DCS Ainsley visited Robert Boutflour on 6th September with info about Mugford

[Dr Pal]

JB would have done his research I'm sure and it was common knowledge at that time there was no itemised billing as you could only meter calls. Plus he delayed matters by not calling 999, also wasn't it proved that he  called Mugford before the alleged father call, as this really puts him in the running as why lie on this if nothing to hide?? Pretty convenient too him leaving a loaded shot gun about don't you think the night before? From his first chance of speaking to the Police aswell, he called her his MAD sister.

Who told EP he left it out ? He could have easily said he left in the cupboard

Many are missing the point here.
It only requires one piece of evidence to prove Sheila didn't do this crime and no matter what Bamber and supporters say about all his evidence etc being flawed, It could only have been him.
MB was correct in posting that by Bamber saying the father called and saying Sheila had the gun, it eliminated all others suspects with only him and the sister in the frame and I'm sure he went over the top with all those bullets too.
Big Mistake!

[mb1]

I see what you mean, but Sheila could have made him - so no third party.
Isn't that what DCI Jones thought may have happened?

Yes, SC could have forced Nevill to make the phone call.

So then we have to establish the case against SC.
I had previously given importance to the fact that she had smoked cannabis within a week of the murders. However, she had done this many times before without entering murderous rages, and there is no evidence that she was in a downward spiral in the days leading up to the crimes. She may not have been 'normal' in societal terms, but she was her version of 'normal'.

The more I look, the more evidence piles up in the 'SC innocent' table. The evidence against her remains the (uncorroborated) phone call and the fact she suffered from PS. It's not enough.

If JB's team refuses to explore the 3rd party angle, it doesn't leave much room to manoeuvre around the case.

Very sensible posts MB where i agree with you 100%

If you have a Facebook account, would love some of your views on here.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Jeremy-Bamber-Child-Killer-is-Guilty-as-Charged/187953254568881

Just had a quick look. Interested in the poster JC who was present at the original trial and states JM was a very credible witness. And Bear Bearzot is correct regarding the CCRC's powers under S.17 Criminal Appeal Act 1995, hence my exasperation with the endless PII smokescreens on this forum.

Will admit the 'actor/director' line made me smile.   

[mb1]

I have read and I think mike can probably back this up that on the journey to whf Sheila told Colin she wanted to get back with him but he told her he was happy with his new girlfriend.  I have no information if she asked this before but I have read in depth about sheilas condition but this would be very bad in her condition.  Because of her illness she could have reacted very badly to that news.  The night of the murders I think June put her on the phone to her aunt and she hardly said anything and didn't say goodbye to her aunt which was unusual.

Also going back to an earlier post when Jeremy told the police his father had rung him he had no idea that bt could not check to see if that call actually happened.  I don't think the general public ever have the full information that can be used against us re bt.

For someone like JB who had apparently been planning these murders for ages as told by jm this whole suicide theory could have fallen apart on that point.  I just don't believe he would have carried out those 5 murders if he thought he could have been caught out on one phone call.

SC had been through plenty of other traumatic scenarios without going into a murderous rage.
Colin leaving her.
The divorce.
Colin setting up home with another woman.
Why not 'flip' in the car if she had no control over sudden thoughts or urges?

You state there is no evidence that JB was physically violent towards others before this event and I accept that.
Likewise, you must agree that there is no evidence that SC was physically violent towards others before this event.

[Jackiepreece]

Julie Mugford was very credible when she did the rounds of all the shops with her friend with the stolen cheque book!!!!!!!!!

As for JB researching to see if a call could be traced he couldn't find out that exact information.  I have a friend who is an executive at bt and the general public will never be told exactly what information might be given to the police.  Try phoning bt I am sure they will explain some information is privelidged.

[andrea]

the facebook link just takes me to my own page

[mb1]

the facebook link just takes me to my own page

Hi Andrea - hope all is good with you.

If you type 'Jeremy Bamber Child Killer is Guilty as Charged' in the search bar then it should come up.

[Dr Pal]

the facebook link just takes me to my own page

Hi Andrea - hope all is good with you.

