Jeremy Bamber: the Prelude, the Tragedy and the Aftermath

[lookout]

Sheila would not have gone near heroin. There was an incident related in Clare Powell's book about one of the Maida Vale set leaving a bag of heroin in a drawer which the boys had attended and Sheila was horrified.

Steve,,I don't think you'd get a " bill " for cannabis for £40.000,,,do you.? Not even back then.

[Steve_uk]

Steve,,I don't think you'd get a " bill " for cannabis for £40.000,,,do you.? Not even back then.

That's uncorroborated by Clare Powell,who seems to have interviewed anyone and everyone involved in that Maida Vale set. In any case it would be more of a motive for Jeremy to get rid of them all before it ate yet further into his inheritance.

[Lugg]

On a scale of 1-10 how reliable are witnesses in this case:

1) James Richards: Why would he lie Jeremy told him "several times with vehemence:I f***ing hate my parents" Credibility rating: 9

2) Charles Marsden: Testified under oath Jeremy speculated that if the Farm burned down at the period of Christmas 1984 then "everything would be mine". The occasion was significant because it was the only time before August 1985 that the whole family was together under one roof. Credibility rating: 9

3) Julie Mugford: The star witness for the Prosecution who gave an insight into the workings of Jeremy's mind which for whatever reason Jeremy kept concealed during trial. It made her testimony that much more poignant. Judge Mr. Justice Drake directed the jury to "treat her evidence with a great deal of caution".  Credibility rating: 8

4) Robert Boutflour: Testified that Jeremy had told him "Oh no Uncle Bobby..I could easily kill my parents". Uncorroborated and Boutflour was one of the relatives who stood to gain from Jeremy's conviction. Credibility rating:6

5) Doris Foakes: Jeremy told her:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila" which begs the question how Jeremy was going to arrange that state of affairs to come about. What reason does Doris have to lie? Credibility rating: 9

6) Barbara Wilson: Testified Jeremy put his feet up on Nevill's desk after the murders and barked orders at her. This farm secretary has nothing to gain by disparaging her probable new employer. Credibility rating: 10

7) Helen Grimster: A distant relative of the Bambers she had a conversation with Sheila Caffell several weeks before the murders in which Sheila had spoken of suicide. No reason to lie. Credibility rating: 9

 Jeremy Bamber: His testimony about receiving the telephone call,about not having spoken to Julie regarding killing his family,and about not having used a silencer is uncorroborated. His remark to Prosecution barrister Anthony Arlidge QC "that is what you have to establish" suggests the workings of Jeremy's mind in which he is trying to bluff it out. Credibility rating: 0

Hang on a minute. Who's rating all these people? If you've given JM a rating of 8 and we know that her testimony was very unreliable, how are we to judge a rating of 9?

[Steve_uk]

Hang on a minute. Who's rating all these people? If you've given JM a rating of 8 and we know that her testimony was very unreliable, how are we to judge a rating of 9?

Julie's evidence has been looked at and not shown to be false,thanks.

[Jane]

I don't know why the other witnesses bothered to turn up at Chelmsford Crown Court in October 1986 if you're not prepared to listen to them.

It is very difficult to get any kind of truth from sound bites and I'm not prepared to base credibility on your somewhat tunnel visioned assessment.

[Lugg]

Julie's evidence has been looked at and not shown to be false,thanks.

Then why only give her a rating of 8 then?

[Steve_uk]

Then why only give her a rating of 8 then?

Because of the caveat from the judge:one likes to be even-handed in these things.

[lookout]

That's uncorroborated by Clare Powell,who seems to have interviewed anyone and everyone involved in that Maida Vale set. In any case it would be more of a motive for Jeremy to get rid of them all before it ate yet further into his inheritance.

Steve,,,June parted company with a cheque for £40,000. It was Sheilas bill that was paid.

[Alias]

Steve,,,June parted company with a cheque for £40,000. It was Sheilas bill that was paid.

I never heard about Sheila having been on heroine - cocaine and cannabis, yes (Jeremy too), heroine, no.
Where do you have that from?

