Television documentary material

[horseydave]

Someone has mentioned JB's behavior, one minute appears upset, the other he's offering to cook breakfast.

The JB I knew was a public school boy, he never 'aired' his own feelings, typical stiff upper lip, and not youre 'comprehensive school public display'.

A few days after the shooting, I had a problem with too much grain and nowhere to store it, i rang him and he organised Banks to collect a lorry load and i remember he showed no emotion at all, just very matter of fact.

Ive now read every post on here - I must say several of you are on cloud cuckoo land, and seem to imagine things that have no argument at all. Raising "points that have no bearing" and if you stick to the main points, the case (as it stands)against him is weak, i see no mileage in it, and i do wonder who is advising JB, as some of it seems so pointless.

Personally Id come clean over the aircraft lights, prove his sister was alive when he was with the police and work on the phone log as i dont see how it can be discredited.
My one iffy moment is caused by what i witnessed daily - JB NEVER drove anywhere slow, he was a maniac behind a wheel, even the lawn mower was driven flat out.

[Jackiepreece]

You did say previously you didn't think Jeremy had carried out the murders didn't you?
Also the short time you spent with Julie mugford you said she slept with 2 men on a holiday was she seeing Jeremy at that time and how soon after the murders was that

I just cannot believe she was a credible witness she had prior knowledge Jeremy might kill his family the murders happened and she supported Jeremy although she knew he was involved in  the murders and within a few weeks took a short holiday and slept with 2 men

I get the impression she knew members of the BAMBER family as Jeremy's girlfriend yet the murders didn't seem to affect her at

[Sparkfilms]

The only way this case will turn is if the police say Shelia was alive in the house after 3.30am.

Not much chance of that after a quarter of a century.

Plenty of people think she may have been alive, it would be the most extraordinary cover up if any of the police had lied.

It was interesting to recall the particular police officers who gave evidence at the trial, but more interesting to me are the police officers who did not ( for whatever reason ) appear at the trial.

The truth is with the police, they know what happened.

The silencer issues mean nothing to me.

Mugford's rantings should have been discounted.

That leaves virtually nothing more than what the police saw and heard between 3.50am and around 7.50am.

It's with the police.

I'm for a retrial.

[Jackiepreece]

That's what I think .  Is it unusual to destroy evidence like the bible etc when the accused person maintains they are innocent and there is likely to be appeals

[Kaldin]

The silencer is the sticking point here. Without that there wouldn't have been much evidence. Sure there was Julie Mugford, but even after they arrested Jeremy after she told her story on 7th September, they bailed him on 13th September and let him go on holiday. He was re-arrested when he returned on 29th September, so what led to that re-arrest? It must surely have been because of what they discovered on and in the silencer.

[Pete0001]

The only way this case will turn is if the police say Shelia was alive in the house after 3.30am.

Not much chance of that after a quarter of a century.

Plenty of people think she may have been alive, it would be the most extraordinary cover up if any of the police had lied.

It was interesting to recall the particular police officers who gave evidence at the trial, but more interesting to me are the police officers who did not ( for whatever reason ) appear at the trial.

The truth is with the police, they know what happened.

The silencer issues mean nothing to me.

Mugford's rantings should have been discounted.

That leaves virtually nothing more than what the police saw and heard between 3.50am and around 7.50am.

It's with the police.

I'm for a retrial.

Yes I totally agree... but as you say it has to be some kind of solid evidence.
Regardless of what he was convicted on the retrial has to be something new, unseen, dramatic to the point where a a retrial would seem pointless and the judge frees him without delay.
I just can't see where that might come from... and Im sorry to say I don't see that evidence on here. I'm still of the opinion one of them did it... I can't see a 3rd party being involved.
But I'm also having problems believing sheila killing her family upstairs, fighting her dad downstairs and killing him, removing the silencer shooting herself, waking up semi concious after a gun shot wound, walking around the house with Police all over the place and then killing herself up stairs. Are you telling me this is what happened?

[mb1]

Someone has mentioned JB's behavior, one minute appears upset, the other he's offering to cook breakfast.

The JB I knew was a public school boy, he never 'aired' his own feelings, typical stiff upper lip, and not youre 'comprehensive school public display'.

A few days after the shooting, I had a problem with too much grain and nowhere to store it, i rang him and he organised Banks to collect a lorry load and i remember he showed no emotion at all, just very matter of fact.

Ive now read every post on here - I must say several of you are on cloud cuckoo land, and seem to imagine things that have no argument at all. Raising "points that have no bearing" and if you stick to the main points, the case (as it stands)against him is weak, i see no mileage in it, and i do wonder who is advising JB, as some of it seems so pointless.

Personally Id come clean over the aircraft lights, prove his sister was alive when he was with the police and work on the phone log as i dont see how it can be discredited.
My one iffy moment is caused by what i witnessed daily - JB NEVER drove anywhere slow, he was a maniac behind a wheel, even the lawn mower was driven flat out.

If I had both feet in the JB camp, I'd say he drove slowly that night because he was scared.
Imagine, you've done nothing wrong, your father tells you you're sister's going mad with a very powerful gun, and the police (further away?) ask you to meet them there. Would you want to be there on your own?

