'So and so, said so...' - thread

[SIMONJONES]

That's just your opinion based on what evidence?

Well, the evidence at the trial Patti.

And that repeated during appeal.

And the telephone call that Ralph Bamber would never have made to Jeremy in a million years that Shelia was running around with a gun.

Would you telephone anyone in such circumstances?

And Julie Mugford having no option than to come clean despite her association with Jeremy.





 

[campion]

 SIMONJONES,  Thank goodness you have 'outed' yourself.
  One did ponder with whom you are 'camping'.

[tyler]

Simon Jones...I remember that you used to believe Jeremy to be innocent.I understand that you also believe Simon Hall to be innocent?Can you say why you believe SH to be innocent? Only,both were cases based on circumstancial evidence,but SH was also convicted on fibre evidence that adds weight to his guilt.

[Patti]

Well, the evidence at the trial Patti.

And that repeated during appeal.

And the telephone call that Ralph Bamber would never have made to Jeremy in a million years that Shelia was running around with a gun.

Would you telephone anyone in such circumstances?

And Julie Mugford having no option than to come clean despite her association with Jeremy.

Hi Simon

I know where you are coming from. 

It is fact that Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of murder in a court of law. There is no getting away from that.  The evidence that was built up against him was, based on mainly hearsay, except the evidence of the sound moderator.  We know now that evidence was incorrect and, through improved modern science the blood on the baffles did not belong to Sheila; which gives reasonable doubt in the evidence originally provided by the Crown to be unsafe.  It is not a matter of it MIGHT have had Sheila's DNA inside the sound moderator, it has to be the word HAS. 

It is my opinion, that it was not only unfair, but it was gross misconduct by the police, that vital evidence was destroyed in 1996.  That evidence alone could have exonerated Jeremy, then again, it might not have, but he was not given that opportunity to continue his defence in an on going case, to provide vital evidence to prove he was innocent. 

There is absolutely no evidence at all that Jeremy killed his family, nor is there any witnesses to say that he did.  There is no DNA/fiber evidence that puts him at the crime scene.   It was a case of who you believed....Julie or Jeremy and based on that alone, it is not a 100% guilty scenario.  JM was difficult to cross-examine and she also claimed that he never, admitted that he had killed his family.  No matter what you believe, at the end of the day, this case is flawed from the moment it reached court....There was certain documents that were admitted to court, but were never shown to the defence....

I know there has been court of appeals and CCRC submissions, but there has been many people use the CCRC in the past who have been exonerated later after many many years of trying to prove their innocence.   

[tyler]

Simon Jones,after re-reading your posts,it appears that you have contradicted yourself a little? You say that you were given extraordinary info relating to Matthew MacDonald.I remember you mentioning this previously(Did you ever give this info to the police)? So in effect,you are hinting that you believe MM may have carried out the murders? Yet you state that yourself and EP have concluded that Sheila nor any hitman could have carried out the murders!Which is it? Or are you going to admit that you are as unsure as the rest of   us?

[Lugg]

  Morning Susan & SIMONJONES,
  Last night I did an early Boswell('and so to bed'), prior to this illuminating, and intriguing thread being started.
  Thus far, I have read only 2 pages of MT's, Sew and sew's said('Z') Fred Thread. It was sufficient for me to rethink the 'wilderness of mirrors'.
  Lugg, please kindly RMN&ID, consequent on what you have intimated on one of our behalf's!!!!
  My revised concept is based on AE's oft-quoted remark -'Why is Jeremy still alive?'. It is also based on the discovery of the dual identity of the Det Ch Superintendent ' George Harris', who was 'phoned at home? at 4.10 am, to be put I.C. of The WHF Operation, until such time as it was handed over to Witham CID. As we are aware this first investigation was in the capable hands of ace DCI Taff Jones, until his enforced gardening/golfing leave, and subsequent sad demise.
  I have looked up 'asaSJ' on twitter, and find the Chinese dialect script harder to decipher than J apanese Arithmetic!
  Tyler(thankyou) is partly to blame for my new 'scenario' of the Case.
  KISSusan, I think 'each direction' simply indicates- hither and thither, sans Zither!!
  Thank goodness MT has implemented his 'locked thread' facility.

