The Noble Cause Framing Theory

[Steve_uk]

Jeremy seems to have been very generous to his girlfriends, giving gifts, taking out to dinner. He also seemed to go out of his way to help, for instance help Julie move her furniture after they broke up. Helping Sheila by driving her home from a party, then returning, which shows he wanted to stay at the party.
A generous type, perhaps even a gentleman at heart?

Are you throwing up now, Steve_uk?

Not at all. But it makes sense if any of you are wondering how Julie was strung along..

[Alias]

Not at all. But it makes sense if any of you are wondering how Julie was strung along..

Strung along to being an accomplice to murder? No! That is preposterous.

[grahameb]

But you're assuming there IS evidence to prove what Martin thinks. Given that no one knows what evidence is being held, there is no way of knowing what it would or would not prove.

Wishful thinking is that they have the key to Jeremy's prison cell - however, that is all it is at the moment.

Caroline you don't need any new evidence in favour of Bamber. The knowledge on how the original evidence was handled should be enough. The problem is the unlawful way in which the CCRC have handled that knowledge. The knowledge we have today about the haphazzardway the silencer was handled and the knowledge of Mugford's NOTW deal should have been enough for the CCRC to recommend to the appeal couts that the case should be quashed. This they have not done.

[lookout]

 I hardly think that Julie was strung along,Steve.  She was a free spirit the same as he was,and could have gone her own way if she'd wanted to.
After all,she was a few miles away at the time and it was her choice whether she joined Jeremy at weekends or not,,but she'd have lost out on the dinners,drinks and smokes which he provided. Holidays too she did well with.
Julie herself was more than happy to string along knowing what there was on offer. I doubt her hand was forced in any way.

[Jane]

Not at all. But it makes sense if any of you are wondering how Julie was strung along..

Steve, I imagine she was VERY willingly strung.

[tyler]

Hi Steve. Going back to a previous post of yours in this thread,you stated that 'Jeremy delayed entry to the farm by all means possible',or words to that effect. This is not true according to Bews. In an interview he admitted that Jeremy was anxious for the police officers to enter the farmhouse upon arrival. If they had,and all occupants were dead,a time of death may have been established which would likely have proved either way who the culprit indeed was. Surely Jeremy must have known this and yet he was still 'anxious' for them to go in?

[tyler]

Sorry to go off topic,but something else that intrigues me is that in almost 30 years,no expert has managed to refute JB's claims that Sheila was responsible. Although Professor McDonnells initial findings were not in Jeremy's favour,he later admitted that his report accounted for a sound moderator as having been used which was the information he had been given. He has since changed his opinion and concluded that Sheila could have killed herself. There has been two professors that have concluded that Sheila had only died a couple of hours before she was photographed. Sutherst's findings that a scratch on the aga surround was not visible in original crime scene photos,no DNA belonging to Sheila in the sound moderator and then the pig skin tests (that still admittedly need more work done on them). Also,that even Vanezis,the pathologist that actually worked on the case thought it entirely possible that Sheila could have been responsible. He didn't appear to find anything untoward in Jeremy's version of events. So,all in all,fairly a lot in Jeremy's favour here I think.

[Martin]

Some interesting remarks on this thread.  Just some thoughts.  First of all, it isn't in the logs regarding a murder and a suicide.  it's in Neil Davidson's CoLP interview transcript.  However, he does impart that he was allegedly confused as to whether the message referred to one body or two bodies.  Personally I do not buy the generic version police statements tallying around a mistaken identity. Therefore the logs imply to me that there were indeed two bodies, one female and one male.

If we take the line that police believed JB was guilty and this is why they framed him - I would be wary of a certain set of officers trying to fall back on that defence.  I dont know where the suggestion first originated, but it was expressed repeatedly a while ago that DS Stan Jones wasn't told the truth about what had happened that morning until several years later or at least a good while later.  It has also been expressed on many occasions, most recently by Bambergate that there in effect two sets of officers.  One set involved in the actual raid, who dont feel they should take responsibility for the later instructions of their superiors... and the superiors themselves, who gave the TFG those instructions. 

