The 3 stages

[nugnug]

Not sure Nugs. Why would they try and bluff him? If he turned round and said OK then you got me, they would have had to provide that evidence in court surely? 

well they could of been trying to bluff a confession out of him and once theyd got it just use that in court.

but its not strategy that would be likely to work on someone like macdonald and i think they would of known that.

[Adam]

It has already been established that it is extremely unlikely Julie Mugford lied. She spoke to Liz Rimmington about what Jeremy had told her. Together they contacted the police. The police knew nothing about the caravan break in,  or Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. They had nothing to force her to say anything. Julie was actually brave, telling the police about the caravan break in & risking prosecution, as well as risking prosecution for withholding evidence about the massacre. 

Jeremy has always said Julie lied because according to him, he jilted her. That is open to debate. It is also extremely unlikely Julie would lie for such a trival reason in such a serious trial. Anyway scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.

[Patti]

well they could of been trying to bluff a confession out of him and once theyd got it just use that in court.

but its not strategy that would be likely to work on someone like macdonald and i think they would of known that.

If it was a bluff then it proves they were prepared to go to extreme lengths to the point of lying to a suspect. In my mind its gross misconduct and its leading the suspect into a false situation.  A situation that they claimed later never took place. 

[Caroline]

There are three steps to the Jeremy Bamber case some never pass the first and some get lost in the second, some walk past missing the event alltogther.
The first is in my view the simplest and that is to find out if Jeremy is either guilty or innocent.
Jeremy was convicted by the closest of margins one more of the jury voting not guilty and he would be a free man.
The case against him was made from three points the first a silencer which supposily had his sisters blood on it and when fitted to the gun made it too long for for her to shoot herself.
As we know now nothing regarding the silencer adds up there was no blood on it and it did not make the gun too long and none and I mean none of the paperwork relating to the silencer appears real,dates changes,signatures missing and more than one silencer existed, the silencer if fake evidence!

The second part that convicted Jeremy was the statement by his former girlfriend that he had confessed to her ,we now know that she was paid for her story and she received coaching form Essex police and had a deal in which she would nod be convicted for her separate crimes including fraud.we now know nothing Julie Mugford said can be trusted in fact she was given no choice but to testify against Jeremy as Essex police would of convicted her as a accerory,Julie Mugford is the second silent victim in this case other than those who lost their lives on the night.

The last piece of evidence supposedly pointed to Jeremy guilt was Essex police saying that Jeremy never received a call from his dad on the night,again we find this not to be the case in fact there is a record of Jeremy's dad calling 999 saying his daughter had gone berserk with one of his guns to which Essex police dispatched a police car to the farmhouse one minute before Jeremy called the police.
So what is left to point to Jeremy's guilt? er nothing no more evidence no DNA no witnesses in fact over the last 27  years even more details have emerged to exactley why Jeremy has been framed for the murders of his family.

The first step in my view is simple is Jeremy guilty? Jeremy is not guilty, remember innocent until proven guilty and there is nothing that shows this to be the case.

The second part of the Bamber case is more tricky,now that we know that he is innocent we have ask the obvious question why did Essex police convict a man they knew to be innocent? remember if Jeremy is innocent Essex police know because Jeremy was sat outside in the police car while almost the entire force were surrounding the farm house.
This is not easy to find out as Essex police have tried and are trying to keep this from ever being discovered with the distructuion of key evidence and photographs and placing the whole file under pii but we still need to know the detail of what happened for the the final part.
let me use a example of the car macinic, a car macinic must fully understand how a car works not just how to operate it and drive it but in detail how it works and what can go wrong with it,thew will to know detail of of the components and sizes in short they must know everything there is to know so they can complete their next task.
The macinic must be able to fix the the car.