Campion. I couldn't understand a word you wrote?

[Lugg]

Hi Camps  Would not have thought the local pub was Jeremy's scene maybe I have that wrong along with most things

Susan Jeremy knew his local landlord very well as he frequented the pub. He only live just up the road and the pub is on the corner. The landlord maintained his belief in Jeremy's innocence. He only lived down the road. Not all locals believed him to be guilty

[SIMONJONES]

Simon Jones...I remember that you used to believe Jeremy to be innocent.I understand that you also believe Simon Hall to be innocent?Can you say why you believe SH to be innocent? Only,both were cases based on circumstancial evidence,but SH was also convicted on fibre evidence that adds weight to his guilt.

Let's hope it is one day proved without any doubt that the fibre evidence in Simon's case was flawed.

There was certainly nothing else to place Simon Hall at the murder scene. ( And I went there as part of my research ).

Here is a quote from Tiernan Coyle a fibre expert from Contact Traces that was relayed to me over the telephone for inclusion in a report I was writing.

'The fibres didn't match' - Tiernan Coyle, August 2011.

But perhaps of more interest were the two names that came up in Ipswich and Capel St Mary again and again who were responsible for the murder of Joan Albert.

These names also came up in a Crimestoppers Report and from the Suffolk underworld for good measure.

Addionally, when members of the prison service say 'we know Simon Hall is innocent' it can only be that they know who is responsible.

The Simon Hall case is money, politics, reputations - this really does look like a case of mass corporate conspiracy.





Back to WHF.

I was never satisfied about a time of death for Shelia Caffell and I'm still not.

That cast the biggest doubt in my mind.

The 'running blood' has been explained ( to a point ), the scratches on / under the AGA have been explained ( source / CCRC - during telephone conversation ),' the moving figure in the window' thing, well, I spoke to Chris Bewes about this, having been told before by another source that the moving figure was actually Matthew McDonald ( it took me a while to discount that ).

In simple terms Bamber guilty, Hall innocent.

[Lugg]

Well, the evidence at the trial Patti.

And that repeated during appeal.

And the telephone call that Ralph Bamber would never have made to Jeremy in a million years that Shelia was running around with a gun.

Would you telephone anyone in such circumstances?

And Julie Mugford having no option than to come clean despite her association with Jeremy.

No great new insight there then?

[ngb1066]

Welcome back Sparkfilms/Ray.  I realised who you were when you re-registered and therfore did not ask you to introduce yourself in the Foyer.  When you last posted before leaving the forum you were planning an article on the case for the Times.  Are you still working on that?  You also seemed to believe the MM hit man theory.  Do you still support that scenario?

Why do you say Simon McKay will not make any impact with the CCRC?

 

[ngb1066]

Let's hope it is one day proved without any doubt that the fibre evidence in Simon's case was flawed.

There was certainly nothing else to place Simon Hall at the murder scene. ( And I went there as part of my research ).

Here is a quote from Tiernan Coyle a fibre expert from Contact Traces that was relayed to me over the telephone for inclusion in a report I was writing.

'The fibres didn't match' - Tiernan Coyle, August 2011.

But perhaps of more interest were the two names that came up in Ipswich and Capel St Mary again and again who were responsible for the murder of Joan Albert.

These names also came up in a Crimestoppers Report and from the Suffolk underworld for good measure.

Addionally, when members of the prison service say 'we know Simon Hall is innocent' it can only be that they know who is responsible.

The Simon Hall case is money, politics, reputations - this really does look like a case of mass corporate conspiracy.





Back to WHF.

I was never satisfied about a time of death for Shelia Caffell and I'm still not.

That cast the biggest doubt in my mind.

