Jeremy Bamber's story - NOTW deal

[Steve_uk]

With respect Steve, you are missing my main point, although I was technically incorrect in my assertion that babs Wilson's remarks attributed to Nevil were heard at trial.   

Do you agree with the following (in accordance with your own approach):

That if a person with the presentation and historic severe mental health issues of Sheila, but in this day and age, made remark to the effect that all people are bad and should be killed, then was involved in an incident in which they and their family were killed, the respective authorities, in weighing up the evidence, would simply remark... oh well, she though she was a white witch... nothing to be concerned about there then?

You would still have to weigh up all the evidence,and then put it before a jury,as was done. We're back to the four murders and a suicide theory versus five murders,and I have to put it to you that the evidence of Dr. Herbert Leon Macdonell,the Isaac Newton of ballistics and blood spatter, that Sheila was murdered,leaves the Jeremy supporters out on a limb.

[Roch]

You would still have to weigh up all the evidence,and then put it before a jury,as was done. We're back to the four murders and a suicide theory versus five murders,and I have to put it to you that the evidence of Dr. Herbert Leon Macdonell,the Isaac Newton of ballistics and blood spatter, that Sheila was murdered,leaves the Jeremy supporters out on a limb.

You're ducking the question.  There's no way on earth in today's age, that the remarks attributed to SC would be overlooked as a mere coincidence.  (I don't believe they were overlooked back in '85 either.  Just buried.  Which is dispicable).  As for MacDonnell,  I'd like to see his opinion now with all known lab blow ups at his disposal.

[Caroline R]

The lawyers' advice was that it was hearsay evidence and therefore would be rejected. Barbara,as you allude to,did testify in court however. Jeremy's behaviour she described as "a bit arrogant,a bit nasty..". He wanted a complete clear out of Nevill's den as he didn't want anything left to remind him of his father."He wasn't saying it as if he was upset",Barbara Wilson asserted. Geoffrey Rivlin QC challenged her in cross-examination,suggesting that she had misinterpreted Jeremy's manner. But Mrs. Wilson was in no doubt as to Jeremy's feelings:

"When someone comes upstairs,sits in a chair with his feet on the desk and swivels round and tells me in the manner he told me to clear things out",she retorted,"I am not mistaken".

Barbara had reproached herself for not acting on Nevill's fears,but she was now determined on redress. Of course she had mixed feelings for Jeremy,who had often treated her with politeness,but as Barbara had mulled things over in her mind she became certain that the reference to guns applied to Jeremy. Jeremy's obsession with the financial aspect of the deaths and the valuable antiques in the house led Barbara all the more to link Nevill's changing the place of the key to the safe with Jeremy snooping around looking for the provisions of his father's will.

Steve, this must be (again) from Rodger! Rodger needs to check his facts! Barbara Wilson didn't say anything derogatory about JB until years after the trial. Why didn't she say the above in at least one of her 14 statements in 1985?

[Caroline R]

I will add the caveat that many posters seem far to easy on JB, in my opinion.

How so?

[Steve_uk]

Steve, this must be (again) from Rodger! Rodger needs to check his facts! Barbara Wilson didn't say anything derogatory about JB until years after the trial. Why didn't she say the above in at least one of her 14 statements in 1985?

She did,but it was technically regarded as hearsay and so not heard at trial. Did I read somewhere the rules might have been changed since to allow such testimony?

[petey]

How so?

In my opinion, because he is currently convicted as being the mass murderer of 5 members of his family, including 2 small children. Regardless of how much posters may think he is innocent, nobody know 100% that he is, therefore to a certain extent must have respect for the crimes he has been convicted of and therefore what that necessitates.

Also, although I am not from the area, from what i have seen and read there does seem to be numerous examples of where JB has come across as a thoroughly objectionable character, coupled with his poor treatment of some of the most ardent JB supporters, Mike included.

[petey]

She did,but it was technically regarded as hearsay and so not heard at trial. Did I read somewhere the rules might have been changed since to allow such testimony?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/hearsay/

[Caroline R]

She did,but it was technically regarded as hearsay and so not heard at trial. Did I read somewhere the rules might have been changed since to allow such testimony?

No she didn't, it was at the 89 appeal that the testimony was disallowed as hearsay - NOT at the trial!

[Caroline R]

In my opinion, because he is currently convicted as being the mass murderer of 5 members of his family, including 2 small children. Regardless of how much posters may think he is innocent, nobody know 100% that he is, therefore to a certain extent must have respect for the crimes he has been convicted of and therefore what that necessitates.

Also, although I am not from the area, from what i have seen and read there does seem to be numerous examples of where JB has come across as a thoroughly objectionable character, coupled with his poor treatment of some of the most ardent JB supporters, Mike included.