The third and last step of the Bamber case is in my view the hardest, to unwind the knotted ball of string that has taken almost 30 years to become tangled there are many tight knots in this ball many people resisting being unwound and the truth from coming out it is a challenging task.
Many of the people are very powerful and some are even famous but  all our lives are derived from the freedom's we enjoy so if we want things so stay this way we need to look into those dark corners and clean them once in awhile, I see it as a safeguard to our lives.
Jeremy is our key to reminding us not to take things for granted,he can offer  us more than we can return to him,we need to look for these oppunitys and try to make the most of them.
The final step is to look at ways for the mistakes of the past to be put right and in this process Jeremy must receive his freedom,in a ideal world solutions would be found that helped everyone but I think in the Bamber case there must be losers after all I feel framing Jeremy is akin to murder itself and has consequences attached for those involved.
So why am I telling you this well its to offer you the same reward I have received by my involment in the case,,to get it do what you feel you can do to help you are all free to choose what interests you,if you cannot think of anything simply pass the story on and that will be more than enough.
You have helped just by reading this I hope by understanding the world you live in more now and that enritches your life.
Bambergate if taken as a whole is a very positive event I have expressed this to Jeremy too.

Where on the log does it say there was a '999' call? 'Exchange line' is circled on this log not 999.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html

[Jane]

I post a link to any thread which relates to and assists what someone else has posted.

What makes you think it's necessary to do it repeatedly/AT ALL? It comes over NOT as a link to valuable information that you think may be of interest, but as you drawing attention to something you believe to be praiseworthy. Not only do you irritate by the continual posting of links, you repeatedly comment on the threads you've posted by asking if members have read them.

[Caroline]

I post a link to any thread which relates to and assists what someone else has posted.

No, you post the same links over and over again and they are generally to posts of YOUR opinion.

[Adam]

Bambergate asks an interesting question. And makes a bold claim that 'we now know Jeremy is innocent'.

But it is not just the police who have framed Jeremy and not retracted ' -

The police.

The raid team.

The relatives.

Julie Mugford.

Mary Mugford/James Richards/Liz Rimmington.

The lab technicians.

The CCRC, DPP, COA, Courts, the judge.

Barbara Wilson.

The experts.

The anti Jeremy media.


They all apparently worked together to get Jeremy convicted. And keep him there. Not one person has retracted or been proved wrong. Stan Jones passed away recently. The perfect time to retract ? But no he did not. The CCRC rejected Jeremy again in 2012.

In fact the COA reaffirmed they thought the 'jury were right' in 2002. Bob Miller, Barbara Wilson and relatives have all recently said they still believe Jeremy is guilty.

[Jane]

So which of Barbara Wilson's statements was a lie?

[Caroline]

Bambergate asks an interesting question. And makes a bold claim that 'we now know Jeremy is innocent'.

But it is not just the police who have framed Jeremy and not retracted ' -

The police.

The raid team.

The relatives.

Julie Mugford.

Mary Mugford/James Richards/Liz Rimmington.

The lab technicians.

The CCRC, DPP, COA, Courts, the judge.

Barbara Wilson.

The experts.

The anti Jeremy media.


They all apparently worked together to get Jeremy convicted. And keep him there. Not one person has retracted or been proved wrong. Stan Jones passed away recently. The perfect time to retract ? But no he did not. The CCRC rejected Jeremy again in 2012.

In fact the COA reaffirmed they thought the 'jury were right' in 2002. Bob Miller, Barbara Wilson and relatives have all recently said they still believe Jeremy is guilty.

Actually, all of the above would not have needed to be in on a conspiracy (if there was one), the instigators simply needed to make sure they had dotted the i's and crossed the t's.

[Adam]

'We now know Jeremy is innocent'. A bold claim from Bambergate. Has he been reading this discussion forum ? Together we have made some important discoveries -

No one can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. 

Jeremy asking for a police escort looks damning for him. 

Sheilas legs were pulled after the second shot. 

Jeremys best option was to make up the phone call. 

Jeremy was extremely evasive, arrogant and uncoperative in his police interviews. 

Jeremy had an answering machine. 

Nevilles alledged last ten words did Jeremy no favours. 

There is a mountain of curious coincidences. 

There are a lot of reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy. 

There are lots of reasons/facts why Jeremy still protests his innocence. 

Mike Gradwell says it is a safe conviction. 

Jeremy hated his parents. As testified. 

There are lots of reasons why Jeremy has failed to get released on a technicality. 

Alledged jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth. 

It is inconclusive that Jeremy jilted Julie. 

The 19 day 1986 trial was not unfair. 

