Jeremy Bamber Forum
Hello Buddy
Show unread posts since last visit.
Show new replies to your posts.
August 08, 2012, 02:52:PM
Home
Help
Search
Profile
My Messages
Calendar
Members
Logout
Jeremy Bamber Forum »
JEREMY BAMBER CASE »
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion »
Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« previous next »
Reply
Notify
Mark unread
Send this topic
Print
Pages: [1] Go Down
Author Topic: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002 (Read 353 times)
1 Member and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.
Hartley
Guest
Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« on: July 22, 2011, 02:50:PM »
Quote
Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
001.jpg (161.3 kB, 850x1169 - viewed 96 times.)
002.jpg (176.63 kB, 850x1169 - viewed 94 times.)
003.jpg (171.91 kB, 850x1169 - viewed 93 times.)
004.jpg (91.62 kB, 850x1169 - viewed 94 times.)
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grahame
Guest
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2011, 02:59:PM »
Quote
It just seems a strange coincidence that these two girls were taken to the bank to apologise and to recompense them just as they were to become prime witnesses in a murder trial. Why would the police officer tell the bank manager about this and why did the bank manager stress that there was no collusion between the police and the girls?
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tyler
Guest
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2011, 03:06:PM »
Quote
Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grahame
Guest
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2011, 03:17:PM »
Quote
Quote from: tyler on July 22, 2011, 03:06:PM
Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?
Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ngb1066
Administrator
Hero Member
Posts: 2739
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2011, 04:00:PM »
Quote
Quote from: grahame on July 22, 2011, 03:17:PM
Quote from: tyler on July 22, 2011, 03:06:PM
Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?
Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?
This is more than just an "inaccuracy". The police managed the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy Bamber and in order to sanitise her character before the jury. They then covered up what had happened, hiding it from the defence and the court. This aspect of the case stinks.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grahame
Guest
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2011, 05:53:PM »
Quote
Quote from: ngb1066 on July 22, 2011, 04:00:PM
Quote from: grahame on July 22, 2011, 03:17:PM
Quote from: tyler on July 22, 2011, 03:06:PM
Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?
Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?
This is more than just an "inaccuracy". The police managed the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy Bamber and in order to sanitise her character before the jury. They then covered up what had happened, hiding it from the defence and the court. This aspect of the case stinks.
Very well spotted ngb. Corrupt lot.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ngb1066
Administrator
Hero Member
Posts: 2739
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2011, 06:02:PM »
Quote
Quote from: grahame on July 22, 2011, 05:53:PM
Quote from: ngb1066 on July 22, 2011, 04:00:PM
Quote from: grahame on July 22, 2011, 03:17:PM
Quote from: tyler on July 22, 2011, 03:06:PM
Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?
Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?
This is more than just an "inaccuracy". The police managed the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy Bamber and in order to sanitise her character before the jury. They then covered up what had happened, hiding it from the defence and the court. This aspect of the case stinks.
Very well spotted ngb. Corrupt lot.
To make things worse, the Court of Appeal in 2002 completely whitewashed the issue. Julie Mugford's credibility (and that of some police officers) was critical at trial to Jeremy Bamber's convictions and on this issue and the NoW contract the Court of Appeal simply blocked the defence and brushed everything under the carpet. Every time I reread the 2002 judgement I am amazed at how determined the judges were to block off every solid point raised on behalf of Jeremy Bamber. I hope that in the future the judges involved will be as embarrassed about their performance here as were certain other Court of Appeal judges involved in cases such as the Birmingham 6. As I have posted before, in my view our criminal appeal system is really poor.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HMEssex
Hero Member
Posts: 856
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2011, 07:48:PM »
Quote
Quote from: ngb1066 on July 22, 2011, 06:02:PM
Quote from: grahame on July 22, 2011, 05:53:PM
Quote from: ngb1066 on July 22, 2011, 04:00:PM
Quote from: grahame on July 22, 2011, 03:17:PM
Quote from: tyler on July 22, 2011, 03:06:PM
Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?
Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?
This is more than just an "inaccuracy". The police managed the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy Bamber and in order to sanitise her character before the jury. They then covered up what had happened, hiding it from the defence and the court. This aspect of the case stinks.
Very well spotted ngb. Corrupt lot.
To make things worse, the Court of Appeal in 2002 completely whitewashed the issue. Julie Mugford's credibility (and that of some police officers) was critical at trial to Jeremy Bamber's convictions and on this issue and the NoW contract the Court of Appeal simply blocked the defence and brushed everything under the carpet. Every time I reread the 2002 judgement I am amazed at how determined the judges were to block off every solid point raised on behalf of Jeremy Bamber. I hope that in the future the judges involved will be as embarrassed about their performance here as were certain other Court of Appeal judges involved in cases such as the Birmingham 6. As I have posted before, in my view our criminal appeal system is really poor.