As for some of the other officers, I wouldn't trust somebody like Bob Miller or Ron Cook as far as I could spit them.  Therefore why should I believe if they or similar colleagues try to claim they framed somebody purely because he was guilty?  This was the line given to Ray Hollingsworth a few years ago when he spoke with some Essex Police officers.  However if we look at the situation at the actual time in 1985, a senior officer reviewed the case evidence as late as early September and his findings where that the evidence pointed towards Sheila as having been culpable for the killings, effectively backing Taff Jones's stance to that date.  this does not match up with EP genuinely believing in JB's guilt.  Clearly one set of officers worked towards claiming JB was culpable (using fair means or foul) while another set refused to play ball. 

Possibly a tenuous link but there is the Anecdote from the late Campion about KMcK boasting at the post conviction party re JB having been falsely sent down.

Also, if nothing went wrong with the TFG operation, why where a team of 'informatives' brought in to re-enact the operation and learn?  What could be learned by re-enacting a raid that had taken place on a silent farmhouse with all occupants already having been found dead by the original TFG?

Roch

Thanks for the correction concerning the statement “One murder and one suicide.”

There is no doubt that that information was given at a time before the police secured the upstairs part of the house. The only logical explanation for it is that, that was what the police found when they broke in downstairs.

I am not in any way opposing the view that Stan Jones may at that time have believed that Bamber was guilty or that he may have been involved in faking evidence such as persuading witnesses to lie.


My basic point is that Bamber cannot, even theoretically, be innocent without the officers who broke into the house knowing it, because they would know from the location and condition of Sheila’s body, as they found it, what the real truth was.

If Sheila had been killed by Bamber, she would have to have been killed before 03:00am and already in the position she is in, in the photographs, but also with her body in an advanced state of rigor mortis by the time it was photographed.

The photographs show that she can’t have been dead for anything like that length of time, since rigor mortis is not apparent at all. Different photographs show arms and even hands and fingers in different positions. There is even one showing fresh blood still flowing from a wound to Sheila's neck.

That is not just my opinion, it’s the opinion of two pathologists, professors Meloni and Cavalli.

[Martin]

Yes, I remember Campion mentioning KMck's claim but I also remember that KMck also said that the reason the police knew Jeremy wasn't guilty, was because they knew a 'drugs gang' had killed them all. Now that takes us down another avenue which I just don't believe. I believe KMck said it, I just don't believe it.

I have also obviously heard about the 're-enactment' but do we know that that's what it was? And even if it was, how does it relate to the framing of an innocent man?

We will have to disagree on the two bodies in the kitchen, I believe Sheila died where she was shot and was found where she died. The log which states 'In communication with someone inside the farmhouse' could simply have meant they were trying to rouse someone because it is followed by 'Met with no response' - they tried to communicate with someone, but no one replied. And Sheila being found on the left side of the bed could simply have meant that she was found TO the left OF the bed.

Caroline

It appears that you are committed to supporting the police on all those questions where it is essential to do so to maintain the pro guilt position, and yet you are also committed to the view that the police did, in fact, fake evidence to frame Bamber. It just looks too contrived!

What I have tried to do in this thread is to show that certain opinions which, to an outsider, might seem to represent a “balanced” view of the case are actually representations of the pro guilt position by implication. These are views which I have held for some time.

You can go with mocking Julie Mugford and with disparaging the silencer evidence and yet still come out of all of that smelling of roses and firmly on the side of Essex Police!

[Martin]

What is going on?

An interesting recent development on this forum is the growing popularity of the theory that the police framed Jeremy, but only because they believed he was guilty.

This is the view of three members who immediately spring to mind. They are Neil, Nickos and Caroline.

You can read some of their views on the subject here.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5190.345.html

Fallback position

I admit that I regard that theory as being, of itself, somewhat sinister, because it allows a fallback position, should evidence come to light that the police fabricated evidence to frame Bamber.

Generally speaking, evidence of such a nature would bring the conviction of a defendant into question and be quite likely to lead to an acquittal. The Birmingham Six, The Guilford Four and the Bridgewater Three are cases which spring to mind.

But such evidence would not automatically lead to such an outcome. If  the questions of the evidence against the police and the evidence upon which the conviction is based were clearly separate matters, it could be conceded that police misconduct did occur, without the evidence upon which the conviction is based being called into question.

So, from the point of view of people who support the conviction such a position offers an obvious advantage.

Did policeman lie in their statements?

In the Bamber case, for example, conclusive evidence that policemen lied in their statements would not necessarily lead to an acquittal for Bamber, even if it were accepted as such by the courts.

