Sept - JB in WHF

[Kaldin]

Yes, TBM, though if you're innocent (I think it's agreed he was arrogant) then why worry about what the police think?  At that point he wouldn't have been getting advice about how to behave so as not make a jury think he was guilty because of the way he was behaving.  The police wouldn't charge him with murder just because he broke into the farm.  I mean, breaking into the farm seems to me to be in keeping with his character up to that point.

Having said what I said earlier, I could also see myself finding an excuse to break in to the farm to cover my tracks in the way it's been suggested that JB did.

I can only speak for myself, but if I was innocent, and I'd just spent 2 days with the police being questioned about murdering them.... I'd be in a right state. Possibly MORE so if I was innocent.
I may well be breaking back into the house for a clean pair of underpants than a little jaunt to the SoF.

At the very least, I'd be a bit concerned that my GF's just told the police I was involved.
(it's not entirely clear how much of what had been alleged was told to him), he quite possibly didn't know the hitman had been questioned along side him, or that information came from Mugford).

Exactly. So what did Jeremy do? He went on holiday instead of trying to sort out why his ex had told the police he organised a mass murder. I don't get that at all.

Surely the police must have told him the information came from Julie.

Does anyone remember at one point JB says he did try to see if he could speak to Julie?  I remember reading he said it was too late, that she had gone into hiding, but I don't remember the context in which I read this or any detail, really.

I don't remember that but there might be some more info in SFJ - will go and look.

[chochokeira]

I keep certain documents at my parents, (my birth certificate is there because though im 35 she doesnt think im responsible enough to look after it lol) my house insurance documents are there also just for safe keeping.

My daughter leaves all of her documents with me too - and she regularly breaks in when she forgets her keys, through a window only she knows how to open from outside

[Hartley]

I keep certain documents at my parents, (my birth certificate is there because though im 35 she doesnt think im responsible enough to look after it lol) my house insurance documents are there also just for safe keeping.

My daughter leaves all of her documents with me too - and she regularly breaks in when she forgets her keys, through a window only she knows how to open from outside

Crikey!!! I'd get that fixed right away. 

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I keep certain documents at my parents, (my birth certificate is there because though im 35 she doesnt think im responsible enough to look after it lol) my house insurance documents are there also just for safe keeping.

My daughter leaves all of her documents with me too - and she regularly breaks in when she forgets her keys, through a window only she knows how to open from outside

But you've not been murdered and she's not just been questioned for murdering your and your house isn't the scene of the crime.

I don't think many people thought much of Bamber having 'got into the house' when his parents were alive and well - the sort of thing a young lad might do...
But not in the circumstances in which he found himself!

[Alex]

I keep certain documents at my parents, (my birth certificate is there because though im 35 she doesnt think im responsible enough to look after it lol) my house insurance documents are there also just for safe keeping.

My daughter leaves all of her documents with me too - and she regularly breaks in when she forgets her keys, through a window only she knows how to open from outside

But you've not been murdered and she's not just been questioned for murdering your and your house isn't the scene of the crime.

I don't think many people thought much of Bamber having 'got into the house' when his parents were alive and well - the sort of thing a young lad might do...
But not in the circumstances in which he found himself!

I think if he were in the habit of doing it - not being the most sensible of young men - he'd not have thought much of doing it by that point in spite of having been questioned by the police.  (That's just my opinion at the present time).

[Kaldin]

On the question of Jeremy's bail, I refer again to Colin Caffell's book, 1994.

Page 98
"At an appearance in court he was released on bail, despite police objections. Apparently the money had been put up by members of his family - obviously not those who condemned him - so they weren't all against him".

I was always under the impression the whole of his surviving family was against him?

Interesting. Do you mean the first time he was arrested or the second? I assumed he'd been remanded in custody after the second arrest.

[Kaldin]

This was the 13th September 85, his first arrest. On page 99 it says that Stan Jones phoned just before midnight Sunday 29th Sept to say that Jeremy had been arrested at Dover.