This is abysmal and scary (and plenty of other adjectives). Perhaps they were under the illusion that none of 'us' would be able to read for ourselves.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grahame
Guest
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2011, 08:28:PM »
Quote
Quote from: HMEssex on July 22, 2011, 07:48:PM
Quote from: ngb1066 on July 22, 2011, 06:02:PM
Quote from: grahame on July 22, 2011, 05:53:PM
Quote from: ngb1066 on July 22, 2011, 04:00:PM
Quote from: grahame on July 22, 2011, 03:17:PM
Quote from: tyler on July 22, 2011, 03:06:PM
Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?
Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?
This is more than just an "inaccuracy". The police managed the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy Bamber and in order to sanitise her character before the jury. They then covered up what had happened, hiding it from the defence and the court. This aspect of the case stinks.
Very well spotted ngb. Corrupt lot.
To make things worse, the Court of Appeal in 2002 completely whitewashed the issue. Julie Mugford's credibility (and that of some police officers) was critical at trial to Jeremy Bamber's convictions and on this issue and the NoW contract the Court of Appeal simply blocked the defence and brushed everything under the carpet. Every time I reread the 2002 judgement I am amazed at how determined the judges were to block off every solid point raised on behalf of Jeremy Bamber. I hope that in the future the judges involved will be as embarrassed about their performance here as were certain other Court of Appeal judges involved in cases such as the Birmingham 6. As I have posted before, in my view our criminal appeal system is really poor.
This is abysmal and scary (and plenty of other adjectives). Perhaps they were under the illusion that none of 'us' would be able to read for ourselves.
Absolutely outrageous. The word heads and axe and shall roll quickly spring to my mind with these CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS. Wicked men whose end is near. Great power brings with it great responsibility and one hopes of a natural justice that will take its toll on these excuses for mankind.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abs
Guest
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2011, 10:09:PM »
Quote
I am truly disgusted by this. This whole case stinks to high heaven. Both Julie and Susan lied in their statements.
I am now convinced that the girls were given a deal to not be prosecuted for their fraud IF THEY TESTIFIED AGAINST JEREMY - especially Julie, of course.
This is just sick.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HMEssex
Hero Member
Posts: 856
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2011, 10:16:PM »
Quote
Quote from: abs on July 22, 2011, 10:09:PM
I am truly disgusted by this. This whole case stinks to high heaven. Both Julie and Susan lied in their statements.
I am now convinced that the girls were given a deal to not be prosecuted for their fraud IF THEY TESTIFIED AGAINST JEREMY - especially Julie, of course.
This is just sick.
You're right Abs. It's so bloomin' obvious!
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shonapugs
Hero Member
Posts: 2506
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2011, 11:24:PM »
Quote
It is obvious. Plod wanted JM to have maximum crediblity when she testified. It doesn't mean that JM lied about JB, but it does look decidedly shonky.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abs
Guest
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2011, 11:32:PM »
Quote
Quote from: shonapugs on July 22, 2011, 11:24:PM
It is obvious. Plod wanted JM to have maximum crediblity when she testified. It doesn't mean that JM lied about JB, but it does look decidedly shonky.
I think it is more than a question of the credibility of a witness. For Julie Mugford it also was a question about her going to trial for cheque fraud, falsifying signatures and burglary. It would be devastating for her future as a teacher: she would get no employment.
I am now totally convinced that she and EP made a deal: Julie testified against Jeremy and got away with her crimes scott free - and she lied in the process.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tyler
Guest
Re: Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2011, 11:38:PM »
Quote
We have to remember though,that JM had nothing of any substance to tell the police/ court.It all seemed to be stuff that had either been in the media,or information that the relatives had gleaned from the police.I wouldnt be surprised if it was the relatives that convinced Mugford that Jeremy could have been responsible.I do have a couple of valid reasons for believing this.I think it suited her to go that route so as to avoid prosecution for the thefts that she was involved in (as this would have ruined her chosen career),and revenge for JB.I dont think she could bear the thought of someone else being with Jeremy and sharing any new found wealth with him.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply
Notify
Mark unread
Send this topic
Print
Pages: [1] Go Up
« previous next »
Jeremy Bamber Forum »
JEREMY BAMBER CASE »
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion »
Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002
Jump to: => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion
Quick Reply
SMF 2.0.2 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2
Why did the prosecution never call Dovey to the stand. It seems clear to me that he would have rubbished Julie's statement that She and Sue Battersby went alone to the bank because they had a pang of guilt.
It is quite clear that Jones [who I believe was the accompanying officer] needed to clear any skeletons out of the closet, so Mugford appeared to be a blameless person.
As I understand it the defence were not aware of the Dovey statement. nontheless it does show that all involved lied.
I wonder if the jury were aware of this there would have been a different verdict, bearing in mind that it was a 10/12 verdict, and another vote would have swayed it into Jeremey's favour, and of course the other way.
I know this is old ground but the fact is Mugford NEVER went to the police in the first place.
She spilled her guts to Battersby in a cafe after being dumped by Bamber. Battersby then went to the police.
After viewing the murdered twins Mugford was not going to turn in Bamber. If my wife murdered my grandchildren I would be down the copshop in a blink of an eye, and the same goes for any of my family.
This is what keeps me interested in this case. I asm not saying that Jeremy is innocent, but there are too many lies on the side of the prosecution for my liking.