[Jane]

Julie's evidence has been looked at and not shown to be false,thanks.

Yes Steve, we know you've probably gone over it till your eyes ache but nothing she said can be proved, there were no witnesses, there was pillow talk. It was all about what she said he said/did. I wonder if Jeremy was as fooled by her as you seem to have been.

[Steve_uk]

Yes Steve, we know you've probably gone over it till your eyes ache but nothing she said can be proved, there were no witnesses, there was pillow talk. It was all about what she said he said/did. I wonder if Jeremy was as fooled by her as you seem to have been.

It's indirectly corroborated by some of the witnesses I quoted. Also the remark(or slip) Jeremy made about saying a glove came off in the fight was not divulged to any mass media source. How could Jeremy possibly have known this if it wasn't he himself who had struggled with and finally killed Nevill? Do you think Matthew McDonald had a conversation with Jeremy after the murders in which these matters were discussed? If not why would Julie risk looking ridiculous in front of Police by making this story up with the sum of £2000 if she was in the last chance saloon and trying to avoid being made an accessory to murder?

[Patti]

On a scale of 1-10 how reliable are witnesses in this case:

1) James Richards: Why would he lie Jeremy told him "several times with vehemence:I f***ing hate my parents" Credibility rating: 9 0

2) Charles Marsden: Testified under oath Jeremy speculated that if the Farm burned down at the period of Christmas 1984 then "everything would be mine". The occasion was significant because it was the only time before August 1985 that the whole family was together under one roof. Credibility rating: 9 0

3) Julie Mugford: The star witness for the Prosecution who gave an insight into the workings of Jeremy's mind which for whatever reason Jeremy kept concealed during trial. It made her testimony that much more poignant. Judge Mr. Justice Drake directed the jury to "treat her evidence with a great deal of caution".  Credibility rating: 8 0

4) Robert Boutflour: Testified that Jeremy had told him "Oh no Uncle Bobby..I could easily kill my parents". Uncorroborated and Boutflour was one of the relatives who stood to gain from Jeremy's conviction. Credibility rating:6 0

5) Doris Foakes: Jeremy told her:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila" which begs the question how Jeremy was going to arrange that state of affairs to come about. What reason does Doris have to lie? Credibility rating: 9 1

6) Barbara Wilson: Testified Jeremy put his feet up on Nevill's desk after the murders and barked orders at her. This farm secretary has nothing to gain by disparaging her probable new employer. Credibility rating: 10 6

7) Helen Grimster: A distant relative of the Bambers she had a conversation with Sheila Caffell several weeks before the murders in which Sheila had spoken of suicide. No reason to lie. Credibility rating: 9 10

 Jeremy Bamber: His testimony about receiving the telephone call,about not having spoken to Julie regarding killing his family,and about not having used a silencer is uncorroborated. His remark to Prosecution barrister Anthony Arlidge QC "that is what you have to establish" suggests the workings of Jeremy's mind in which he is trying to bluff it out. Credibility rating: 0  9

Above are my ratings in red.  Hi btw. 

[Jane]

It's indirectly corroborated by some of the witnesses I quoted. Also the remark(or slip) Jeremy made about saying a glove came off in the fight was not divulged to any mass media source. How could Jeremy possibly have known this if it wasn't he himself who had struggled with and finally killed Nevill? Do you think Matthew McDonald had a conversation with Jeremy after the murders in which these matters were discussed? If not why would Julie risk looking ridiculous in front of Police by making this story up with the sum of £2000 if she was in the last chance saloon and trying to avoid being made an accessory to murder?

As you say Steve, "indirectly by some", and which one of the endless persons to tramp through the farmhouse later would corroborate that there had been a fight duing which a glove came off and it's odd that you cannot allow for julie making herself look ridiculous in front of police when you ridicule everything Jeremy says.

[Lugg]

Because of the caveat from the judge:one likes to be even-handed in these things.

I don't like caviar meself.

[Jane]

Above are my ratings in red.  Hi btw. 

Yes, Patti, they would be my ratings, too