I see. I assumed that Jeremy had been bailed from the police station on 13th September because they didn't have enough evidence. He hadn't been in court at that stage had he? I didn't think you had to put up bail money in those circumstances. Surely they wouldn't have let him go abroad either.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

He was Police Bailed (not the same as Court Bail)
Fairly sure no money is required. He's not been charged yet.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Police Bail is simply "We will need to speak to you again, so we are officially telling you think, make yourself available to us on the date we've agreed, or you're in trouble"

I don't believe any security (money) is required.

They would have had 24 hours to question him (possibly reported as 'two days' since it would effectively cross two days).

They will have the least cautioned him (prior to questioning, because they are required to do so) - that's basically informing him that any interview is potentially being used as evidence. The probably arrested him, but can't be sure.

I'm not sure what the law was in 1985 with regard to Police Bail and Arrest. I think the Bail implies an arrest was made - but needs to be verified.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

So you're saying Colin was wrong when he said that the money had been put up by members of the family?

Not at all, we are trying to determine WHICH bail / which arrest.

He was questioned in the 11th (poss 12th) and released on Police Bail on the 13th... (after which he broke into WHF, then went on holiday to South of France).

When he returned, he was arrested and charged.
These days, a suspect facing a murder charge is VERY unlikely to be granted bail, and if so has to be done by a crown court judge. Back in 1985, I 'think' a Magistrate could do so. (the law changed to prevent magistrates doing so, but I can't recall the precise dates)

AND, because it's in a book that Colin said so and so, doesn't mean Colin DID say that. He could have said they were prepared to put up bail....

I don't know either way, we're just trying to piece together bits of information and rule out what cannot be true, and keep in what could be true (some stuff can be proven to be wrong sometimes)

[Kaldin]

So you're saying Colin was wrong when he said that the money had been put up by members of the family?

Not at all, we are trying to determine WHICH bail / which arrest.

He was questioned in the 11th (poss 12th) and released on Police Bail on the 13th... (after which he broke into WHF, then went on holiday to South of France).

When he returned, he was arrested and charged.
These days, a suspect facing a murder charge is VERY unlikely to be granted bail, and if so has to be done by a crown court judge. Back in 1985, I 'think' a Magistrate could do so. (the law changed to prevent magistrates doing so, but I can't recall the precise dates)

AND, because it's in a book that Colin said so and so, doesn't mean Colin DID say that. He could have said they were prepared to put up bail....

I don't know either way, we're just trying to piece together bits of information and rule out what cannot be true, and keep in what could be true (some stuff can be proven to be wrong sometimes)

According to the Appeal document, he was arrested on 8th September and questioned over the next three days. He was bailed from the police station on 13th September. It's not clear if he was in custody or not all that time.

I don't think he would have had to put up bail, so maybe there's some confusion about what happened.

[Kaldin]

Perhaps the Dickinson report might clarify what happened - it's quite a lengthy document. It's on SFJ but it only goes up to 6th September on there.

[mike tesko]

Perhaps the Dickinson report might clarify what happened - it's quite a lengthy document. It's on SFJ but it only goes up to 6th September on there.

------------------

Dickinson report contents - will be published here, in due course...

[mb1]

Bail
Does this relate to bail for the robbery at the Caravan park?

Hacksaw
Just want to remind everyone...
By the time they went to trial, JB and his defence team were aware that he had been placed under surveillance. When the question of the hacksaw came up, JB gave an approximate date that fitted with the surveillance dates as he assumed that the police had covertly witnessed him breaking in and was uncertain where the line of questioning was going.
The date JB gave disagreed with the date he had given in his statement to the police.
Had the prosecution been wide awake, they would have pinned him into a 'liar's corner'.
Fortunately for JB, the prosecution was primarily concerned with the admission of hacksaw use/breaking in and didn't identify the inconsistency in his answer.

Since the trial, realising the police surveillance had not witnessed him breaking in to WHF, the date has changed yet again.
This is moulding stories to fit known facts, rather than the truth...