[Pete0001]

That's what I think .  Is it unusual to destroy evidence like the bible etc when the accused person maintains they are innocent and there is likely to be appeals

I can't really comment on why they destroyed this evidence but its really not as unusual as you think unfortunately.

Evidence stores and the logs kept have always been a sketchy business and relies solely on a handful (at most in most nicks I would think) of officers logging things in and out and then there comes a point when someone comes along who has no prior knowledge of events or what is and isn't being used and evidence gets destroyed. I'm not saying its right.. but I think it does happen.
If you consider the amount of evidence logged since evidence logging began that would take some storage.

Again, I'm not saying this is RIGHT or indeed what happened here... but it does happen and doesn't always mean a cover up.

Just my opinion.

[newsman]

Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.

 I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.

I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.

Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less

[Kaldin]

Someone has mentioned JB's behavior, one minute appears upset, the other he's offering to cook breakfast.

The JB I knew was a public school boy, he never 'aired' his own feelings, typical stiff upper lip, and not youre 'comprehensive school public display'.

A few days after the shooting, I had a problem with too much grain and nowhere to store it, i rang him and he organised Banks to collect a lorry load and i remember he showed no emotion at all, just very matter of fact.

Ive now read every post on here - I must say several of you are on cloud cuckoo land, and seem to imagine things that have no argument at all. Raising "points that have no bearing" and if you stick to the main points, the case (as it stands)against him is weak, i see no mileage in it, and i do wonder who is advising JB, as some of it seems so pointless.

Personally Id come clean over the aircraft lights, prove his sister was alive when he was with the police and work on the phone log as i dont see how it can be discredited.
My one iffy moment is caused by what i witnessed daily - JB NEVER drove anywhere slow, he was a maniac behind a wheel, even the lawn mower was driven flat out.

If I had both feet in the JB camp, I'd say he drove slowly that night because he was scared.
Imagine, you've done nothing wrong, your father tells you you're sister's going mad with a very powerful gun, and the police (further away?) ask you to meet them there. Would you want to be there on your own?

Yes, I don't think him driving slowly that night is an indication of guilt for the reasons you've just given.

[Kaldin]

Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.

 I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.

I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.

Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less

Re the business of Julie Mugford selling her story, I get the impression that the defence wanted to pursue that at the appeal of 2002 but dropped it themselves.

[mb1]

Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.

 I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.

I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.

Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less

Re the business of Julie Mugford selling her story, I get the impression that the defence wanted to pursue that at the appeal of 2002 but dropped it themselves.

That's interesting. 'Blood money' stories never go down well in court, so I'd assumed they had tried this attack at some point. Was it mentioned in the previous appeal? (Still wading through the 2002 you provided here... not sure if we should say thanks! )

If JM was after money, why didn't she try to blackmail JB? Scared because he's a 5x murderer? Yet not too scared to live with him after the fact? 
And chequebook journalism wasn't quite as rife 25 years ago, so she couldn't guarantee a payout for a 'I lived with killer' story.

[Pete0001]

Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.

 I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.

I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.

Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less

Re the business of Julie Mugford selling her story, I get the impression that the defence wanted to pursue that at the appeal of 2002 but dropped it themselves.

That's interesting. 'Blood money' stories never go down well in court, so I'd assumed they had tried this attack at some point. Was it mentioned in the previous appeal? (Still wading through the 2002 you provided here... not sure if we should say thanks! )

If JM was after money, why didn't she try to blackmail JB? Scared because he's a 5x murderer? Yet not too scared to live with him after the fact? 
And chequebook journalism wasn't quite as rife 25 years ago, so she couldn't guarantee a payout for a 'I lived with killer' story.

Yes.. I think alot more facts need to be posted with regards the sale of her story. What is the official line?

[Kaldin]

Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.

 I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.

I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.

Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less

Re the business of Julie Mugford selling her story, I get the impression that the defence wanted to pursue that at the appeal of 2002 but dropped it themselves.

That's interesting. 'Blood money' stories never go down well in court, so I'd assumed they had tried this attack at some point. Was it mentioned in the previous appeal? (Still wading through the 2002 you provided here... not sure if we should say thanks! )

If JM was after money, why didn't she try to blackmail JB? Scared because he's a 5x murderer? Yet not too scared to live with him after the fact? 
And chequebook journalism wasn't quite as rife 25 years ago, so she couldn't guarantee a payout for a 'I lived with killer' story.

The 2002 appeal document is rather long I agree.   

There were two references to the issue of Julie Mugford selling her story - at para 158 and para 363-36. It seems to have been raised before at the previous appeal, but I'm not sure what happened.

[Sparkfilms]

How incredible that it seemed to be common practice on White House Farm to leave loaded weapons around the house when there were children there, not to mention Shelia's mental state.

Something else that was mentioned to me by someone who worked on the farm in 1982 and 1983.

He was referring to the telephone calls and how it should be very easy to establish the difference in accents of a 61 year old country farmer and a 20 something former public schoolboy.

Something like an elderly member of The Archers and Hugh Grant comes to mind.

( My reference source is a former Heybridge Swifts footballer ).