Jeremy almost certainly phoned Julie before the police. And before Nevilles call. 

Taff Jones had no hard evidence of Jeremys innocence. He was taken off the case. 

Julie was not forced to confess. The police had nothing on her. 

Neville got a terrible beating. 

The relatives did not have the expertise to frame Jeremy. 

Julie did not have the confidence to frame Jeremy. 

[Jane]

Actually, all of the above would not have needed to be in on a conspiracy (if there was one), the instigators simply needed to make sure they had dotted the i's and crossed the t's.

Yes, someone with a strong/MANIPULATIVE(?) enough personality wouldn't have any difficulty in persuading those less strong that this was how it happened. Give them a little while to think about it,. Tell them that they are the only person  to hold a particular view. Employ a touch or two of gentle pressure. Encourage them to think they came to the decision all on their own and tell them how intelligent they are. Works in many cases.

[Jan]

'We now know Jeremy is innocent'. A bold claim from Bambergate. Has he been reading this discussion forum ? Together we have made some important discoveries -

No one can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy.

Jeremy asking for a police escort looks damning for him.

Sheilas legs were pulled after the second shot.

Jeremys best option was to make up the phone call.

Jeremy was extremely evasive, arrogant and uncoperative in his police interviews.

Jeremy had an answering machine.

Nevilles alledged last ten words did Jeremy no favours.

There is a mountain of curious coincidences.

There are a lot of reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy.

There are lots of reasons/facts why Jeremy still protests his innocence.

Mike Gradwell says it is a safe conviction.

Jeremy hated his parents. As testified.

There are lots of reasons why Jeremy has failed to get released on a technicality.

Alledged jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.

It is inconclusive that Jeremy jilted Julie.

The 19 day 1986 trial was not unfair.

Jeremy almost certainly phoned Julie before the police. And before Nevilles call.

Taff Jones had no hard evidence of Jeremys innocence. He was taken off the case.

Julie was not forced to confess. The police had nothing on her.

Neville got a terrible beating.

The relatives did not have the expertise to frame Jeremy.

Julie did not have the confidence to frame Jeremy.

Adam this re-enforces why I have you on ignore. You have had answers to all of the above.

Of course you can chose to form your own opinion - which is our prerogative as well.
But you obviously you have absolutely no intention what so ever of looking at any other possibilities other than what are in your head .
So why waste your time posting the same "statements" again?

JB is where you want him. You obviously don't want him out  of jail and don't believe it will happen - So why bother?

We all have an aim and a reason for being here - you have none? It is all so pointless.

[Jan]

Actually, all of the above would not have needed to be in on a conspiracy (if there was one), the instigators simply needed to make sure they had dotted the i's and crossed the t's.

Agree Caroline - I think some people especially the relatives believed he was guilty - so by helping the police they were doing the right thing and also there were benefits to them at the same time. Perhaps even JM thought he had done it - but she embellished her story as that was to her benefit as well.

[guest154]

Hi Mat, it's not that he just posts links to old posts (which would be fair enough), he post links to the same posts continuously. How many times have you heard about his '19 reasons' (for whatever)? I think Adam might be liked a lot better if he wasn't so repetitive. That's all.

Hi Caroline, I'd rather him post links than copy and paste things which is what he's going to have to do to sotp his posts being edited. It just seems a bit petty to me and he certainly isn't the only person that repeats himself. People can put him on ignore if they don't want to read his posts but controlling what he can and can't posts just seems petty as long as he isn't breaking any actual rules.

[Caroline]

Hi Caroline, I'd rather him post links than copy and paste things which is what he's going to have to do to sotp his posts being edited. It just seems a bit petty to me and he certainly isn't the only person that repeats himself. People can put him on ignore if they don't want to read his posts but controlling what he can and can't posts just seems petty as long as he isn't breaking any actual rules.

Links would be fine, least then he could explain why he needs or wants to refer to a particular post. But he copies and pastes the same posts with no explanation.

Of course people repeat themselves but discussing the same subject is a little different to pasting the
same post time after time. He isn't breaking the rules but it is irritating and members have complained. Links might just be the answer - did you hear that Adam? Links! Not cut and pastes!!