If it were realised by the authorities that Bamber has such evidence and that it is pretty conclusive, it would make good sense for those concerned to prepare to concede on that issue, while still maintaining that Bamber is guilty. I am not saying that I know that that is happening, but only that it would make sense and that he and his supporters would do well to be mindful of the possibility of such a development.

[lebaleb]

Even if: The 'two bodies in the kitchen' message was a mistake.
            Sheila being on the bed was a misunderstanding.
            The phone log entries were a result of sloppy police paperwork.
            The figure at the window was a trick of the light [or Crispy?]
            Sheila's blood was inside the silencer.
       It does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremy is guilty.
JM must have known that she had a choice... to sacrifice Jeremy or save herself. That wouldn't be an easy thing to do to someone you loved, which would explain her demeanor in court. Almost impossible to cross-examine.
 Police and relatives had there own agendas and easily convinced themselves that they were right.

[Martin]

Even if: The 'two bodies in the kitchen' message was a mistake.
            Sheila being on the bed was a misunderstanding.
            The phone log entries were a result of sloppy police paperwork.
            The figure at the window was a trick of the light [or Crispy?]
            Sheila's blood was inside the silencer.
       It does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremy is guilty.
JM must have known that she had a choice... to sacrifice Jeremy or save herself. That wouldn't be an easy thing to do to someone you loved, which would explain her demeanor in court. Almost impossible to cross-examine.
 Police and relatives had there own agendas and easily convinced themselves that they were right.

Lebaleb

I agree. Even if you leave out of account all the evidence pointing to Bamber's innocence and accept the silly explanations given for rejecting it, there is still a lack of evidence to support guilt.

There is only the silencer evidence and Julie Mugford's testimony, both of which have since been discredited.

After that, there is only Jeremy making a fried breakfast and stuff like that.

[Caroline]

Caroline

It appears that you are committed to supporting the police on all those questions where it is essential to do so to maintain the pro guilt position, and yet you are also committed to the view that the police did, in fact, fake evidence to frame Bamber. It just looks too contrived!

What I have tried to do in this thread is to show is that certain opinions which, to an outsider, might seem to represent a “balanced” view of the case are actually representations of the pro guilt position by implication. These are views which I have held for some time.

You can go with mocking Julie Mugford and with disparaging the silencer evidence and yet still come out of all of that smelling of roses and firmly on the side of Essex Police!

What are you talking about? You're saying there is something wrong with having doubts? To be honest, I really don't give a rats what you think. I HAVE DOUBTS and nothing YOU say is going to change that. Your attempts at armchair psychology fall flat and reveal more about you than they do anyone else - again, I think you are less concerned with Jeremy being innocent or guilty in favour of simply being right. 

[Martin]

What are you talking about? You're saying there is something wrong with having doubts? To be honest, I really don't give a rats what you think. I HAVE DOUBTS and nothing YOU say is going to change that. Your attempts at armchair psychology fall flat and reveal more about you than they do anyone else - again, I think you are less concerned with Jeremy being innocent or guilty in favour of simply being right.

That is a hasty and ill considered post. But I will come back to it later.

[Caroline]

Even if: The 'two bodies in the kitchen' message was a mistake.
            Sheila being on the bed was a misunderstanding.
            The phone log entries were a result of sloppy police paperwork.
            The figure at the window was a trick of the light [or Crispy?]
            Sheila's blood was inside the silencer.
       It does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremy is guilty.
JM must have known that she had a choice... to sacrifice Jeremy or save herself. That wouldn't be an easy thing to do to someone you loved, which would explain her demeanor in court. Almost impossible to cross-examine.
 Police and relatives had there own agendas and easily convinced themselves that they were right.

Sheila was on the left side of the bed could EASILY have been misinterpreted - someone describing it is describing that she was 'to' the left of the bed but it would be easy for someone who hadn't seen it, to get the opinion that she was ON the bed. I'm not saying there aren't things that are difficult to explain and I'm NOT even saying that he's guilty. I am saying that I have doubts!! Martin is intent on making the fact that I do have doubts into some kind of conspiracy theory. Why should he care what I think? He knows he can't change my mind so he is using tactics to try and discredit - apparently he knows what I think better than I do.

By the way, I don't believe the silencer was used!!