If you type 'Jeremy Bamber Child Killer is Guilty as Charged' in the search bar then it should come up.

Yes sorry you have to copy and paste the whole link, not just click on it.
Thanks

[Dr Pal]

Julie Mugford was very credible when she did the rounds of all the shops with her friend with the stolen cheque book!!!!!!!!!

As for JB researching to see if a call could be traced he couldn't find out that exact information.  I have a friend who is an executive at bt and the general public will never be told exactly what information might be given to the police.  Try phoning bt I am sure they will explain some information is privelidged.

At the time if you asked why your bill was so large and if they could tell you what calls were made, they would explain all this, it would not be data protection like asking for a number etc, only when BT went digital it allowed the call log. Who is to say he wouldn't have asked someone to do this anyway to call and make it look like the father called. This was the whole point of the redial phone but for him it was bad luck the phone was away for repair as Mugford mentioned this too

[Dr Pal]

Julie Mugford was very credible when she did the rounds of all the shops with her friend with the stolen cheque book!!!!!!!!!

As for JB researching to see if a call could be traced he couldn't find out that exact information.  I have a friend who is an executive at bt and the general public will never be told exactly what information might be given to the police.  Try phoning bt I am sure they will explain some information is privelidged.

Remember he didn't ring the Police it was a normal landline call to landline if true, but he knew there was no trace on the call, that's why he was going to use the redial last number phone, so would look like the father called.
Also Bamber broke into the Caravan Park and moved papers inside to make it look like a burglary, maybe this was just practise for things to come.
It was proved that he lied when he said he called Mugford after the father called, when in fact it was well before.
Why lie about this??
Cause it was all planned!!

[mb1]

Julie Mugford was very credible when she did the rounds of all the shops with her friend with the stolen cheque book!!!!!!!!!

As for JB researching to see if a call could be traced he couldn't find out that exact information.  I have a friend who is an executive at bt and the general public will never be told exactly what information might be given to the police.  Try phoning bt I am sure they will explain some information is privelidged.

At the time if you asked why your bill was so large and if they could tell you what calls were made, they would explain all this, it would not be data protection like asking for a number etc, only when BT went digital it allowed the call log. Who is to say he wouldn't have asked someone to do this anyway to call and make it look like the father called. This was the whole point of the redial phone but for him it was bad luck the phone was away for repair as Mugford mentioned this too

But the loss of the redial phone can be viewed as good luck for whoever did it.

Did the 'redial' phone just record last number called?
Or did it also display last number dialled, time and call length - my Father used this as evidence against me on numerous occasions from 83(ish) onwards! It was a push button phone with an aerial that docked in a cradle on the kitchen wall. 

I would really like to discover who sent it to the manufacturer and what was wrong with it.

[mike tesko]

Julie Mugford was very credible when she did the rounds of all the shops with her friend with the stolen cheque book!!!!!!!!!

As for JB researching to see if a call could be traced he couldn't find out that exact information.  I have a friend who is an executive at bt and the general public will never be told exactly what information might be given to the police.  Try phoning bt I am sure they will explain some information is privelidged.

At the time if you asked why your bill was so large and if they could tell you what calls were made, they would explain all this, it would not be data protection like asking for a number etc, only when BT went digital it allowed the call log. Who is to say he wouldn't have asked someone to do this anyway to call and make it look like the father called. This was the whole point of the redial phone but for him it was bad luck the phone was away for repair as Mugford mentioned this too

But the loss of the redial phone can be viewed as good luck for whoever did it.

Did the 'redial' phone just record last number called?
Or did it also display last number dialled, time and call length - my Father used this as evidence against me on numerous occasions from 83(ish) onwards! It was a push button phone with an aerial that docked in a cradle on the kitchen wall. 

I would really like to discover who sent it to the manufacturer and what was wrong with it.

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

I think the Satesman 100 phone, used in Ralph Bambers upstairs office, had a last ten numbers dialed recall facility, although I can't remember where I got that information from?