The 'running blood' has been explained ( to a point ), the scratches on / under the AGA have been explained ( source / CCRC - during telephone conversation ),' the moving figure in the window' thing, well, I spoke to Chris Bewes about this, having been told before by another source that the moving figure was actually Matthew McDonald ( it took me a while to discount that ).

In simple terms Bamber guilty, Hall innocent.

You did a lot of work on the Simon Hall case, appearing on television to present the latest material.  You then seemed to take a back seat on the case.  Are you still actively involved ?  Are you able to say how strong is the evidence relating to the other suspects?




 

[SIMONJONES]

Welcome back Sparkfilms/Ray.  I realised who you were when you re-registered and therfore did not ask you to introduce yourself in the Foyer.  When you last posted before leaving the forum you were planning an article on the case for the Times.  Are you still working on that?  You also seemed to believe the MM hit man theory.  Do you still support that scenario?

Why do you say Simon McKay will not make any impact with the CCRC?

Hello NGB,

I abandoned not just The Times piece but some filming to concentrate on the Simon Hall case, and I'm glad I did.

I've done quite a bit of radio and tv ( BBC / ITV ) on Simon's behalf, written a report, met MP's and spent month after month researching aspects of the Joan Albert murder.

Everything has led back to two individuals who seem to have been responsible for the murder.


BAMBER

I was very interested in the potential Matthew McDonald link for several months. The stuff that came through on this was really very strange.

Eventually though, I discounted it.

[ngb1066]

Hello NGB,

I abandoned not just The Times piece but some filming to concentrate on the Simon Hall case, and I'm glad I did.

I've done quite a bit of radio and tv ( BBC / ITV ) on Simon's behalf, written a report, met MP's and spent month after month researching aspects of the Joan Albert murder.

Everything has led back to two individuals who seem to have been responsible for the murder.


BAMBER

I was very interested in the potential Matthew McDonald link for several months. The stuff that came through on this was really very strange.

Eventually though, I discounted it.

Thanks Ray.  What about Simon McKay?  You seem to have a negative view of him.  Is there any reason in particular?

[Lugg]

Hello NGB,

I abandoned not just The Times piece but some filming to concentrate on the Simon Hall case, and I'm glad I did.

I've done quite a bit of radio and tv ( BBC / ITV ) on Simon's behalf, written a report, met MP's and spent month after month researching aspects of the Joan Albert murder.

Everything has led back to two individuals who seem to have been responsible for the murder.


BAMBER

I was very interested in the potential Matthew McDonald link for several months. The stuff that came through on this was really very strange.

Eventually though, I discounted it.

Such as?

[Caroline R]

Well, the evidence at the trial Patti.

And that repeated during appeal.

And the telephone call that Ralph Bamber would never have made to Jeremy in a million years that Shelia was running around with a gun.

Would you telephone anyone in such circumstances?

And Julie Mugford having no option than to come clean despite her association with Jeremy.

Interesting points so far but again, it is just your opinion. As to whether Ralf Bamber would make a call to Jeremy based on what I would do - it would depend on the situation! "Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun" - given that Sheila had only recently been released from psychiatric care, I can understand why Ralf might be dubious in regard to involving the authorities (even the family didn't know the extent of her condition!). He allegedly said that 'she had the gun' NOT that she was threatening anyone with it at that point, she may given the impression that she was more of a danger to herself. Ralf was evidently a private man with some standing in the community, I feel he wouldn't want his personal business to become local gossip and perhaps he thought he and Jeremy could disarm and calm her without involving the police. The is no evidence of the phone call (that we know of) but by the same token, there is no evidence that it did not take place!

As for Julie Mugford, she told two friends (Battersby and Rimmington) BEFORE telling her story to police and only made a statement after Liz Rimmington reported what she had been told by Mugford!! There are many inconsistencies in her statements, not least of all the bank saga - it gives the impression that a deal was made between Mugford, Battersby and Jones and in return for their evidence, they were given a clean slate!! Had Jeremy continued their relationship. I am convinced that there would have never been a Mugford statement!!