB's statement to realise that he was trying to put words into his mouth.....He went on and and on for hours about the telephone calls.....asking the same questions over and over again....Jeremy called him a hard bastard...in the end.   

[Patti]

I know you shouldn't trust on a forum but the problem is when posters know that statements don't back up their claims yet they still go on and on trying to convince people that their latest theory is the one to listen to.
That's true propaganda.

Are you suggesting we all work for the Sun? Hahaha 

[guest154]

Mat, your arguments really are weak and your knowledge is surprisingly poor.

Maggie - maybe you've just spent too much time listening to the wrong people on this forum and being fed what they want you to believe about the case - yet they dismiss so much.
Instead of listening to what people want you to believe then you should just read all of the information that is out there.

You'll be suprised.

Are you suggesting we all work for the Sun? Hahaha 

no, when has the sun shown any interest in Bamber lately?

[HMEssex]

These days, Stan Jones would not be allowed to interrogate anyone in the manner with he interrogated Jeremy in 1985.

Also, Stan Jones  seemed unable to string a question together with any clarity. Far too many of his question's were hopelessly confused, confusing and totally misleading. Time after time Jeremy understandably had no option but to request clarification of what exactly Jones was asking him and each time Jeremy made such a request Jones took it as Jeremy taking the mickey out of Jones - and as an indication of Jeremy's guilt! What a disgraceful interrogation it was.

Makes one wonder what qualifications a person needs to be able to join the Police.  An IQ test maybe, or, at least, a basic English Language test?

[lookout]

Just stating that,, yes,,the tampons were used to clean out the gun barrel,,,which would probably account for there not being as much residue as might have been. Also coincidence that the said tampons should be at hand for the use of,,,by Sheila.