Well, that depends on whether you believe the man to be guilty or that he has spent 27 years in prison as an innocent man. Of course no one can be 100% certain and I don't think there is a poster on here that doesn't have respect for the crime. However, as far as him being 'thoroughly objectionable' is concerned, I fail to see how that would matter or make a difference to the miscarriage of justice issue. I have no concern for his character other than to question his guilt and personally, I believe  that he is not guilty. I have no knowledge of his relationship with Mike but Mike is happy to still fight his corner regardless of whatever relationship they now have.  But by the same token, I am sure that JB has had his fair share of disingenuous 'supporters' along the way and is in a precarious position where I imagine it is difficult to know who to trust and how far.

[petey]

Well, that depends on whether you believe the man to be guilty or that he has spent 27 years in prison as an innocent man. Of course no one can be 100% certain and I don't think there is a poster on here that doesn't have respect for the crime. However, as far as him being 'thoroughly objectionable' is concerned, I fail to see how that would matter or make a difference to the miscarriage of justice issue. I have no concern for his character other than to question his guilt and personally, I believe  that he is not guilty. I have no knowledge of his relationship with Mike but Mike is happy to still fight his corner regardless of whatever relationship they now have.  But by the same token, I am sure that JB has had his fair share of disingenuous 'supporters' along the way and is in a precarious position where I imagine it is difficult to know who to trust and how far.

I agree.

I have posted this before because in this case there are 2 such diametrically opposite viewpoints one that he is a cold blooded murderer of 5 members of his family for no other reason than greed, OR that he is the victim of arguably the most appalling miscarriage of justice in history, where he has been completely and utterly knowingly stitched up by those who are paid to protect us.

This is why emotions often run high between people on opposite sides of the divide.

I came to this forum thinking JB was innocent, and although my belief in his innocence has dropped somewhat since i have been here, i still await (in hope) the compelling evidence which proves his case as i still do believe him to be innocent.

From a legal perspective i believe that the defence made a number of key errors at JBs trial, allowing the prosecution to prove JBs guilt at a far lower threshold than they should have had to.

[susan]

Morning Caroline   hope you are well.  I think that was an excellent post you made about Jeremy.  Whether Jeremy was arrogant, good looking bad looking makes no difference whatsoever to the case guilty or not guilty.  Some of the posters spend more time telling us what a bad vain greedy person he was lets try and deal in the facts that we have and make our own decisions.

[susan]

Morning vidvic  hope you are well today.  Yesterday we were talking about the panic button at WHF and I thought you would know if it was located in the kitchen and the only one in the house and has it since been disconnected.

[Lugg]

The lawyers' advice was that it was hearsay evidence and therefore would be rejected. Barbara,as you allude to,did testify in court however. Jeremy's behaviour she described as "a bit arrogant,a bit nasty..". He wanted a complete clear out of Nevill's den as he didn't want anything left to remind him of his father."He wasn't saying it as if he was upset",Barbara Wilson asserted. Geoffrey Rivlin QC challenged her in cross-examination,suggesting that she had misinterpreted Jeremy's manner. But Mrs. Wilson was in no doubt as to Jeremy's feelings:

"When someone comes upstairs,sits in a chair with his feet on the desk and swivels round and tells me in the manner he told me to clear things out",she retorted,"I am not mistaken".

Barbara had reproached herself for not acting on Nevill's fears,but she was now determined on redress. Of course she had mixed feelings for Jeremy,who had often treated her with politeness,but as Barbara had mulled things over in her mind she became certain that the reference to guns applied to Jeremy. Jeremy's obsession with the financial aspect of the deaths and the valuable antiques in the house led Barbara all the more to link Nevill's changing the place of the key to the safe with Jeremy snooping around looking for the provisions of his father's will.

There you go then. You mocked me for rejecting her "evidence" and even the lawyers were of the same mind as mine. Why are you using "hearsay" to support your case? Let's see some "real" evidence and real documentation Steve.

[Caroline R]

There you go then. You mocked me for rejecting her "evidence" and even the lawyers were of the same mind as mine. Why are you using "hearsay" to support your case? Let's see some "real" evidence and real documentation Steve.

Lugg, the point is that the Barbara Wilson statement was NOT made during the course of the investigation in 1985/86 - she made this statement years later in preparation for the appeal where it was NOT included because (and Steve had this bit right) it was considered hearsay!!

[Lugg]

Lugg, the point is that the Barbara Wilson statement was NOT made during the course of the investigation in 1985/86 - she made this statement years later in preparation for the appeal where it was NOT included because (and Steve had this bit right) it was considered hearsay!!

Yes but Steve mockingly said 'oh we can get rid of all the witnesses can we?' or words to that effect. I was just demonstrating that I wasn't far off when I said it was hearsay, because even the lawyers considering her evidence saw it that way as well.