[Jackiepreece]

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

[Dr Pal]

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Not bothered about the context of the call tbh it's the timing, as proved the call was made before the alleged fathers call that SHEILA HAD A GUN. If he called Mugford before that, it couldn't have been about the sister as he alleges, so why call Mugford and why tell lies to the Police, only leads to one thing and again it was another little ploy to say look, i even called my gf because i was very worried i believe he told her to say he called around 3-30 to make the call tie in with his story and plan. He wouldn't have known though that the other house members would have been woken and clocked the time. This alone without any other hard evidence tells us he's Guilty as why lie about matters if done nothing wrong.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Not bothered about the context of the call tbh it's the timing, as proved the call was made before the alleged fathers call that SHEILA HAD A GUN. If he called Mugford before that, it couldn't have been about the sister as he alleges, so why call Mugford and why tell lies to the Police, only leads to one thing and again it was another little ploy to say look, i even called my gf because i was very worried i believe he told her to say he called around 3-30 to make the call tie in with his story and plan. He wouldn't have known though that the other house members would have been woken and clocked the time. This alone without any other hard evidence tells us he's Guilty as why lie about matters if done nothing wrong.

It proves sweet FA actually.

Bamber phoned the police and Mugford in relative rapid succession, the police logged the time at their end (so we can assume +/- 2 mins maybe (IF the police managed to log the right time at all), and the window of time at Mugford's end was clear as mud... that they narrowed down to a 30 minute window - even this was after the police allowed witnesses to talk to each other (nobody's suggesting collusion, but different estimates converge when people are aware of other estimates, I'll not go into the psychology of this, but it's a fairly repeatable phenomenon).

Anyway, essentially it neither proves Bambers innocence or guilt.
EVEN if it could ever be proven that Bamber phoned Mugford before the police, even that would not constitute guilt - it just wouldn't help him.

As for the last number redial... I believe the handset WAS 'away' (deliberately or otherwise) so any examination of it would have proven worthless.
If the phone hadn't really been sent for repair, the police could easily have determined this.

[mb1]

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Dr Pal
Could you explain what you make of the conversation that went on the night of the murders when JB rang jm
when earlier in the day JB had said tonights the nice

Not a strange reaction from a call made around 3 in the middle of the night?

Not bothered about the context of the call tbh it's the timing, as proved the call was made before the alleged fathers call that SHEILA HAD A GUN. If he called Mugford before that, it couldn't have been about the sister as he alleges, so why call Mugford and why tell lies to the Police, only leads to one thing and again it was another little ploy to say look, i even called my gf because i was very worried i believe he told her to say he called around 3-30 to make the call tie in with his story and plan. He wouldn't have known though that the other house members would have been woken and clocked the time. This alone without any other hard evidence tells us he's Guilty as why lie about matters if done nothing wrong.

It proves sweet FA actually.

Bamber phoned the police and Mugford in relative rapid succession, the police logged the time at their end (so we can assume +/- 2 mins maybe (IF the police managed to log the right time at all), and the window of time at Mugford's end was clear as mud... that they narrowed down to a 30 minute window - even this was after the police allowed witnesses to talk to each other (nobody's suggesting collusion, but different estimates converge when people are aware of other estimates, I'll not go into the psychology of this, but it's a fairly repeatable phenomenon).

Anyway, essentially it neither proves Bambers innocence or guilt.
EVEN if it could ever be proven that Bamber phoned Mugford before the police, even that would not constitute guilt - it just wouldn't help him.

As for the last number redial... I believe the handset WAS 'away' (deliberately or otherwise) so any examination of it would have proven worthless.
If the phone hadn't really been sent for repair, the police could easily have determined this.

The police documented the fact that the phone had been sent away for repair. Just haven't seen anything indicating who sent it or what the fault was.

The 'redial' phone may have been able to prove
    If a number was dialled
    What time the number was dialled
    If the number called was answered

If JB committed the crimes alone, it was in his interest to get rid of the redial phone.
If JB colluded with another, so that there was a killer at WHF and someone at Goldhanger to answer, then it was in his interest for the redial phone to be present.
If JB is innocent, and Sheila guilty, the phone fault is a cruel coincidence.

It may only be a small detail, but I would like to know who sent it away for repair.